Ian Kingsbury Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) The rail looked like a nice gun rest!. The ramp reminded me of Bonds DB5 window shield!. A moveable snipers lair with protection!. It's a bit Dick Dastardly I suppose. Was there a Rambler in the south knoll car park? Can anybody remember how Tosh got to Dealey?. Edited July 15, 2012 by Ian Kingsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) The four Ramblers are: parking lot Rambler, with fence-shooter in it: witness ed Hoffman. Elm Street rambler (Ruth Paine Rambler) with Lee Oswald in it. Witness- Roger Craig Huston Street Rambler, with suspects in it, running out of the back of the TSBD and driving north. witness: Richard Randolph Carr. Record Street Rambler. Used by a man, with horn rimmed glasses, seen in the TSBD during the shooting: witness Richard Randolph Carr Four Ramblers, and all of em used by suspicious individuals...one used by the patsy... Am I the only one, who sees a pattern? KK Karl, Elsewhere on this forum I did an extensive analysis of what Richard Randolph Carr could've and couldn't have seen, what he said and when, and to whom under what circumstances, pointing out the inconsistencies and embellishments in each. The bottom line is that the chances are good-to-excellent that Carr did NOT see either Rambler that he claimed; one he most certainly COULD NOT have seen. They are red herrings, and should be ignored. The "escape route" of the Record Street Rambler is contrary to Carr's claim in any case. Please also note that NO vehicle could have escaped northbound on Houston inasmuch as the street was torn up and barricaded, and the particular section directly behind TSBD was observed by two credible witnesses who said that no such thing happened. Ed Hoffman was not where he said he was either, ergo didn't see - and couldn't have if he was! - any such vehicle where he lately claimed, so you're down now to the one Rambler photographed in front of the TSBD. Edited July 15, 2012 by Duke Lane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Duke, welcome back ! ... In the case of Carr, I do think we have to be skeptical about anything the FBI reported he said, since we know other witnesses claimed that their FBI reports didn't reflect what they'd actually stated. ... My only objection was to what I felt was an over intensified effort directed at discrediting a particular witness that I didn't think was all that important in the first place. I also, like Bill, don't feel that Duke has succeeded in discrediting him.As far as I'm concerned, what Carr said is but icing on the cake, and none of it really matters because the bottom line is that, based upon immutable physical evidence, Carr couldn't see what he claimed to have seen.As we've seen in photographs, Only the 9th floor and above of the new courthouse building are - and were - visible from the 6th and 7th floors of the TSBD. From the ground, at the corner of the TSBD, only the very top floors are visible, and then only on the north end of the wall. On Houston Street, in the westernmost lane of traffic - where a vehicle would be parked - even less of the building is visible until it is obscured entirely by mid-block. It likewise becomes obscured as one walks farther across the street (east). From the back corner of the current TSBD structure - where the Houston Street dock was located - the courthouse building is entirely invisible. There is no line of sight from anywhere on the courthouse building to Houston Street - or vice versa - that would permit anyone to have seen anything occur where Carr said it occurred. None of the Dal-Tex, County Records, old Criminal Courts building or the Old Red Courthouse have had any structural changes to mitigate that (other than a bell tower being replaced on Old Red, far back from the lines of sight). It doesn't matter if you put him on the top of the courthouse; he still couldn't see anything on Houston Street. These facts are immutable. If he couldn't see it, how did he know it happened, and why does anyone believe him? What he had to say, in its many variations, only points to a propensity toward overactive imagination, and his supposed service record only shows that he was willing to exaggerate or even lie to make a point or a good story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Just pokin' around .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted July 16, 2012 Author Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Duke Carr saw the Huston Rambler and the men get into it, AFTER he had left the scaffold... He then was following the horn-rimmed glasses man, (which he saw prior to the shooting in one of the TSBD windows) and saw him get into there Record Str. Rambler. The Record Street Rambler can be seen on the Paschall film. What you say is, in short, this: - Roger Craig: (elm Street Rambler witness)= xxxx -Ed Hoffmann (parking lot Rambler witness)= xxxx - R.R. Carr(Huston Street Rambler AND Record street Rambler witness) = xxxx -Mr. Roy Cooper(Elm street Rambler witness) = xxxx - Mr. marvin Robinson (Elm street Rambler witness)= xxxx Because, according to you, there were no Ramblers around during the shooting, and no men getting into it... LOL KK BTW Carr saw a man get into a Rambler on Record street. On the Paschall film everybody can see a Rambler standing at that exact spot: Record Street,. But Carr, according to you, was a xxxx...therefore the Paschall film lies... LOL Edited July 16, 2012 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Duke Carr saw the Huston Rambler and the men get into it, AFTER he had left the scaffold... He then was following the horn-rimmed glasses man, (which he saw prior to the shooting in one of the TSBD windows) and saw him get into there Record Str. Rambler. The Record Street Rambler can be seen on the Paschall film. What you say is, in short, this: - Roger Craig: (elm Street Rambler witness)= xxxx -Ed Hoffmann (parking lot Rambler witness)= xxxx - R.R. Carr(Huston Street Rambler AND Record street Rambler witness) = xxxx -Mr. Roy Cooper(Elm street Rambler witness) = xxxx - Mr. Marvin Robinson (Elm street Rambler witness)= xxxx Because, according to you, there were no Ramblers around during the shooting, and no men getting into it... LOL KK BTW Carr saw a man get into a Rambler on Record street. On the Paschall film everybody can see a Rambler standing at that exact spot: Record Street,. But Carr, according to you, was a xxxx...therefore the Paschall film lies... LOL A question for J. W. King: Do you think the light colored station wagon at the corner of Record and Main, visible 45 seconds into the youtube video (below) of the Patsy Pachall film, is a Rambler station wagon? Thanks, --Tommy Edited July 17, 2012 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. William King Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Thomas... the resolution of the film is so poor that I don't even have a wild guess as to what it may be. Sorry. The only trouble with chasing station wagons back in 1963 is that they were very popular. They were the suv/minivans of their day and were everywhere. JWK Edited July 17, 2012 by J. William King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Thomas... the resolution of the film is so poor that I don't even have a wild guess as to what it may be. Sorry. The only trouble with chasing station wagons back in 1963 is that they were very popular. They were the suv/minivans of their day and were everywhere. JWK JW, You're a real party pooper. Just kidding. Thanks for trying. --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. William King Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Thomas... the resolution of the film is so poor that I don't even have a wild guess as to what it may be. Sorry. The only trouble with chasing station wagons back in 1963 is that they were very popular. They were the suv/minivans of their day and were everywhere. JWK JW, You're a real party pooper. Just kidding. Thanks for trying. --Tommy I don't mean to poop on your motorcade, Tommy, but I'm also a realist. If you feel like chasing down automotive related leads, I've always been interested as to why Jada (Janet Conforto) was in the neighborhood of the motorcade route on the morning of the 22nd. She was on Atwell St and ran down a pedestrian with her Cadillac next to the Texas Instruments plant on Lemmon Ave. This is of interest to me because I worked at that plant off and on from 1979 until 2000. I also knew the victim, Charlie Burns. President Kennedy's motorcade ran right down Lemmon Ave and past the TI plant just a few hours later. Now, Atwell is a small side street that runs between Lemmon Ave. and Inwood Rd. just a couple of blocks SE of Love Field. All that was along that street was the TI plant on the south side of Atwell (and it's parking lot on the north side of Atwell), a Lincoln-Mercury dealer on the NE corner where a Home Depot is now, and a bunch of townhouse apartments (now condos) from halfway down the block to Inwood. I have trouble believing that she was on that little sidestreet by mistake. There would be no reason to be on Atwell unless, A) She knew it was a shortcut between Lemmon and Inwood (being from out of town, I doubt it), or B ), she was visiting someone living in the apartments. I would be trying to track down who lived in those condos and apartments back in 1963. Sorry to sidetrack the Rambler subject, but I've always been curious about this. JWK Edited July 19, 2012 by J. William King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Duke Carr saw the Huston Rambler and the men get into it, AFTER he had left the scaffold... He then was following the horn-rimmed glasses man, (which he saw prior to the shooting in one of the TSBD windows) and saw him get into there Record Str. Rambler. The Record Street Rambler can be seen on the Paschall film. What you say is, in short, this: - Roger Craig: (elm Street Rambler witness)= xxxx - Ed Hoffmann (parking lot Rambler witness)= xxxx - R.R. Carr(Huston Street Rambler AND Record street Rambler witness) = xxxx - Mr. Roy Cooper(Elm street Rambler witness) = xxxx - Mr. marvin Robinson (Elm street Rambler witness)= xxxx Because, according to you, there were no Ramblers around during the shooting, and no men getting into it... LOL KK BTW Carr saw a man get into a Rambler on Record street. On the Paschall film everybody can see a Rambler standing at that exact spot: Record Street,. But Carr, according to you, was a xxxx...therefore the Paschall film lies... LOL Karl, you can go right on believing anything you want to. I've never said a word counter to three of the five people you listed, and if you want to use the word "xxxx" in reference to the other two, you're certainly welcome to. Nor have I ever said ("according to you") that "there were no Ramblers around during the shooting, and no men getting into" them. Craig is validated by a photograph showing a Rambler station wagon on Elm Street; while there's no photographic evidence of him seeing Oswald - or anyone looking even remotely like him - getting into that wagon, he is apparently CORROBORATED by Cooper and Robinson. As to the other two, physical impossibilities are what trip up those stories, and the trips pile up the more closely anyone analyzes their statements critically, with even a modicum of skepticism. Like the WCR continues to stand up among some people, it is for the same reason that those men's stories do: they (and you) want to believe it, it fits in with their (and your) outlook, and anyone attacking, criticising or disproving it clearly has no idea what they're talking about. You (and they) only have to accept the premise; it doesn't matter if facts get in the way, they can be easily enough disposed of with an "LOL" or two, and a handful of incorrect and baseless claims. You probably think that there was a party at Clint Murchison's house on November 21 because someone you choose to believe said there was. And BTW - I think it's in this thread somewhere above - NOT "everybody" can see a Rambler on Record Street in the Paschall film. But then, I suppose if anyone disagrees with your (and LNers') hypothesis, they're a "nobody" anyway. Edit: wow, imagine my surprise that it's immediately above! We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it wasn't for people who challenged the "facts," yet it is that so many who've accepted that those WCR "facts" should have been challenged, have no patience whatsoever for having their "facts" being challenged because they're as "absolutely factual" as others think the WCR is. Disconcerting, isn't it? Edited July 27, 2012 by Duke Lane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted July 28, 2012 Author Share Posted July 28, 2012 Duke - may I remined you, that Carr, after get to the ground saw two ramblers: the huston street rambler, and a bit later by following a man with horn rimmed glasses, he saw that man get into the Record street rambler... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Duke The problems your are talking about were created by your government, and some of it' institutions back in the sixties, not by the witnesses. I know it is common practice in this never ending murder case, to make fools out of crucial witnesses who saw the fingerprints of a huge black-op at Dealy Plaza on 11 22 63: Carr, Hill, Bowers, Ed Hoffmann, Vic Adams, Brennan, etc. etc. The WC and the FBI started with this game, you, and I guess another 100 LN prayer-mills in the US, are trying to prolong this game. down to the present day. CTers, on the other hand, trying to dig for nuggets, in a confusion, rather created by the involved institutions, than the unfortunate witnesses, who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Carr never saw the Paschal film in the sixties, and despite this fact, he testified, he saw man get into a Rambler at the very same spot, we can see such a car on that film...( And once again: Carr saw the other, the Huston street rambler incident AFTER he left the scaffold. He was on GROUND LEVEL, when he saw it...) KK PS I know JFK was murdered by the same forces, who killed the Diems, Hammarskjöld, Enrico Mattei, Lumumba, Aldo Moro, Olof Palme, banker Alfred Herrhausen and several other politicians, who were reluctant to play the apparatchik in a skillful created and restrictive system, called the cold war... Edited July 30, 2012 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 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 ...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now