Jump to content
The Education Forum
William Kelly

Oswald Leaving TSBD?

Recommended Posts

Robert wrote:

"There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film".

Thanks for the link Robert.

I have since done some web surfing on the Towner film. The splice in the film has indeed been discussed on several internet venues.

As you said above, the consensus appears to be that one frame is missing, which would explain the "jump".

Have you been able to correlate the Towner splice with the melted frames in the Hughes film?

Hello Richard

Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work.

From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film.

BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6?

I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory, but if the "jump" or "squiggle" in Towner correlates time-wise with the "melted frames" in Hughes, an obvious inference that could be made is that there was a shot taken at that time. I suppose the argument would be that that was why Towner "flinched" right then and that's also why the Hughes film got "melted" right there from repeated slow motion / stop action viewings of those frames, or, perhaps, even intentionally.

--Tommy :sun

All very real possibilities. However, the oddity in the Towner film I do not believe can be ascribed to Towner flinching. In viewing the super-slow motion, frame by frame gif of the Towner film I linked to, Towner's camera stays locked onto JFK. As each frame unfolds, seconds apart, JFK moves forward an equal distance. In the frame immediately prior to the "squiggle", JFK simply seems to move twice as far as the other space intervals reveal. Quite simply put, one frame appears to be missing, nothing more.

What are your thoughts on the rear door of the 4th car (white Ford sedan) being seen to be open on Houston St.? This is the first time I spotted this in the Hughes film. I believed, up until now, that the SS agent had opened this door only on Elm St. and in response to rifle shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

"There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film".

Thanks for the link Robert.

I have since done some web surfing on the Towner film. The splice in the film has indeed been discussed on several internet venues.

As you said above, the consensus appears to be that one frame is missing, which would explain the "jump".

Have you been able to correlate the Towner splice with the melted frames in the Hughes film?

Hello Richard

Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work.

From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film.

BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6?

I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory, but if the "jump" or "squiggle" in Towner correlates time-wise with the "melted frames" in Hughes, an obvious inference that could be made is that there was a shot taken at that time. I suppose the argument would be that that was why Towner "flinched" right then and that's also why the Hughes film got "melted" right there from repeated slow motion / stop action viewings of those frames, or, perhaps, even intentionally.

--Tommy :sun

All very real possibilities. However, the oddity in the Towner film I do not believe can be ascribed to Towner flinching. In viewing the super-slow motion, frame by frame gif of the Towner film I linked to, Towner's camera stays locked onto JFK. As each frame unfolds, seconds apart, JFK moves forward an equal distance. In the frame immediately prior to the "squiggle", JFK simply seems to move twice as far as the other space intervals reveal. Quite simply put, one frame appears to be missing, nothing more.

What are your thoughts on the rear door of the 4th car (white Ford sedan) being seen to be open on Houston St.? This is the first time I spotted this in the Hughes film. I believed, up until now, that the SS agent had opened this door only on Elm St. and in response to rifle shots.

Robert,

I believe it was SOP for Johnson's Secret Service followup car to have that door open when traveling in a motorcade on surface streets. I think I've seen a photo that shows that door open when the car was on Main Street or some other street in Dallas on 11/22/63.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent far too much time using software to tweak the bass, treble, pitch, and playback speed settings, I finally stumbled into a combination that rendered the indistinct portions of the conversation intelligible.

Below is my latest, and hopefully final, transcription of the exchange discussed above:

HSCA: Did you see- see Lee Oswald around the steps?

Lovelady: NO, at any time.

HSCA: Could he - Would it have been possible from where you were sitting eating your lunch, that he could have been there and you didn't see him?

Lovelady: Could have -

HSCA (interrupting): OK

Lovelady (continuing): inside or out.

Good ears, Richard: it does sound like the last words are indeed "or out".

However I'm not sure about "inside".

Can't for the life of me work out what it is, but it sounds like "In the st[???] or out".

Or possibly: "Either st[???] or out".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three interesting 11/23 exchanges between Jesse Curry and reporters in the hall:

1.

A reporter asks Curry if Oswald has "admitted that he was in the building at the time the shots were fired".

Curry says "Yes" but then, as though thinking twice about this answer, follows up with a more qualified response:

"Well, we know he couldn't deny that, we have witnesses."

REPORTER: "But he did deny it, didn't he?"

CURRY: "He denies everything."

**

2.

Q: Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building?

CURRY: Yes

Q: After the shot was fired?

CURRY: Yes

Q: Why didn’t he arrest him then?

CURRY: Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee, that he’s alright, he’s an employee.

Q: Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?

CURRY: I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.

**

3.

Q. Does he say he was anywhere else at the time this was happening?

Again Curry seems hesitant to commit to a straight answer:

CURRY: I don’t know. He says he was at the building, he says he was there because he worked there.

**

Seems to me that Curry's answers are pointing to a front-of-house encounter between Oswald and Baker: a liminal place that is technically 'in the building', certainly 'at the building'--but not really inside the building.

Curry cannot quite say that Oswald is 'admitting' to being 'in the building'.

Nor however can he quite say that Oswald is denying being 'in the building'.

If Curry is aware that Oswald has been naming a place like the domino room or the second-floor office area, then Curry's markedly ambiguous answers do not make sense.

If however Curry is aware that Oswald has been naming the front steps or front entrance or vestibule/lobby area, then Curry's ambiguous answers do make sense.

Especially as his words about the policeman "checking everyone he saw as he went into the building" seal the deal:

Front-of-house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent far too much time using software to tweak the bass, treble, pitch, and playback speed settings, I finally stumbled into a combination that rendered the indistinct portions of the conversation intelligible.

Below is my latest, and hopefully final, transcription of the exchange discussed above:

HSCA: Did you see- see Lee Oswald around the steps?

Lovelady: NO, at any time.

HSCA: Could he - Would it have been possible from where you were sitting eating your lunch, that he could have been there and you didn't see him?

Lovelady: Could have -

HSCA (interrupting): OK

Lovelady (continuing): inside or out.

Good ears, Richard: it does sound like the last words are indeed "or out".

However I'm not sure about "inside".

Can't for the life of me work out what it is, but it sounds like "In the st[???] or out".

Or possibly: "Either st[???] or out".

Not 100% positive, but "in the side" or "inside" are my best takes.

Putting that reply in context might help to decipher it. Here is the exchange again with more of the previous conversation included:

Note: ... now indicates a pause. ?xxxxxxx? is for indistinct words or phrases.

HSCA: Was there anyone on the steps ... you didn't recognize?

Lovelady: Nope.

HSCA: Were the people who were on the steps people from the School Book Depository?

Lovelady: Employees ... Texas School Book ... different sections

HSCA: Do you recall ...... the people who were on there?

Lovelady: ?Let's see? ... there was Wesley Frazier, uhh Bill Shelley, Sarah Stanton, and some other ladies that uh worked upstairs

HSCA: Allright ... Do you recall which step you were on?

Lovelady: I was sitting on the first step ... and uh .. ?Stanton? on the second or third step ... ?mumbling? ... on the first platform

HSCA: Allright ... Did you see, see Lee Oswald around the steps?

Lovelady: NO ...

HSCA: at any time ...

HSCA: Could he - Would it have been possible from where you were sitting eating your lunch, that he could have been there and you didn't see him?

Lovelady: Could have ...

HSCA (interrupting): OK

Lovelady (continuing): ?inside? or out.

The "inside or out" makes more sense when we take into account that Billy had just said he was sitting on the first step. "Inside" would be referring to the vestibule on the inside of the outer entrance door. Recall that Carolyn Arnold had testified she saw Oswald there minutes before the assassination. Lovelady may have been hedging a bit here.

The primary significance of the reply remains that Billy would not exclude the possibility that Oswald may have been there behind him.

edit: Corrected "top step" to "first step"

Edited by Richard Hocking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

"There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film".

Thanks for the link Robert.

I have since done some web surfing on the Towner film. The splice in the film has indeed been discussed on several internet venues.

As you said above, the consensus appears to be that one frame is missing, which would explain the "jump".

Have you been able to correlate the Towner splice with the melted frames in the Hughes film?

Hello Richard

Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work.

From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film.

BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6?

I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory, but if the "jump" or "squiggle" in Towner correlates time-wise with the "melted frames" in Hughes, an obvious inference that could be made is that there was a shot taken at that time. I suppose the argument would be that that was why Towner "flinched" right then and that's also why the Hughes film got "melted" right there from repeated slow motion / stop action viewings of those frames, or, perhaps, even intentionally.

--Tommy :sun

All very real possibilities. However, the oddity in the Towner film I do not believe can be ascribed to Towner flinching. In viewing the super-slow motion, frame by frame gif of the Towner film I linked to, Towner's camera stays locked onto JFK. As each frame unfolds, seconds apart, JFK moves forward an equal distance. In the frame immediately prior to the "squiggle", JFK simply seems to move twice as far as the other space intervals reveal. Quite simply put, one frame appears to be missing, nothing more.

What are your thoughts on the rear door of the 4th car (white Ford sedan) being seen to be open on Houston St.? This is the first time I spotted this in the Hughes film. I believed, up until now, that the SS agent had opened this door only on Elm St. and in response to rifle shots.

Robert,

I believe it was SOP for Johnson's Secret Service followup car to have that door open when traveling in a motorcade on surface streets. I think I've seen a photo that shows that door open when the car was on Main Street or some other street in Dallas on 11/22/63.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!

--Tommy :sun

I'd like to see other photos of this. Do you recall where you heard it was SOP for the Secret Service to have the rear door open on Johnson's followup car? Who else was in this car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three interesting 11/23 exchanges between Jesse Curry and reporters in the hall:

1.

A reporter asks Curry if Oswald has "admitted that he was in the building at the time the shots were fired".

Curry says "Yes" but then, as though thinking twice about this answer, follows up with a more qualified response:

"Well, we know he couldn't deny that, we have witnesses."

REPORTER: "But he did deny it, didn't he?"

CURRY: "He denies everything."

**

2.

Q: Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building?

CURRY: Yes

Q: After the shot was fired?

CURRY: Yes

Q: Why didn’t he arrest him then?

CURRY: Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee, that he’s alright, he’s an employee.

Q: Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?

CURRY: I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.

**

3.

Q. Does he say he was anywhere else at the time this was happening?

Again Curry seems hesitant to commit to a straight answer:

CURRY: I don’t know. He says he was at the building, he says he was there because he worked there.

**

Seems to me that Curry's answers are pointing to a front-of-house encounter between Oswald and Baker: a liminal place that is technically 'in the building', certainly 'at the building'--but not really inside the building.

Curry cannot quite say that Oswald is 'admitting' to being 'in the building'.

Nor however can he quite say that Oswald is denying being 'in the building'.

If Curry is aware that Oswald has been naming a place like the domino room or the second-floor office area, then Curry's markedly ambiguous answers do not make sense.

If however Curry is aware that Oswald has been naming the front steps or front entrance or vestibule/lobby area, then Curry's ambiguous answers do make sense.

Especially as his words about the policeman "checking everyone he saw as he went into the building" seal the deal:

Front-of-house.

Chief Curry definitely seemed to be the weak link in the DPD chain. We are eternally thankful for his loose lips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are Towner and Hughes around the "splices"

Towner-Hughesburntframes_zps3ba5fbe8.jpg

Hughes was more WEST than Towner so the angles are off... and we are talking about a single frame versus 6-8 from Towner. Since HUGHES does not continue to where Zapruder starts

this frame may have simply been a coincidence - that it's at exactly the same place is puzzling though.

From the work I did with Chris Davidson, the removal of those TOWNER frames create the correct starting point and ending point for Towner and Zapruder to sync.

Having watched some of Max Holland's LOST BULLET ... I found HICKEY looking at the road just after the limo makes this filmus interuptus turn..

and still believe a shot was fired prior to the Elm Tree.. we also see JFK's impossible head turn at 157...

I alos seem to remember witnesses stating they saw a spark and dust kick up off the ground at that spot as well... just as the limo passed

DJ

Z156-splice_zps5f9424b0.gif

hickey-pre-z176-looks-down-to-street_zps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent far too much time using software to tweak the bass, treble, pitch, and playback speed settings, I finally stumbled into a combination that rendered the indistinct portions of the conversation intelligible.

Below is my latest, and hopefully final, transcription of the exchange discussed above:

HSCA: Did you see- see Lee Oswald around the steps?

Lovelady: NO, at any time.

HSCA: Could he - Would it have been possible from where you were sitting eating your lunch, that he could have been there and you didn't see him?

Lovelady: Could have -

HSCA (interrupting): OK

Lovelady (continuing): inside or out.

Good ears, Richard: it does sound like the last words are indeed "or out".

However I'm not sure about "inside".

Can't for the life of me work out what it is, but it sounds like "In the st[???] or out".

Or possibly: "Either st[???] or out".

Since we'll never know for sure anything / everything Oswald told his interrogators, it's a shame he didn't yell out to the reporters in the hallway "I was right outside the front door!" when asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?"

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent far too much time using software to tweak the bass, treble, pitch, and playback speed settings, I finally stumbled into a combination that rendered the indistinct portions of the conversation intelligible.

Below is my latest, and hopefully final, transcription of the exchange discussed above:

HSCA: Did you see- see Lee Oswald around the steps?

Lovelady: NO, at any time.

HSCA: Could he - Would it have been possible from where you were sitting eating your lunch, that he could have been there and you didn't see him?

Lovelady: Could have -

HSCA (interrupting): OK

Lovelady (continuing): inside or out.

Good ears, Richard: it does sound like the last words are indeed "or out".

However I'm not sure about "inside".

Can't for the life of me work out what it is, but it sounds like "In the st[???] or out".

Or possibly: "Either st[???] or out".

Since we'll never know for sure anything / everything Oswald told his interrogators, it's a shame he didn't yell out to the reporters in the hallway "I was right outside the front door!" when asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?"

--Tommy :sun

It's a shame Oswald wasn't asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent far too much time using software to tweak the bass, treble, pitch, and playback speed settings, I finally stumbled into a combination that rendered the indistinct portions of the conversation intelligible.

Below is my latest, and hopefully final, transcription of the exchange discussed above:

HSCA: Did you see- see Lee Oswald around the steps?

Lovelady: NO, at any time.

HSCA: Could he - Would it have been possible from where you were sitting eating your lunch, that he could have been there and you didn't see him?

Lovelady: Could have -

HSCA (interrupting): OK

Lovelady (continuing): inside or out.

Good ears, Richard: it does sound like the last words are indeed "or out".

However I'm not sure about "inside".

Can't for the life of me work out what it is, but it sounds like "In the st[???] or out".

Or possibly: "Either st[???] or out".

Since we'll never know for sure anything / everything Oswald told his interrogators, it's a shame he didn't yell out to the reporters in the hallway "I was right outside the front door!" when asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?"

--Tommy :sun

It's a shame Oswald wasn't asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?".

Sean,

You're right of course.

I just listened to it again (before I read your reply, actually, because of this very issue), and the reporter asked Oswald, "Were you in the building?," not "Were you inside the building?". Then I hurried back to my post to correct it, but, darn it, you'd already caught my mistake!

My bad.

Regardless, is it fair for us to conclude that, although Oswald was not technically "inside" the building, he was still somehow "in" it (or thought he was "in" it) because he was, after all, standing just outside the front door and actually underneath part of the building?

I mean, that counts for something, doesn't it?

It's a shame the reporter didn't ask him, "Were you by or at or near or just outside the building at the time?" LOL

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

You're right of course.

I just listened to it again (before I read your reply, actually, because of this very issue), and the reporter asked Oswald, "Were you in the building?," not "Were you inside the building?". Then I hurried back to my post to correct it, but darn it you'd already caught my mistake!

My bad.

Regardless, is it fair for us to conclude that, although Oswald was not technically 'inside" the building, he was still somehow "in" it (or he thought he was somehow "in" it) because he was, after all, standing just outside the front door and underneath part of the building?

--Tommy :sun

No problem, Tommy.

Yes, I think it is reasonable to allow for Oswald's having considered that front entrance area as part of the building.

It's not as if the front door gave out immediately on to the street: there were steps, and those steps were roofed as well as enclosed on both sides.

Very much part of the building.

Only when one had stepped down off the last step on to the street pavement could one be said to have properly left the building.

Two further things to bear in mind here.

First, Oswald doesn't say "I was in the building" in response to the question, "Where were you at the time of the shooting?".

He is instead asked a very different question: "Were you in the building at the time?".

And delivers a sharp rebuttal to the reporter's clear insinuation that his being there was somehow suspicious in itself: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."

Second, intonation is important.

The reporter doesn't ask, "Were you IN the building at the time?".

He asks, "Were you in the BUILDING at the TIME?"

Oswald, who is having questions shouted at him left, right and centre, understands the question to relate to his basic LOCATION at the TIME of the shooting.

And he confirms that, yes, the TSBD was his location at the time.

He wasn't on the sidewalk on Houston St. He wasn't on the overpass. He wasn't in his rooming house. He wasn't at the movies.

He was at his place of work.

Hence the exasperated emphases: "NATURALLY, if I WORK in that BUILDING, YES, sir."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are Towner and Hughes around the "splices"

Towner-Hughesburntframes_zps3ba5fbe8.jpg

Hughes was more WEST than Towner so the angles are off... and we are talking about a single frame versus 6-8 from Towner. Since HUGHES does not continue to where Zapruder starts

this frame may have simply been a coincidence - that it's at exactly the same place is puzzling though.

From the work I did with Chris Davidson, the removal of those TOWNER frames create the correct starting point and ending point for Towner and Zapruder to sync.

Having watched some of Max Holland's LOST BULLET ... I found HICKEY looking at the road just after the limo makes this filmus interuptus turn..

and still believe a shot was fired prior to the Elm Tree.. we also see JFK's impossible head turn at 157...

I alos seem to remember witnesses stating they saw a spark and dust kick up off the ground at that spot as well... just as the limo passed

DJ

Z156-splice_zps5f9424b0.gif

hickey-pre-z176-looks-down-to-street_zps

Incredibly, David, I have never seen JFK's head turn at z157 pointed out before, or even heard of it, for that matter. I'm a bit confused, though. Does he make a lightning fast snap in both directions, or just one? It's a bit hard to tell from the gif.

How many oddities, and outright contradictions of eyewitnesses, have to be pointed out before it is admitted the Z-toon is a lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are Towner and Hughes around the "splices"

Towner-Hughesburntframes_zps3ba5fbe8.jpg

Hughes was more WEST than Towner so the angles are off... and we are talking about a single frame versus 6-8 from Towner. Since HUGHES does not continue to where Zapruder starts

this frame may have simply been a coincidence - that it's at exactly the same place is puzzling though.

From the work I did with Chris Davidson, the removal of those TOWNER frames create the correct starting point and ending point for Towner and Zapruder to sync.

Having watched some of Max Holland's LOST BULLET ... I found HICKEY looking at the road just after the limo makes this filmus interuptus turn..

and still believe a shot was fired prior to the Elm Tree.. we also see JFK's impossible head turn at 157...

I alos seem to remember witnesses stating they saw a spark and dust kick up off the ground at that spot as well... just as the limo passed

DJ

Z156-splice_zps5f9424b0.gif

hickey-pre-z176-looks-down-to-street_zps

Incredibly, David, I have never seen JFK's head turn at z157 pointed out before, or even heard of it, for that matter. I'm a bit confused, though. Does he make a lightning fast snap in both directions, or just one? It's a bit hard to tell from the gif.

How many oddities, and outright contradictions of eyewitnesses, have to be pointed out before it is admitted the Z-toon is a lie?

It's interesting that JFK snaps his head to his right (in response to an audio stimuli?), whereas the SS agent seems to be visually interested in something on the other side of the car.

[edit]

I just found this on the Richard Randolph Carr Spartacus page :

From the Staff Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations (March, 1979)

[...]

110. In an FBI interview on November 24, 1963, Mrs. Virgie Baker (nee Rackley) reported that at the time she heard the first shot, she looked in the direction of the triple underpass and saw what she presumed to be a bullet bouncing off the pavement. Mrs. Baker was located immediately across the street from the depository when she heard the shots. She thought they came from the direction the triple underpass. In the FBI report, no further details or information were given by Mrs. baker about the location or direction of the object she believed to be a bullet.

111. Mrs. Baker testified before the Warren Commission of July 112, 1964. At that time, she stated that the object she believed to be a bullet hit the pavement in the street at the point of the Stemmons Freeway sigh on Elm Street.She said it hit in the middle of the lane on the other side of the street, which would have been the left-hand lane going in the direction of the triple underpass. At first Mrs. Baker said the bullet hit behind the President's car. Then she said she could not remember whether it hit to either side or behind the President's car. Mrs. Baker said she was sure she saw the object hit before she heard the second shot.

112. Committee investigators were unable to locate Mrs. Baker.

113. In a sheriff's department notarized statement dated November 22, 1963, Royce Skelton stated that he also saw a bullet hit the pavement in the left or middle lane, to the rear of the President's car. Skelton gave this account of the sequence of events: We saw the motorcade come around the corner and I heard something which I thought was fireworks. I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got in the right hand lane and I heard two more shots. I heard a woman said "Oh no" or something and grab a man inside the car. I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The pavement was knocked to the south away from the car.

114. In his Warren Commission testimony on April 8, 1964, Skelton said that he saw smoke rise from the pavement when the bullet hit. Skelton said also that the sound of the gunfire came from the area of the President's car. Skelton said he was located on the overpass directly over Elm Street at the time of the motorcade. He said the sound of the shots definitely did not come from where he was. Skelton also offered that the smoke he saw rising from the cement when the bullet hit "spread" in a direction away from the depository; he said the "spray" of flying cement went toward the west. On the photograph designated Skelton exhibit No. 1, Skelton marked where on the street he saw the bullet and in which direction he saw the "spray."

115. Committee investigators were unable to locate Royce Skelton.

Question: Could the phenomena that Mrs. Baker and Mr. Skelton are describing be what Secret Service agent Hickey is looking at in the video clip, above?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there Bob...

Z157 is where the film is spliced - again - .....and imo could represent the change from 16 to 48fps filming with the flip of a switch... (if not at 133)

These are supposedly concurrent frames.... which we know is not possible... looks eeriely like the 301/2/3 Greer head turn which was proven to be impossible and from 50% to 80% faster than it should be...

50-80% is 4 to 6 more frames that should be there that are not...

Greer-headturn-301-2-3_zps9a25312e.gif

Getting back to the thread - I wonder how the addition and understanding of "Harvey and Lee" to this equation changes things....

The man Reid sees was not HARVEY... it is very possible that the Oswald being discussed is LEE and not the man in the brown shirt with the button down collar that was taken off and replaced in his room.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.

Can we also try to rememebr that Oswald was a PATSY - he did not shoot anyone that day... A plan is not devised to create a perfect patsy and then allow that person to go around messing things up....

He gets from the TSBD to the Theater virtually undetected.. as planned.

Whoever kills Tippit (LEE?) leads the police to the Theater 15-20 minutes AFTER Harvey is already there, proceeds to the balcony and is ultimately led out the back/alley door.

But it would be a kick in the A$$ if we could place him on the landing or just inside the building (C.Arnold) between 12:25 and 12:35....

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...