Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paz Marverde

Who changed the motorcade route?

Recommended Posts

With all due respect, I'd like to see the bickering desist, and focus on the substance of this thread.   Jim D. , David Lifton and David Von Pein all make good points.  Let's park the egos, and learn something.  This entire discussion is quite important ... there's no way they went past TSBD by "accident".   Coincidence does not exist, when it comes to this case. 

I'm convinced that the Trade Mart selection is critical, rationale and sensible.  Connally is therefore a person of interest.  Eugene Locke is also. It does seem that motorcades in those days went this same route.  Nonetheless, its an ideal killing zone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

With all due respect, I'd like to see the bickering desist, and focus on the substance of this thread.   Jim D. , David Lifton and David Von Pein all make good points.  Let's park the egos, and learn something.  This entire discussion is quite important ... there's no way they went past TSBD by "accident".   Coincidence does not exist, when it comes to this case. 

I'm convinced that the Trade Mart selection is critical, rationale and sensible.  Connally is therefore a person of interest.  Eugene Locke is also. It does seem that motorcades in those days went this same route.  Nonetheless, its an ideal killing zone.  

In a sense, choosing Dallas was the main issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 30, 2018 at 10:03 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Lifton called me long-winded?:D

Thanks Robert.

 

And Von Pein keeps on posting that story he posted days ago about the route being set by the 19th.  Ignoring two facts:

1. The later stories on the 20th and 22nd in the DMN which contradict the dogleg route.

2. Palamara's four witnesses who say the route was changed 24 hours before the motorcade.

I don't know if this has been acknowledged yet, but a lurker has alerted me that there were three editions of the DMN that day. All denoted by a different amount of stars.

Jim DiEugenio:

Let me address some of your points very briefly, starting with the last (i.e., the third) one:

You state that you "don't know if this has been acknowledged yet," but, from "a lurker," you have been "alerted that there were three editions of the DMN that day (i.e., on 11/22). All denoted by a different amount of stars."

From the way you write about this, it would appear that this is truly very significant information, Jim, and I'm wondering what kind of award you might have earned, from such an important observation--one that you have been informed of, by "a lurker."

Here's some background for you to consider, before you add it to your list of accomplishments.

THE MATTER OF THE ONE STAR, TWO-STAR and THREE-STAR (etc.) EDITIONS

1) The Dallas Morning News routinely ran multiple editions every single day, each one bearing a different number of stars. (So there was a "one-star", a "two-star," etc. up to about "5 stars").  This has been true for decades.

2) Unlike you, I didn't learn this from "a lurker."  To the contrary: around 1969--about 45 year ago-- I realized the importance of the accounts of all the reporters who were in Dallas, and were important eyewitnesses to the the event. Consequently,  I spent months, at the UCLA Library, ordering these newspapers via Interlibrary Loan, and examining the newspapers from all the Texas cities (5 of them, 2 papers in each city) that JFK visited, plus other major newspapers around the U.s. (St Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Post, etc).

3) As soon as one puts up a roll of the Dallas Morning News on the microfilm reader, it is plainly obvious, because of the multiple star designation, that there were multiple editions of the Dallas Morning News each and every day. This is something i learned in 1969, when I went through all these newspapers.  Its not hidden or concealed in any way; and sometimes the information differed from one edition to the next. Sometimes.  All these factors considered, its rather amazing to watch you today --in the year 2018--attempt to dramatize this very obvious fact, by announcing that "a lurker" has just informed you that there are multiple editions of the Dallas Morning News.  Yes, Jim. . there are multiple editions, as was plainly evident when I embarked on the project of reading all the editions of the Dallas Morning News (and many other newspapers) from the period Nov/Dec. 1963, and even back to 1959, when LHO first defected to the USSR. Anyway, I'm so pleased to see that in 2018, you have discovered the obvious.  (Perhaps you'll tell us, in a future post, that you have learned from "a lurker" that 3 times 2 = 6?  Or perhaps that the value of Pi = 3.1416?  Who knows what wonders you are finding now, in 2018.   Congratulations!   i'm so pleased to see you are advancing at your own pace on what --apparently--is the James DiEugenio "learning curve."

Now let's turn to your first point--the one you designate as number 1 -- that there are "later stories" that contradict the dog-leg route:

Here, in your own words, is what you said: "The later stories on the 20th and 22nd in the DMN which contradict the dogleg route."

Jim, I don't know what "later stories" you are referring to; but what seems more important to me, is that you don't seem to comprehend the basic point: there was no "dog leg" route according to Commission Document 3, which was sent to the Warren Commission in mid-December 1963, and which is based on multiple internal interviews with those involved.  The notion that the "dog-leg" was "added" is--as far as I can see--an addition that occurred decades later. Pardon me for bringing this up, but there is such a thing as a "best evidence concept" as applied to the description of the motorcade route. The multiple references in CD 3/Appendix A, make clear that only one route was ever "test driven" by the Dallas Police officials (accompanied by a Secret Service agent, Lawson) and that was the route followed on 11/22/63.  In my previous post on this matter, I quoted the Dallas Times Herald, which was getting its information from the White house, as stating on 11/19 or 11/20, that the motorcade would go down Main, turn right onto Houston, and then left (the 135 degree left hand turn) onto Elm. In other words, what you call the "dog leg" was their from the outset. It wasn't "added" at the last minute.

That printed record, in a Dallas newspaper as published on Tuesday, 11/19, plus the multiple test drives, make clear that from the outset, the route incorporated what you call "the dog-leg turn." and that it was not added "later."

Your final point--numbered "2"--is that "Palamara's four witnesses who say (that) the route was changed 24 hours before the motorcade."

FWIW: I've always believed that Palamara did very good work, but people can make mistakes, or place reliance on witnesses who don't deserve such trust.

First of all it would be helpful if you would state, in some reasonably organized fashion, the names of the four witnesses, exactly what they said, and when they said it. i know of one,  motorcyclist Sam Bellah.

MORE ABOUT SAM BELLAH

When I spent some time using Google, I found that Bellah never said any such thing, until 1988!

As someone who was a history teacher, do you not understand that a cycle cop cannot come up with some brand new version of reality, some 25 years after the fact, and expect to be taken seriously?   Honestly, i just do not understand how you can spend so much time carefully reviewing the details of the post-assassination policy switch on Vietnam, but then--when it comes to what a cycle office says--believe something he says, for the first time, 25 years after the event.  

There's another point here, which you seem to ignore, and that is the question of the possible involvement of the cycle escort in the murder of Kennedy.

A POSSIBLE RATIONALE FOR THESE POSSIBLE "LATE ARRIVING" STORIES

I'm not prepared to make any specific accusations (yet), but do you not realize that if any of them were involved, it would be to their advantage to claim, at some point in time, that "no, we didn't have knowledge of the dangers of that particular route. . in fact, the 'original route' went right down Main Street, and so the one we rode on 11/22/63, was purely the result of a last-minute change of plans."

Some of these cycle cops (you may remember) are weird. Within minutes, one states that he has "a witness" who says the shots came from the building. And then another chimes in, and says that he has one too; and then a third one specifies the actual window on the sixth floor!   But not one of them took down the name of their witness; or did any one of them do anything that came near normal procedure. When questioned, one said, "He was a white man. . . he was there."  Oh really?  He "was there"?  Well. . who the heck was he?  Three officers approached by a witness, and no one takes down a name?

Oh pleez!

FWIW: I've just ordered a fresh copy of Palamara's book, because I want to re-read these passages, and check out the documentation.

As a general rule, "new information" that suddenly materializes 25 years after the fact should not be given credence. For example: if Bellah had told the Dallas Morning News or the Dallas Times Herald (within a day, a week, or even a month) that the motorcade route was changed at the last minute, that would have been important, even sensational, news.

But not 25 years later.

Sorry, but hat's way too late to be taken seriously.

As a history teacher,  DiEugenio, you should know better.

DSL

5/30/2018 - 8:40 PM PDT

South Orange County, California

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

With all due respect, I'd like to see the bickering desist, and focus on the substance of this thread.   Jim D. , David Lifton and David Von Pein all make good points.  Let's park the egos, and learn something.  This entire discussion is quite important ... there's no way they went past TSBD by "accident".   Coincidence does not exist, when it comes to this case. 

I'm convinced that the Trade Mart selection is critical, rationale and sensible.  Connally is therefore a person of interest.  Eugene Locke is also. It does seem that motorcades in those days went this same route.  Nonetheless, its an ideal killing zone.  

Gene, you are aware JFK and LBJ made a campaign trip through Texas including Dallas in 1960.  Up Main under the triple overpass going the opposite way turning after 3 blocks right on Griffin to give a speech at Memorial Auditorium (where I first saw the Eagles, backing up Jethro Tull).  They arrived from Fort Worth via stops in Arlington and Grand Prarrie, no turnpike or freeway back then.  FDR took a similar parade route in the 30's.  This is a really interesting article on it, especially the latter part, JFK's other Dallas parade.

http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_October/JFK1960/#.Ww9uRvZFzIU

He was received well on Main street in Dallas previously.  DPD Chief Jesse Curry oversaw security.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

As a general rule, "new information" that suddenly materializes 25 years after the fact should not be given credence. For example: if Bellah had told the Dallas Morning News or the Dallas Times Herald (within a day, a week, or even a month) that the motorcade route was changed at the last minute, that would have been important, even sensational, news.

I would like to congratulate Dave L on his reply to Jim DiEugenio's post here in his attempt to hold Jim to a higher standard when it comes to the Kennedy case. I would like to take a moment, fellow EF members, to mention this because it's important to take the evidence and clues in the case and not revert to wild speculation. As much as I believe that Jim Eugenio has written some important analysis on the case, I recently came across a thread on EF where it seems like he is "all Kennedy, all good, all of the time" with no bend or let up in his thinking regarding the Kennedy family; in other words, his way of thinking is the Kennedys do no wrong.  As much as I admire the Kennedys, I and Oliver Stone and I'm sure others know better.

But to take this higher standard a step further, and without attempting to hijack this thread, I would also like to mention to EF readers here that I certainly hope that Dave L also holds himself to a higher standard of the evidence in the case. I say this because it's my undertanding, forum readers, that he is currently writing another book that will have new evidence in the case. Dave L has been teasing fellow EF readers about this and, having worked in the marketing business for over 30 years, I certainly do not want to begrudge Dave L for doing that. It's important to get the word out when you are selling a new book. Ironically enough, I was unaware that when this very forum was started years ago that its initial intention was to do that very thing - to be a place where paid authors such as Jim Eugenio, Larry Hancock, Vince the Secret Service Expert, and Dave L - among others - can come onto this forum, ask questions and comingle with mere mortals such as myself. And of course they can also enourage us mortals to buy their latest book. This was an amazing discovery for me because when you think of a web forum called Education Forum, the idea of selling books certainly does not come to mind first and foremost.

This "selling your wares" concept has even included LNers such as Dave VP to sell his website by pushing the link here, encouraging folks to visit it, to watch his videos and click on his ads.  And of course it's also been a place for LNers like Dave VP to argue the occasional point or two with these authors. There may even be, fellow EF members, an opportunity for lurkers, as Jim DiEugenio so eloquently called someone on this forum, to comingle with said authors.

But to circle back and arrive to that pesky higher standard. I discovered that one of the thrusts of Dave L's new book of new evidence will be that Dr. Malcolm Perry, one of Parkland's doctors who performed the throat incision to try to save Kennedy's life, did not cut into his throat, thus, proving that the body was altered before the autopsy began.  Dave L's proof for this theory is:

** Proof 1 - audio in video interview of Perry does not sync up
** Proof 2 - Bob Groden said Perry told him

I vigorously debated Dave L on this, explaining that Dr. Perry clearly and accurately explained what he did to Kennedy's throat in his 1964 testimony. After being called a shmuck, among other things, by esteemed author Dave L, during our heated debate, and after also being torn a new asshole by other forum members who came to Dave L's defense, it's my understanding that Dave L has not reconsidered writing about this very shaky and speculative and dishonest theory and is moving forward with it. So once again, in the interest of trying to apply a higher standard in this case, I do hope Dave L reconsiders and I do this in support of Dr. Perry, a man who was thrust into the annals of history and is unable to defend himself.

MWW

5/31/2018 - 1:14 AM EDT

Dulles, Virginia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walton somehow cannot bring himself to address the underlying fallacy in Lifton's reply.

If you take Lifton at his word, then why would the WC be wrong about anything?  Why would the FBI be wrong about anything?  

But the point is, we know they were wrong about everything.

For many, many reasons.  One of them being that they lied and misrepresented testimony and evidence.

I have a whole chapter on this in The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today. 

So the idea that somehow what someone says years later cannot be true, that is just plain nonsense.  I mean LIfton's book is built upon that idea. 

And BTW, there were three other witnesses Vince had that said that. Not just Bellah.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Gene, you are aware JFK and LBJ made a campaign trip through Texas including Dallas in 1960.  Up Main under the triple overpass going the opposite way turning after 3 blocks right on Griffin to give a speech at Memorial Auditorium (where I first saw the Eagles, backing up Jethro Tull).  They arrived from Fort Worth via stops in Arlington and Grand Prarrie, no turnpike or freeway back then.  FDR took a similar parade route in the 30's.  This is a really interesting article on it, especially the latter part, JFK's other Dallas parade.

http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_October/JFK1960/#.Ww9uRvZFzIU

He was received well on Main street in Dallas previously.  DPD Chief Jesse Curry oversaw security.

 

 

Really cool pictures in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ron:

So this one went straight down Main?

 

Nope, straight up Main from the other direction than in 63', under the triple underpass, coming out alive, for only 3 blocks past Dealy Plaza before turning right from Main to go to Memorial Auditorium.  But 175,000 people turned out to see him on this route.  More than were at the chump's inauguration last year.

Sorry for any confusion on my part.  Dealy Plaza in not truly North-South, East-West.  Facing the TSBD from Elm is looking Northwest, it still disorients me.  Down Main to me means the route Kennedy took in 63'.

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron

Great pictures. Loved the story about Sam Rayburn.  Seems Barefoot Sanders was LBJ's main man in Texas.  Amazing how close the candidates got to all the people in those days. And LBJ sure was temperamental (plus he liked his whiskey).  JFK was no stranger to Dallas (nor Lubbock, San Antonio and Ft. Worth).  Thanks for sharing. 

As far as the route of the motorcade, I'm struck by John Connally's insistence on the Trade Mart as a final stop.  Seems there is something there (to be teased out).

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

Ron

Great pictures.

Always love to see images - and find out things I didn't know (like their trip in 1960 and going the other way up Main). 

Edited by Robert Harper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, David Lifton said:

The Dallas Morning News routinely ran multiple editions every single day, each one bearing a different number of stars. (So there was a "one-star", a "two-star," etc. up to about "5 stars").  This has been true for decades.

I had no idea this was true. (And from the posts I'm seeing from various other EF Forum members, many people here didn't know about the "multiple editions" either.)

It seems almost impossible for me to believe that the SAME newspaper office could have the capacity and the manpower (not to mention the TIME, which is always so short, it seems, in the newspaper industry) to churn out up to FIVE separate and unique editions of the very same paper. That sounds incredible to me (but evidently true). And in the 1960s, we're talking a time when the typeface for each article in the paper had to be manually set up by hand. (Isn't that correct, David S. Lifton?) How on Earth did they have enough time and resources to pump out so many editions every single day of the year? I suppose it's much easier today, what with computerization and digitization and all.

Anyway, thanks for the "multiple editions" information, David L.; it's certainly something I didn't realize until now.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Gene, you are aware JFK and LBJ made a campaign trip through Texas including Dallas in 1960.

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/10/kennedy-gallery-354.html

September 1960....

JFK-In-Texas-1960--001.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

JFK-In-Texas-1960--002.jpg

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David

In its early years, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin went to press seven times a day: Postscript, Night Extra, Final, Two Star, Three Star, (Blue) Four Star Final and (Red) Four Star Final.  Even in more modern times (I was a paperboy in the 60's), the paper would have several editions each day, and my Dad would send me off to get the late evening edition with sports scores and more up to date news.   The saying was "In Philadelphia nearly everybody reads the Bulletin".  As readers and advertisers moved from the city to the suburbs (today known as "The Delaware Valley") the Bulletin introduced regional editions for four suburban counties and leased a plant in southern new Jersey to print a state edition. The Bulletin went out of business in 1982, and was challenged by the afternoon city traffic which made distribution more costly .

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

 The Bulletin went out of business in 1982, and was challenged by the afternoon city traffic which made distribution more costly .

Gene

Gene,

 

How times change, huh?      (off topic alert!)

https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/deliveries-per-day.pdf

Free city delivery began on July 1, 1863.
In its early years, carriers were expected to make deliveries"as frequently as the public convenience may require," according to Section 92 of the
Postal Laws and Regulations of 1873, and deliveries were made as many times per day as mail was received in the Post Offices.
The 1922 Annual Report of the Postmaster General noted that business sections in smaller cities received three daily deliveries, those in larger cities
averaged three to four, and those in the largest cities received deliveries three to seven times a day.
 
In 1949, steps were taken to reduce all four-trip routes to three trips in business sections and all three-trip routes to two trips in strictly residential areas.
An order dated April 17, 1950, limited the number of deliveries in residential sections to one each day.
It also reduced the number of deliveries to business districts by one on Saturdays only; businesses continued to receive multiple deliveries during the week.
The 1969 Annual Report noted that, because of changing transportation patterns and new distribution procedures, few second or third deliveries to businesses were needed.
 
Although areas in New York with exceptionally heavy mail volume received two daily deliveries until the late 1990s, this practice has been
phased out. Today, standard policy limits business deliveries to one per day.
 
 
Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...