William Plumlee

John: note height of triple underpass 14'6'' plus addition 6 feet to rail road bed and tracts. The down grade into the underpass is approx 4 feet from fatal shot. the shooter would be approx ten feet plus above the limo... easy shot from that distance over the windshild into the back seat (which is approx 4 feet from front dashboard left of driver (between both men from shooters point of view) Is that someone on the underpass rail road tracts? If so he would be east of the west banister (10 feet or so) on the rail road tracts. I speculate.... shooter or abort members? I do not think Sergio and I could have been at that location because of the limo's position. Where the limo is in your picture I would think is about the time Cancellara was taking the picture of the south knowl. The Presidents head had just been about blown off. That in itself was a diversion, riveting attention from all spectators, focused at that spot. Also everyone was focused on the motorcade before the shots. And after the shots and the echos everyone was just stunded, numb, and confused, including Sergio and I. If I remember right there was other diversions... towed cars, and other distractions east of the kill zone, before the motorcade arrived at Houston and Elm.

"... Notice the wing outs on the banisters of the underpass on the east side. (north and south) They are not on the west side at each end/ If a shoter was at that location southeast end of underpass, then he would not be seen by anyone north of this location (toward the north knoll northeast part of underpass) if anyone was on the underpass. This person could have came from the south parking lot, shot from behind the winged section of the underpass and been gone by the time Sergio and I got to that location.... just food for thought. Again I speculate. ...". (Blue/black line= Plumlee and Sergio; red line= aledged shooter)

sorry duplicate post

I think, confusing to say the least when you consider the following: (1) "... was stationed in the trainyards about 100 yards southwest of the Elm and Houston intersection. ..". ( this would be hard to prove. Houston and Elm is the southeast cornor of the TSBD. The train yards are west of this intersection and west (50 yds) of the TSBD parking lot.., approx two hundred yards or so and to the north, about 50-100yards or so, behind the west southwest side of the TSBD. the Triple Underpass is south of the train yard's tower aprox 150 yards. The alledged shooter would have been another hundred yards (approx) at the far south end of the underpass or in the south knoll parking lot approx 20 yards east of the south end of the underpass. (2) "... Officer Brown said that 50-75 pigeons rose off the river bottom. ...". (This also would be hard to prove. The Trenity River bottoms are located about a half mile to a mile west of the Tripple underpass.. I think 50 to 75 pigeons from that distance would be hard to see. I was under the impression that it was said this officer was located at the S/E side of the underpass.., being south of the trainyards tower and S/W of the TSBD. Pictures at the time do not show anyone standing there. Most all the people, who were photograph were standing at the center to north end of the overpass above the motorcade when the limo turned from Houston onto Elm. (the cornor of the TSBD) After the shots all the personal standing at that location went over to the northwest side of the underpass as the Limo went under and watched the limo speed toward the freeway. Website referenced map: City of Dallas Interactive Maps

Did not mean to offend you. The above was from my POV and what I was told. That is what I was told by others when I ask them (after a long delay of nothing being said about the photo) if you were working on it. I was also told you at first thought someone was standing there. When I called you some years later and asked you what you thought about two people beimg there I was left with the impression you did not believe anyone was there.., it could not be proven, and you did not believe I was being truthful. I never bothered you again. Nor do I intend to bother you now. "... its time to put it to rest and move on with life. As they say: 'Frankly, my dear I don't give a damn'. ...".

I agree. As I said I do not think a railing was there. I can't remember one.

I Speculate: Is It possible? Who is good at math? The Limo had a two side roof braces 16"x10" BP windows acting as a support column on each side of limo to support the roof when installed. It is behind the driver and front passenger. It connects to the top of the window, bracing on each side to support the roof. At the location of the shots and considering the elevation of the shooter at the picket fence alleged badge man or further west alleged J Files and the angle of the elevation of the approaching limo at first turning into the shooter, it appears this shot would have hit the right window or upper frame support, right side, before it could hit Kennedy in the right front head shot. The Stemons sign to the kill zone of the 2nd or 3rd shot and the elevation of the hill at the limo's location and the elevation of the shooter at that same point just before the limo started down in elevation toward the underpass appears to put this roof support railing or window in line with that shot. The slight curve (toward the s/w) away from the direct line of fire happened after the fatal head shot. This same slight curve would aid a shooter from the south end of the triple underpass to make a shot. Jackie would be cleared to the left of the line of fire from this position, because of this slight curve to the s/w. This would have taken her out of the line of fire and the angle of the shot and elevation of the shooter would have gone over the windshield and over or perhaps between the two side supports or below the upper support, missing Jackie and hitting the president. FWIW, as long as we are all speculating. Anyone care to do the geometry... can't spell it... let alone do it....

Here is another link to Cancellara with a slightly different contrast: http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/8688.jpg

John: At the time of the shots we were a little futher up the hill (ten feet) east and about at the steps. (south and east) of where the picture was taken) The picture was taken about 30 to 60 seconds after the shoots. We had walked down to the tree area to the right of the steps when the picture was taken. We continued along the hill toward the tripple underpass. We passed the man in the pick up and something was said like, " It looks bad", We crossed over the RR Tracks on the south side of the underpass and down the hill on the other side. I will let Peter Lemkin, a member of this forum explain what I said as to what we were waring and how we were dressed, you if he will. This was all detailed to him and a photo expert many years ago. It became a matter of confirmation and I understand the details of what I told then was confirmed by sofeware photo analysas. However, Its best to let Pete explain this to you and others in detail if he would. Thanks for your work on this. I hope I have been of some help to you and others. fm previous post: "... This was all detailed to him and a photo expert(tom Wilson) many years ago. It became a matter of confirmation and I understand the details of what I told then was confirmed by sofeware photo analysas. ..". (end) (reply) John: to the best of my memory without my notes and those of Wilson's and my conversations at the time with all parties involved, I have stated before the fact to Pete, Jim Marrs, Tom Wilson, and Jack White, (with Jim Marrs present) and Jay Harrison where Sergio and I were standing and what we were waring and had in our hands. Its on the record as I have said before any photo work was done, and this was documented before the fact to these gentlemen. At that time we (they) did not have a good photo negative or print nor a good copy of the photo to work with. Peter, with hard work and in time, got the best picture available and sent them to Wilson.---(and I think also to Jack) I was under the impression, at that time, that Jack White was also going to work on the photo, but was told later he did not have the time and he did not think anything was there. I talked to Jack about this some years later and was told it could not be prove. From his manner and attitude, I felt he did not want to be involved in the photo work because he did not believe I was being truthful with my story. Now as to what I was waring: Dark pants.., light colored beige shirt, short sleeve. I did have sun glasses on because I always wore sun glasses (Aviation type) I was dark hair, no beard. My weight was about 165 lbs and my height was 5'11.5" I was holding a clip board. (not sure if I was holding it up or down at my side at the time the picture was taken). I was waring loffer type shoes dark in color. We were slowly walking toward the south side of the underpass (not trying to draw attention to ourselves) and was at about the shadowed tree fork when this picture was taken. Sergio was behind me at that moment (I THINK) Sergio had grown a beard in the last two years and was waring darker pants and a light dress shirt, long sleeve. (no sunglasses) I do not recall if he had a tie on or not, but I do not think so. We both were not waring hats or coats jackets or whatever. (I can't remember for sure but I might of had a light jacket folded over my arm. For some reason this sticks in my mind but not sure) Sergio did have a 'Walkie Talkie" type radio with an extended antena, but do not think the antena was extended at that time. ( earlier he had talk briefly to someone across the way (who I do not know) and he would slide the antena into its socket and concealed the radio in his back pocket. He did have a spoting type binocular single lenes, like a range finder. Sergio did have a fire arm (pistol 38 snub) tucked inside his pants. Sergio always had this pistol concealed. I was not armed. Perhaps Pete remembers some of these details and can add something in case I forgot a matter or two. Hope this helps you.

Tom was a very sincere but very private researcher. Wecht and I seemed to be his only confidants. He did some outstanding computer studies of photos, but his interpretations were sometimes open to question. I tried without success to get him to be less secretive and share his work more widely, without much success except for a couple of symposium speeches and appearance in TMWKK. His greatest achievement is untold...his viewing of the REAL autopsy photos in a secret collection in the Archives, aided by Teddy Kennedy. I never saw nor agreed with his study finding Tosh in Peter's copy of Cancellare. I have been in touch with family recently. There seems to be no reason to find his death suspicious. His real contributions may never be known in full because of his penchant for secrecy. Tom was brilliant, but he thought he could beat the "powers" by going through our "legal system"...and was naive to believe that he could achieve it alone. Jack Naive in this regard is being polite. From the few meetings I had with him and from what I knew about his background, he seemed to be part of the general establishment and new to any idea of the Govenment lying and covering-up. I tried, without success, to tell him he was going to be crushed like a bug with a lawsuit - more so alone!. Apparently he was allowed to look out and analyze the original autopsy photos care of Ted Kennedy and Wecht...that is amazing, but where are the results. Does anyone know if Wecht has any of the results [or knowledge of who does] or did they all 'die' with Wilson.....very strange and sad. Where are the materials he did now? As I understand his technique, they produced enhanceg images and also anlsysis of the nature of substance which made up the material reflecting the light to the film. A most frustrating dead-end at the moment. Peter NB Wilson apparently was qualified as an expert witness in U.S. federal court in relation to the analysis of entrance and exit wounds of deceased in fatality scene photographs. He is also listed as an expert witness with the Department of Justice. Thanks Peter: However, I think its time to put this puppy to bed. There is nobody in that photo. All the work done on it Pro or Con by experts or self proclaimed experts, means nothing . Whatever Plumlee has said about it is bull. We all know that. He was not there. Nobody is there. As to the "ABORT" story there is no proof so there is no need to look further into that. Who is this Plumlee and where does he come from? What right does he have to say anything about any of this. Why does he want to miss lead us? He must be CIA dis information. There is not one document that supports anything he says, or even hints that he knew any of the players. There is not even preponderance of any evidence that could even point in that direction that he was connected in some way. Why waste our time when we can better put it to naming the 33 plus CIA Agents and Operatives that have been prove to have been in the Plaza to watch the assassination. And too, there are others who saw the gun sticking out of the eleventh floor of the TSBD, by a black man with no hair. What about the Dallas Cop behind the fence with badge 40 and the trhee men standing next to him. Now that is a prove fact. You can read all about it everywhere in the books that have been written on the subject of the assassination. These Dallas CIA Agents and military people knew all the facts about that day. That's why they were there. We have the names and we have prove they were there. What can this Plumlee add to that? Plumlee was never CIA or Military Intell. There is nothing that proves beyond doubt that he ever served in the army or was in Central America or had any forum of connections to any of this. Why does he continue to jerk our chain. Some of us know that Oswald acted alone and had nothing to do with any government operations. That he was just a nut with a very low IQ. That has been prove way back in 1964. No its best to move on and not waste anymore of our time on this. In time Plumlee will just go away and we can get on with our real work at hand and not be diverted from the truth of that day. Don't and confuss me with facts my mind is made up. Does anyone out there know of Jack Kaufman or Terry Richards, or Christine? They went to school with one of the players in the Kennedy assassination, can't remember who but they went to watch the JFK killing because this person told them it was going to happen because Oswald told him ten days before that he was going shoot Kennedy when he came to Dallas. I have this from a very reliable source who I can not name at this time. AND that is FACT. No Pete.... its time to put it to rest and move on with life. As they say: "Frankly, my dear I don't give a damn".

" ... Is this where the steps are (were?) ...". You are very close. the forked tree shadow needs to be moved closer to the steps (east about two inches. as pictured in photo) to establish proper distance and perspective from steps. ( we were standing approx 3 perhaps 5 feet west of steps) The distance from the steps to the tree shadow is not right. (keep in mind this is a hill and the steps lead down to the sidewalk.., thus 'sidewalk steps" or "steps down to the sidewalk near curb". Also note on your left clearer photo the steps appear to curve while in facts they are stright and have about two flat landings before you get down to the side walk. I do not know if this was changed (the cruve) or if its just photography. However you can see that there is not a curve in the overhead picture of 1963 previously posted on this thread.

John I have to ask: Where are all these so called photo experts? They seem to have an opinion on everthing else. They seem to want to hijack other threads with their words of whit and super knowledge of photography and all other matters. What are they afraid off? The photo does not bite. Thanks for the very good work you have done on this photo. From Jay Harrison's files 2002, Austin Texas Researcher: Reference a copy of a partial letter received from (XXXXX XXXX blocked by Jay) dated July 10th 1998: "...an 8- by 10-inch enlargement of the Cancelara photo (the original negative) was given to me (XXX) on XXX) It apparently was held by the Dallas FBI and enlarged from the negative made by Lab tech. The paper guide was set to accommodated an 8- by 10-inch on special enlarged stock paper. The back of the photograph contains an impression from a rubber stamp identifying the receiving date as December 5, 1964. Texas Department of Public safety Lab review. The emulsion scratches and creases are again evidence that this is a first generation negative/print and was matched to other photographs taken by same camara on the same roll of film. Another copy of this print was obtained from Life Magazine who had purchase same in March of 1964. The two photographs are different in scope as one (the Life Magazine) has been croped and modified from orginal. ...". fm John's post: "... One particul;arly note worhty thing is how the background pattern appears broken by this 'shape' as if it is in front of the background. ..". John: This (the letter) is background information only. I hope it helps in tracking down the chain of events and orgin of photo. I am not sure if Pete has this information, but I will email it to him. I just wanted to get it on record before this lead is contaminated. Jay has past away but one of his associates has all of his files and research material, I am told.

John I have to ask: Where are all these so called photo experts? They seem to have an opinion on everthing else. They seem to want to hijack other threads with their words of whit and supper knowledge of photography and all other matters. What are they afraid off. The photo does not bite. Thanks for the very good work you have done on this photo.

from Simkin quote earlier post: "... In many ways this story is more disgraceful than the assassination of JFK. How has it remained "secret history"? Despite the efforts of people like Peter Dale Scott, Daniel Hopsicker, Robert Parry, Garry Webb, Alfred McCoy, etc. this story has not entered the American consciousness. One of the reasons is that the Democrats have been reluctant to make anything of the story. The reason for that is that they are implicated in this scandal via Bill Clinton. As a result, a deal has been done, and it remains "secret history". Come on America, wake up. ...". TO Date questions from above postings concerning the 1963 helicopter and mattetrs have been side steped and not addressed and the thread gone dead. Can anyone prove the research in the book valid? Anyone care to comment or commit?

"... There are some curious outlines, like the diagonal line which if identified woud help, particularly if by William. ... The vertical line in the centre here is the line of the crop....". John: Perhaps this Email to Pete might help you in some way. "...Pete: I was told (after you and Jim and I talked about this photo and the location) in 1999 or there abouts that I was wrong about where I was standing because a sidewalk railing was there and I would have been standing on it. I do not remember any such railing. Some years later when the light post were realigned it was said by the city of Dallas street crew who had done this work that the "Railing" (indicating one) had been removed. When I talked with Wilson he also asked me "How far from the iron Railing were we standing") I told him I did not think there was a railing. He told me I was wrong that there was a railing and IF is was really there I would remember the railing. The way he said it pissed me off. I to this day do not remember a railing at this location next to the side walk. I sent a letter to the Dallas Street Department and they could not recall removing a railing However they said that none of the personal who worked during that time frame were still employed. I was told they would try and find out if their records mentioned any removed iron railing support at the south knoll sidewalk. This was done after you and Marrs and I were no longer working together. I decided to not work on the JFK matter ever again around this time. Shortly after this I was publicly discredited by a host of so called researchers and half witts. ...".

"...Can you make some comments about gross physical features, of you and your partner? Shade of clothing, tie, hat, beard, sunglasses etc, please? John: At the time of the shots we were a little futher up the hill (ten feet) east and about at the steps. (south of where the picture was taken) The picture was taken about 30 to 60 seconds after the shoots. We had walked down to the tree area when the picture was taken. We continued along the hill toward the tripple underpass. We passed the man in the pick up and something was said like, " It looks bad", We crossed over the RR Tracks on the south side of the underpass and down the hill on the other side. I will let Peter Lemkin, a member of this forum explain what I said as to what we were waring and how we were dressed, you if he will. This was all detailed to him and a photo expert many years ago. It became a matter of confirmation and I understand the details of what I told then was confirmed by sofeware photo analysas. However, Its best to let Pete explain this to you and others in detail if he would. Thanks for your work on this. I hope I have been of some help to you and others.

AND, as porky pig once said, ".... Da Da Da-- Thats All Folks...". Its time to put this toad to bed. YA'LLs Write when you finds work

ReplyL: F-5/6 (5 upper center right and left and cornor.. left and right and a little above of shadow tree trunk and shadowed fork of tree) the sidewalk shows in one of your over heads approx X and Y steps going up the hill..... the contrast of the shadows is broken or lighter in this region. overhead of plaza: (from where 'race track marker' is located we were standing to the left of this in the shadows) ...you can blow up image for better view. http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5255.jpg

[William, see the blue dot below the x and y? How close is the centre of that dot to where you were standing? The Cancellare that I know is from this site: http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html John: you are at about the right spot. (blue) The light post from the south knoll to the north side in the old pictures were almost in a stright line from where we were standing to the kill zone. I was told some years later a few of those light post were moved or relocated...why I do not know. you might want to go to this site and take a look at the full un crop of the Cancellare photo: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/southknoll.htm as well as these other photos: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/dpmap63.htm Note; the X marked in the top photo is wrong we were up (east) from this location.., near the steps. This has never been corrected. Tom Wilson said, some years ago, this X was where he saw a shooter in his enhancement work on the Cancellare nagative. Plumlee was marked at this location by mistake, so I was told. Also note: I do not support this site or its conclutions: The forked tree I have spoke of can be seen in the first photo. (Cancellare) It is directly above the standing man to the left of the photogapher and above the car top.., left side of picture. To the left of this fork tree shadow and to the right and left of this tree trunk shadow is where we were standing. ( notice light objects and contrast on each side of tree trunk shadow) Notice the light poles and the sidewalk steps. also notice the square photo blow up of this area at bottom of picture. Also on your photo notice the light pole shadow and the light post to the left upper of that one and the next one beyond your crop is about where the kill zone was and where Kennedy was hit.

It has been said: "...No book or research however, is without errors that can creep in for many reasons. ..". That is true, but when the errors are used many years later, and not corrected when pointed out years earlier, but continued to be presented as factual information to a new generation of researchers, then I find no reliability in any of the old or new research, or the publications thereof. The real truth of a matter cannot be found in such sloppy works. When speculations, wild theories, and rumors are printed as facts then real truth hides behind the print and is lost forever. Again I ask a few simple questions: (1) Can anyone tell me what type helicopter and the year it was made? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...opic=6930&st=15 (2) Can anyone tell me the name of this restaurant in Mexico City and who these people are at the table and the date the picture was taken? http://specialcollections.tulane.edu/Schiro/Schiro_9.htm (3) Are there any look-a-likes in this Barry and the Boys cover photo link below to the other photo of the link above? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...opic=6930&st=15 (5) Who is this person on link below and what year was it taken? http://specialcollections.tulane.edu/Schiro/Schiro_3.htm (6) note: The new Orleans mayor must have grown a lot of hair from 1954 until 1963 http://specialcollections.tulane.edu/Schiro/Schiro_2a.htm (7) Who is standing next to Seal at the helicopter? (8) Can anyone tell me the N...... registration number and the year it was assigned to this pictured helicopter? (footnote from previous post on another forum: "...I believe that this image below (helicopter) appears in the book, 'Barry and the Boys'. That is Adler 'Barry' Seal on the left, but can anyone confirm that the guy wearing the hat is New Orleans Mayor Victor Schiro? ...". reply to above posting: "...According to Daniel Hopsicker it is definitely Victor Schiro. He thinks that other man is a Teamsters' union boss. ...". Would anyone care to comment on the above links as to the Mayor of New Oleans being with a alleged drug runner? What is implied here? Was the Mayor of New Orleans involved with drugs? Was this some kind of payoff with a Union boss and Seal? Was it some kind of kick-back or shady deal involving the Mayor of New Orlaens and a Union president? What is really being said in this book? All three of these gentlemen are now dead, and as we know "deadmen tell no tales". I believe these are all valid questions that any researcher worth his salt should ask. As I have said "take me out of the equation",.... "forget my story"... "classifie it as BS", However these questions I ask remain valid questions. They should be answered and explained for this new generation of research. Over the years, very good research and the truth therof, has been sidelined and stoped by much less that this. Is this published written work " wild speculation" based on rumor? Or is it "truth"? I believe if these questions are answered honest, then we will know the real truth of why this book was published and the motives thereoff will become clear. You can deal with me and attack my story afterwards, if you like. But first answer my simple questions. I do not think that is to much to ask from the research community as a whole. Do you? This post has been edited by William Plumlee: Today, 07:03 PM

Victor Hugo Schiro served as Mayor of New Orleans from 1961-1969. http://specialcollections.tulane.edu/Schiro/Schiro.htm is it implied that this man was somehow involved in Drug running? Also note the following: The Jet Ranger civil mod 206A, powered by a 235kW (317shp) Allison C18A, first flew on January 10 1966. Deliveries of the first production Jet Rangers began late in that same year. (1966) In the early 1970's production switched to the Model 206B Jet Ranger II with a 300kW (400shp) 250C20 turboshaft, while conversion kits to upgrade earlier As to the new standard were made available. The third major variant of the JetRanger is the 315kW (420shp) 250C20B powered JetRanger III, with first deliveries commencing in late 1977. In the Berry and the Boys picture of Seal and implied mayor "Victor Hugo Schiro" of New Orleans is a Jet Ranger Two. (mfg 1972) How could this be if the picture in question was taken in 1963 or there abouts? And the helicopter was not even in production at that time. Can anyone explain this? For picture and history of the Ranger go to: http://www.flymfs.com/bell206.html Also can someone explain how the Registration N-6284? was issued to this helicopter in the 1960's when FAA record shows it being assigned to a helicopter in the early 70's. The picture at the night club is said to have been taken a few months before the assassination in 1963 and as I understand the helicopter picture of Seal and the mayor was taken about the same time. Is this a mistake in research or the publisher/editors? If so, what other mistake can be found in this work? Anyone care to comment? In answer to a private email received from two different sources: "... "I don't quite understand your statement about the Mayor of New Orleans. It does not fit with what you said about the picture not being right,". ...from John Simkin "According to Daniel Hopsicker it is definitely Victor Schiro. (Mayor of New Orleans, 1961-69) He (Hopsicker) thinks that other man is a Teamsters' union boss. ...". My reply to both of these gentleman's emails: "... Do you understand the issue about the helicopter? If I remember right it is said by the author that the new Orleans mayor is standing next to Seal in the helicopter picture and that picture as well as the other at the night club was said to have been taken in 1963. Regardless of what some think of who all is in that picture (me or Struges) is of no value. I asked, can anyone explain how the helicopter was in a "1963" picture, as stated by the author, when it had not even been in production during that year or the years of the sixties. If that research dating is wrong then could the date and players of the picture at the club also be wrong? If so then the whole concept and the books conclutions could also be wrong and fall into nothing more than speculations and someones fantasies. Some try to nailed me to the wall on a lot less than this. If I just stutter a little on memory of an event, then I'm all wrong on everything and its shouted to the wind. And too, could the accusations that the mayor of New Orleans (who is now dead) also be wrong. Your a good researcher with proven works. What do you think? Who is in the picture has no value if all that "factual" information found in that book proves false. Of course I can see how we can just slid over this issue and put it aside as not meaning anything and continue on with our research using this and other matters found in the work as proven facts for a new generation to accept at face value because some say we must. Now days, because of the inter-net, we can write our own history anyway we want in place of recording it the way it came down or the way it really happened. Its now time to "divert" draw attention away from this issue and run in other directions. Lets not get to close to this issue for the truth and motive might come foward. Who's wagging whose tail? And you wonder why I say BS a lot these days. ...".

John: I have a hard time making out your lines of fire. Did you allow for the slight curve and downgrade in the street toward the south and the hight of the shooter above the limo. Was it the first shoot or the second where his head was. Just speculating on my part. Your doing good work. Your making people think. And thats a plus now days as to this subject matter.

John: To our left approx 45 degrees behind us, near the parking lot or rail road tracks. ., in that vacinity.