Duke Lane

Exactly the point of a recent article y'all might enjoy. In it, the operative assumption is that the James Files story is correct and accurate. Enjoy!

Great post, however, I would change it somewhat to confirm to my unwavering belief that Oswald was simply the fall guy.My version would be "the same, only a little different". I have also including Connelly's statement which makes it impossible not to believe in some kind of frontal shot. Tech puts JFK conspiracy theories to rest Sixth floor of book depository, not the grassy knoll, was origin of lethal shot Although there is ample evidence to prove shots from the front, we know Kennedy was also shot at and hit from behind, so lets just say that some of the shots from behind came from the 6th floor southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository Building. With that in mind, even if it could be shown with 100% certainty that shots did come from the southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository Building, that does nothing toward proving whose finger was on the trigger. The proof that Oswald was not there is the fact that none of the four men upstairs who were on the fifth and/or sixth floors said that they had seen him there .... In the "Men Who Killed Kennedy", Governor Connelly describes what happened at the time of the shots and talks about Kennedy's brains being on the back of the limousine. "Governor Connelly says he heard what he thought was a rifle shot, in response to this he turned and looked over his right shoulder, because that was where he describes the sound to have come from, and when he did not see anything because Kennedy had leant forward, he turned back again and then felt a blow to his back which he describes to have felt like a 'fist' hitting his back. The force of such a blow bent him over and he noticed he was covered with blood. The shirt was straight afterwards dry-cleaned to remove all traces of any blood. He then remarks, "Oh my God, they're going to kill us all". He says it with a calm resilient tone in his voice, as if he thinks whoever is shooting is going to take everyone out, including himself, which he may not have expected. Connelly states that he also heard another shot and says he saw blood and brain tissue all over the back of the limousine. He states that at this point he knows the president had been fatally hit because Mrs. Kennedy said, "My God, I've got his brains in my hand". All well and good except twice quoting my post in full, the second seemingly as your own words. Tsk, tsk.

Good catch on that, Steve. I can't tell how many stories are visible, but certainly some of them are! Now, Bill, I haven't discredited a single eyewitness ... only those who claim to have been but who were not! How does it help to know what happened if people are telling us about things that didn't happen? Adding falsehood to the reality might make it a more interesting story, but it doesn't lead toward what happened.If you think it will add to the knowledge base, I will gladly tell you what I saw from the south knoll that day!

Wim Dankbar has hypothesized that statements made by Richard Randolph Carr in 1964 are bogus, concocted by the FBI or coerced from him by them, and discounts them entirely. What is more accurate, he says, is what Carr himself had to say without "benefit" of an "interpreter," under oath at the 1969 trial of The State of Louisiana v. Clay Shaw (hereinafter Shaw). Said testimony, given on February 19, 1969, can be found at this link on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website in its entirety. Since the earlier FBI reports have been "discredited," we will eliminate them from all consideration in the following analysis of Carr's testimony, which follows the course of that testimony, and which only includes evidence on record up to the point at which it is discussed. According to Carr's Shaw trial testimony, he and a unnamed pipefitter were standing on the seventh floor of the new county courthouse building "around the middle of the day" on November 22, in "a position where he could see the parade" honoring the President, "at the time that theparade was coming down towards Dealey Plaza." Asked if he'd seen anything unusual, he said: At the time the parade came down towards -- going to the School Book Depository ... at the fifth floor of the School Book Depository I noticed a man at the third window, this man was dressed -- he had on a light hat, and I saw this man later going down Houston Street, to the corner of Commerce, and then turned toward town on Commerce, and at that time before this happened I heard a single shot which sounded like a small arms, maybe a pistol, and I immediately, immediately there was a slight pause and immediately after that I heard three rifle shots in succession, they seemed to be fired from an automatic rifle and they came -- At this point, his testimony describing these various events at various times was interrupted to determine his expertise in being able to determine rifle fire from sidearm fire. When this question was settled, he resumed his testimony by noting that he and a pipefitter "were standing on the seventh floor of the -- on the outside of this structure of this courthouse," at which time he was again interrupted by defense counsel objecting to his reporting the other half of a conversation he'd been involved in as "hearsay." In this testimony, Carr seems to establish that the stairway he was on was external to the girder-frame construction, attached to the girders on the outside rather than the inside the confines of the structure. This jibes with the aerial photos of Dealey Plaza taken contemporaneous to the assassination. He went on: He had on a hat, a felt hat, a light hat, he had on heavy-rimmed glasses, dark, the glasses were heavy- rimmed, and heavy ear pieces on this glasses. ... He had on a tie, he had on a light shirt, a tan sport coat. This is testimony to some very sharp eyesight, being able to discern the characteristics of an object 850 feet from where he was: not only the man himself (who would only appear to be a fraction of an inch tall at that distance), but also of his glasses which, at 4x2", must only have appeared as a tiny speck, if anything at all. Not only dark, heavy rimmed glasses, but with "heavy ear pieces." The questioning turned to the gunfire ("I didn't think it was gunfire," he testified, "I knew it was gunfire," he said later) and where it had come from, which from that distance, he was able to discern that it had come from the area near the picket fence and not the TSBD. From his point of view, this represented an angle of less than 10 degrees; he was able to tell from which part of that arc the shots came, to the exclusion of any other north of him. This ability was not challenged by counsel. (Further on in his testimony, he was able to narrow the origin of the shots to within less than a degree, that is, originating from the end of the "cement arcade" nearest the railroad tracks rather than that nearest the TSBD. While I'm jumping ahead a little in this instance, the image below shows the relative angles of what he claimed to have been able to discern in terms of the origin of the gunfire from 800 feet away.) He said that the first shot was followed by three louder shots ("from a high-powered rifle," which characterization immediately raised an objection from defense counsel) "in succession." One of those three shots, he said, caused grass to fly up from the ground. Unless the clump of ground was substantial - for which there is no evidence - this is once again exemplifying his super-fine eyesight, being able to see a small amount of grass fly up in front of a background of ... grass. Asked if, after the shots, he'd noticed any unusual movement of any kind, he replied in the affirmative: At this point right here, at this School Book Depository there was a Rambler station wagon there with a rack on the back, built on the top of this. ... It was parked on the wrong side of the street, next to the School Book Depository heading north. ... Immediately after the shooting there was three men that emerged from behind the School Book Depository, there was a Latin, I can't say whether he was Spanish, Cuban, but he was real dark-complected, stepped out and opened the door, there was two men entered that station wagon, and the Latin drove it north on Houston. (Later, under cross-examination, clarifying what had attracted his attention after the shooting, he said: I turned and looked back, as I told you before, I saw these people come out from behind the School Book Depository and I am going to try to make this clear so where you can understand it, from where I was at I could not tell whether they came out this side entrance here, there is a side entrance to the School Book Depository, or whether they came from behind it, but they came either from the side entrance or they came from behind it, and got into this station wagon.) He went on, in direct testimony, to describe how one man got in front, how he'd "slid in from the driver's side over," that the Latin man had gotten in back, and how the car "was in motion before the rear door was closed." These are all events taking place on Houston Street, to the east of the TSBD. We will recall the image from the original post in this thread which shows the view of the new courthouse building from the southeast corner of the TSBD at street level: Whether or not Carr was high enough on the building to be able to see the street-level corner of the building is not as important as whether he would have been able to see anything else taking place to the north of this. The above image is included solely as reference since the following pictures are not as clear. This sequence of photos is made at where the right front fender of a parked car facing the correct direction would be (at approximately five feet off the ground), first, at the northeast corner of the TSBD, then about half-way forward to the corner of the building, and then a car-length from the corner with Elm Street. In all of these, no part of the courthouse building is in view. Richard Randolph Carr could not see activity in this location if people in this location could not see him. Period. It's clear that if Carr was unable to see a car in this area - he had no line of sight, which of necessity extends in both directions - then he could not have seen anyone exiting from any part of the TSBD, whether at the very back of the main building where the exit he described was (at that location, in the first photo, you can't even see the top of the spires of the Old Red Courthouse, much less the side of the new courthouse which only appears in the crook on the back side of the spire in the top photo), and certainly not farther back at the end of the loading dock. If he could not see the car or the people exiting, he could not see two men getting into the station wagon that he couldn't see, and certainly not well enough to know the complexions of those men, much less whether their "real dark complexions" were those of "Latins" - whether Spanish, Cuban or Mexican or even South American - rather than of black men. If he could not see the car at the curb, then he could not have seen it drive off "north on Houston" because, on crossing to the northbound side of the street, the car would have been even more obscured - simply not visible, actually, which it already wasn't - by doing so. Furthermore, if the car had gone north on Elm, it had nowhere to go since the street - according to the testimonies of George "Pops" Rackley (6H273ff) and James Romack (6H277ff) - was under construction and blocked off by barricades. In addition, Romack stated in his testimony that he had watched the side and back of the TSBD from the time he first heard shots and until more police had arrived in the area, and at no time did he see anyone emerge from either the side or the back of the building. Thus ... with photographic evidence that there was no line of sight between where a car could be parked on the west side of Houston Street or any point farther north or east along the street, including the loading dock exit or the back of the building beyond the dock, and with testimony from a man who said that nobody came out onto Houston Street from either location by a man who was watching that area for several minutes after the shooting, and with evidence that a car could not have driven north on Houston Street whether or not it was seen by Carr ... how can this claim made under oath in New Orleans be considered "reliable?" Let us turn to the man whom Carr had described as being "at the fifth floor of the School Book Depository," more specifically "in this window which would have been one, two, the third window over here." The windows next to it, at the time of the shooting were occupied by Bonnie Ray Williams, Junior Jarman and Hank Norman. Depending upon the exact time of their arrival there, would they not have seen this man standing there? Yet if so, they made statements both to the effect that nobody else was on the floor when they arrived, and that they had seen no strangers in the building that day. Before the shooting, the windows above that which Carr claimed to have seen the man - the third window from Houston on the sixth floor - had been occupied by Bonnie Ray Williams. Is it possible that the man Carr saw - if he saw one - was in fact a black man rather than a white man, who wore no glasses rather than "heavy horn-rimmed" ones with "heavy ear pieces," no hat rather than a tan one, no jacket rather than a sport jacket, and no tie rather than any kind of tie, and that either his eyes or his five-year-old memory were playing tricks on him? After all, those windows were closed at the time of the shooting, so Carr could only have seen the man through the glass, so distortion is a distinct possibility, is it not? If so, would he still have been able to distinctly see glasses and a hat on the man (if he could see distinctly at all across 850 feet)? If the man was in neither window, where was he that Carr could've seen him in the School Book Depository? Let us consider his powers of observation. He was asked about his recollections of the motorcade itself, of which he had little: he remembered, for example, just three cars: At the time it [the shooting] happened I had only seen three, part of them were on back had not got to that point yet ... the commotion was so great that everybody stopped there, there were a lot of people on the streets, on both sides, there were people up here, spectators, there were people everywhere along that route, all over there. Three cars. Would they have been Curry's car, the limo, and the Queen Mary? It wouldn't seem so since "part of them [the three cars he'd seen] were on back had not got to that point yet." So what three cars had he seen, and how far "on back" were the rest of the three? And where were the rest of the cars in the parade? Carr stated under cross-examination that he had heard what he "knew" to be gunfire, from which he was able to conclude that "someone had been shot or shot at." After that, he "detected the vehicles gathering speed and moving on," which he thought was "very unusual." Despite that, when he was asked "when you saw the Presidential vehicle accelerate, did that attract your attention?" he replied: No, sir, not so much as I turned and looked back, as I told you before, I saw these people come out from behind the School Book Depository ... So we learn that he knew the President was passing nearby, he was sure he heard gunfire, knew "someone had been shot or shot at," saw the cars "gathering speed," but did not draw any conclusion that it might've been the President who was "shot or [being] shot at," and instead, as the limo was accelerating, he turned to watch men (whom he couldn't see) depart the building and drive away up a street that was closed in both directions. Since these men were able to get downstairs after shooting the President - before the limo had even left the plaza! - does this prove that Oswald only needed two or three seconds to reach the second floor lunchroom? Wasn't he interested in knowing what was causing the commotion, defense counsel wanted to know? Carr "would like to have known, but I could not have got through the crowd to find out if I had to," he responded. "You had a pretty good spot from which to look, didn't you?" counsel asked next, and Carr responded affirmatively. He was "looking to see why all of the commotion down here and why these people were running," and at the same time, defense counsel asked, wasn't he "looking up towards the Texas School Book Depository seeing three men come out from behind it?" Carr said that he was. Thus, all of this activity so far described - the gunfire, the accelerating cars, the men coming out of the TSBD and getting into a car, and a man hurrying away from the TSBD south on Houston - all took place while Carr enjoyed the vantage point of being on the staircase at the seventh floor of the new courthouse two blocks from the scene of all of this activity, all according to Carr's own testimony. We further know this because, if he had gone to ground level in the time it took between the vehicles' acceleration and the men to emerge from the TSBD or from behind it, he would not have been able to discern that activity from the street and through the remaining vehicles of the motorcade (including a tour bus) and the crowds lining the streets. That being so, the man that he must've seen through glass - whether on the fifth, six or seventh floors of the TSBD - dressed as Carr described was next seen not just 850 feet away, but seven stories below as well (someone else can figure out the hypotenuse of that triangle!). Although having been first seen through glass, Carr instantly recognized the man on the street as having been the same one he'd seen upstairs in the TSBD only seconds before, and "confirmed" in clear daylight the details he'd earlier only been able to see through the glass, and realized they were the same man although, at best, Carr could only have seen the man walking from the general vicinty of the TSBD's southeast corner since he couldn't have seen him emerge from the building. We are obliged, in evaluating this testimony, to not consider any of the previous information derived from those faked FBI reports, whether or not it dovetails with anything Carr swore to in court, since "fabricated" reports cannot, by their very nature, corroborate anything. This testimony, according to the post directly preceding this one, is the "only reliable version of Carr's story." As a final note and query, CD385 purports to be a typed report of a statement made in writing on February 3, 1964, by one Richard Randolph Carr, and witnessed on the same day by Special Agent Paul L. Scott. If that is so - that Carr wrote out a statement which he gave to the FBI - will that be deemed also "reliable" since it is in his own hand, or shall it be deemed to have been "coerced?" (One wonders why the FBI would have him write a statement and then tell him to "keep his mouth shut" afterward. But of course, despite the fact that he swore to have seen something that it was impossible for him to have seen from where he was - or claimed to have been - we know it to be true that the FBI did tell him to "keep his mouth shut" because he so stated under oath in a court of law.) The question that is left, then, based on the things that Carr didn't know that are verifiable - how many cars were in the plaza as part of the parade, for example - and his testimony about seeing things he couldn't have seen, is whether or not Richard Randolph Carr was even anywhere near Dealey Plaza at the time of his shooting.

Could be, Jack. (grin) If I recall the story correctly, it was Dave Murph at TCU who learned where Frazier was then living in Irving, and asked Perry to come along for "moral support" in meeting this mysterious, possibly reclusive, Buell Wesley Frazier, who for all Murph knew might've taken pot shots at him inasmuch as there are stories of other witnesses doing the same. Grapevine is no more "near an important Oswald witness" than anywhere else is in the DFW area, or no nearer or farther from other important witnesses to Oswald or anything else that took place in Dallas and who still live in the area. You don't live much farther away; does that have any significance? You live pretty close to John Thomas Masen, as well as to the "David Atlee Phillips under arrest in Fort Worth," Ken Wilson, who is a cousin of a guy who was arrested as what we might now call "an Oswald double." Both might be called, to one extent or another, "important Oswald witnesses" also. Do you attach any importance to that? Why haven't you told this to people, who might want to know your connection to them, or if there is one? Don't you also know Jim Marrs who, outside of Crossfire also apparently believes (if his travels on the circuit are any indication) that aliens visit Earth and abduct people: how does that affect your credibility, if at all? I can't and won't defend any question of "pilfering," but I do know that many documents were available to the press at the Ricky White press conference, and that Perry dug up many more independently of the AIC that disproved Ricky's trashing of his father's name. If Perry "leaked" those to the press, then I say "more power to him!" Weren't you also suspicious of someone who knew Perry and Mack, who was likewise then a "flash in the pan" upon whose departure from Dallas to Fairfax, Virginia, almost immediately preceded Mack's curatorship at the Sixth Floor Museum? A "coincidence" that Fairfax is in close proximity to McLean/Langley and Mack got his "reward," yet that person has to pay the same $13.50 as everyone else to go upstairs at the old TSBD to this day? Sometimes "coincidences" are simply how we explain things that have no connection!

Yes, it seems that way, but it's not so ... or not totally so. Yes, he could see the upper floors of the TSBD over the tree: here's a picture from the 7th floor southeast window of the TSBD showing the new courthouse building that was then under construction: This image is taken from the southeast corner window and shows a good portion of the west wall, which at that time was open, not enclosed like it is today, and on which the stairway was (possibly even extending from the outside wall? We'll allow for that given that a four- or five-foot wide addition isn't going to affect the view by very much). From a couple of windows west of this view, you can see all of the upper floor of the "wide" section of the construction, so if that's the seventh floor of the new courthouse, then there is no question that the window this picture was taken from - and those to the west - could be seen by someone over there. As to floors below this, I cannot say with certainty. Carr's original statement - which Wim has discounted and which I'll therefore lay aside for the moment - said that he saw the man in a window on the top floor, which is the 7th; he said it was the 5th floor in his Shaw testimony, but the public doesn't have access to that floor these days, so I couldn't tell you for certain if he could've seen that floor or not. As to the Latins and the station wagon, we'll get to that later.

I see your point from the blurry picture: it looks in this like the floors below the top five extend farther out, but the aerial photos belie that. Also, it doesn't make sense to erect a frame on which to place boards you can walk on when the frame to put the boards on already exists with the building girders themselves ... which is a heckuva lot more stable than scaffolding. There is also no need to access the "outside" of a building that doesn't have an outside yet! (Just go see any large building near you that's currently under construction.) Ok, test done. From the distance I can make out some details of people walking. Those that approach and come closer to me, allow me to make note of far more details, such as the type of clothes and glasses they wear. I suspect this is what happened to Carr. A person in a window of the TSBD caught his attention. He was able to see some vague details of this person (same as in my experiment). Moments later he saw what he thought the same man moving at a rapid pace. Since at this point there was no window obstructing Carr's view and as the distance was now shorter, he was able to make out some more specific details such as the felt hat, tanned sports coat and heavy rimmed glasses. Of course Carr could have been mistaken in that the man he had observed in the TSBD window, wasn't necessarily the same man he observed moments later moving in the street. However, I do find it less likely. Why? Well, a murder took place in that area, one that wasn't properly investigated. Therefore just about all we have is witness statements, and it just is the less likely alternative. Wow, did you do it right where I suggested? From half-way around the world, no less! Damn! Hold on just a sec, let me look at the satellite photo to see if I can see you!! (kidding) OK, if I understand what you've said correctly, when you saw someone from those two blocks away (hey, wait, isn't it perpetually dark there these days?!?), you could make out some details which became clearer as they approached, such that if you maybe thought they were wearing glasses in the distance, it was confirmed (or not) as they got closer ... and that the same may have been the case with Carr: he thought he saw something at a distance on this guy in the window that, when he saw the man or "a" man nearer by, the latter observation provided the details he might not have seen from afar; is that right? If so, I'll buy that explanation ... with the qualification that Carr could not have associated the two(?) men other than by dress ... unlike your noticing someone two blocks away, then a block away, then 25 feet away; that is, an association based upon that person approaching you continually. But hold that thought. According to everything Carr said, he was unaware of there having been a murder, and he certainly didn't know at the time that it wouldn't be properly investigated. To the extent that he might've realized that "something was wrong, but didn't know what," one wonders that he didn't stick around to make sure the police investigators were aware of the important things he'd observed, and never made contact with any such investigators until long after the assassination, and that by their initiative and not his. Sorry, as you may have guessed, I can't tell apart the nationality of the passers by. However, in a few cases the race of the individuals can be distinguished quite clearly. Those of African origin do stand out, I have to say.In general, I don't disagree, but at a distance, a black man is "dark complected" as well, and Latins (Mexicans, Cubans, what-have-you ... killing words in some parts of Dallas!), like blacks, vary in their degrees of darkness. Look at Barack Obama or Colin Powell, for example: if you weren't close enough to see the details of their faces, could they not as easily be mistaken as a Latin due to their lighter shading? Likewise, I've seen Mexicans who are so dark that I'd thought they were black till we'd gotten much closer. ... Point being that a "dark complected" person need not be "Negro," but likewise to say that they were Latino can only be a guess. But we'll see soon enough that the distinction doesn't matter in this instance. Well, Wim seems to believe that there is only one version of Carr's story - the one he told on the stand in N'Orleans - and the rest is bullhooey concocted by the FBI to somehow discredit him. I'm going to go along with him and analyze Carr's full testimony in that case and let the cards fall where they may. If Carr is still alive - he fought in WWII, so he's at least "older" now - I'll see if I can't manage to get ahold of him and see what he has to say.

Now you're misquoting me and Aynesworth.Aynesworth wrote, "A few minutes later, Mr. Frazier and Oswald headed for the book depository, where they were to report at 8 a.m." This specifically indicates they were "to report" at a particular time. This isn't merely a turn of phrase. It is a misleading statement. Had Either man needed to report to anyone upon entering the building, the concealment of any long parcels world have been difficult to say the least. The record actually indicates most of the workers could have gotten away with turning up late, leaving early, spending the day shooting or the breeze, or even disappearing for short periods. Your problem here, Greg, is that you're not American. It is a "turn of phrase," a colloquialism, whatever you want to call it. "Reporting" to work does not mean that one must "report to" someone on arrival, only that they need to be there. I "report to" work every day, but I neither punch a clock or tell anyone I'm there.If, however, you wish it to be a "misleading statement," you're certainly free to feel misled. An American wouldn't be (although one is bound to chime in contrarily!). Part of the difficulty some people have is that of preconceived notions. You've decided, for example, that there's something suspicious about Frazier having taken his lunch (and eaten his lunch) in the basement. I could ask him what was behind that, and - if he remembers this minor detail (no matter how major it is to you) - no matter what he answers, since he "has something to hide," his answer will not satisfy because he's "obviously" still hiding whatever it is you think he's hiding. The only "good" answer will be something that's seemingly worth hiding (e.g., "well, Lee told me on the way in that 'something big' was going to happen at noontime today and that I should make myself scarce. I figured that the basement was as good a place as any. I didn't want to tell anyone that for fear of seeming like I was a part of the conspiracy").

Ah, so the FBI was able, in February 1964, to report witnesses' statements according to whether the WC, which had only just formed its staff in late January, would or would not call witnesses? It think you give them more credit than they deserve.

You'll forgive me, I hope, for noting that, as hard as I look at any of the aerials, there is no evidence of scaffolding (except perhaps the blurry frame from Hughes, which is only interpretation). Would you be so kind as to point it out to me?Also, please explain why scaffolding would even be necessary or desirable on a building that is nowhere near completion; why, in essence, would someone put a small aluminum or thin steel frame around an empty building frame made of much large I-beams? The only purpose I'm aware of for scaffolding is to be able to walk around where it is not possible otherwise to. Why would people either need or want to walk around the outside of a building that doesn't even have much inside yet? What did they need to access outside of the structure? 275 yards, wasn't it? 850 feet? Something like that.Let's do something: since you're in or near Helsinki, there appears to be a couple of intersections in what I guess is "downtown," the streets of Etalaesplanadi and Mannerheimintie and Kalevankatu. The distance along Mannerheimintie from Etalaesplanadi to Kalevankatu appears to be 815 feet, east corner to east corner (they all run at the diagonal; the distance is about 35 feet less than what Carr claims to have seen). I cannot tell how busy the streets are, but if you were to stand at one intersection, can you tell me if you can recognize glasses on people that far away? If they are horn-rimmed glasses or metal frames, or if they're sunglasses? If the earpieces are large or small. How well can you make out colors? If you can, we will presume Carr could have. If not ...? And there's more of the problem with this "reliable" evidence!According to Carr's testimony - the printed version by Dietrich & Pickett, Inc. - he says that three men emerged from the TSBD, two of them got into the Rambler station wagon that drove away northbound on Houston, and that this man walked to Commerce and turned toward town; he does not mention the man getting into any Rambler in his testimony, nor anything about what the man did after turning toward town on Commerce! Furthermore, in his testimony, Carr never discusses his having gone to street level, only the other three men having done so, and only one of them - the one he claims to have been able to see 275 yards away in the window - walked on the street. The others, as I've already said, sped north on Houston, which was closed and barricaded just north of the TSBD. They couldn't go anywhere! Now, let's get back to this "reliable" testimony: "The FBI" was not unknown to the average "man on the street" in 1963: leaving aside all the stuff about the Chicago hoodlums and "the Untouchables," there were plenty of TV programs, etc., that depicted the vaunted FBI agent. None of them depicted men in tan sports coats. They wore dark suits, white shirts, ties and hats; they did not wear tan. But okay, Carr didn't watch TV, didn't follow any of that, and wouldn't have known.From 850 feet away, he saw men who were "dark complected," could not(?) have been Negro, but were "Latin." This means that he could have seen the details of their faces as well, to be able to differentiate between a black man and a Latino, doesn't it? We'll leave aside the fact that he originally said that the man driving the car was "a young negro man," and the fact that the trial was taking place in New Orleans with a district attorney who could potentially place his suspect with Latinos (and where there were plenty of Cubans as well): while you're out there at Mannerheimintie and Kalevankatu, please let me know how many Danes and Swedes - as differentiated from Finns - you see down there at Etalaesplanadi. We will also ignore the fact that the man in the window (5th floor in his testimony, "top floor" in his earlier statements) did one thing in his testimony and another in his statements, just like the Rambler did (sped away on a closed street that was under construction vs. picked up the man who'd walked to Commerce). And, oh, did you notice in his testimony that he'd specified that the man he'd seen was on the "fifth floor, third window from Houston?" My guess is that he was using Bonnie Ray Williams and Hank Norman as camouflage since "immediately before the shooting" it was they who were there and not some white guy in a sports coat. But, oh, nevermind. I forgot that the FBI doctored everything, got people to lie, fake photographs taken, substituted testimony (except Carr's in the Shaw trial), made up statements, forced people to write things, forged them and so on. I find myself more and more thinking that that must be possible rather than that someone is telling us a few mistruths about what he did and saw. When I return, we'll see why it is impossible for Carr to have seen what he claims to have seen. Note the verb: "see."

A convenient catch-all line of bull that's only designed or intended to slough off contradictory evidence: whatever you say is true because anything that contradicts what you have to say has been fabricated.Ummm ... how is it that you're so sure the New Orleans transcripts haven't been faked since everything else has been? I mean besides the fact that they fit your hypothesis?

Well, Wim, one is certainly a distortion of the other, there's no doubt about that.I will have to try to get the original, presumably handwritten statement given to the FBI in February by Carr. Presuming its availability, let me ask you: if it is indeed handwritten over Carr's signature, and reads exactly as the February 14 report states, would you postulate that the Feebs sat him down, put a pen in his hand and told him exactly what to write? And he did as ordered? There have been plenty of instances where people have said that authorities ignored them, said that they "didn't" hear or see what they thought ("if you didn't hear three shots, your information is wrong"), or misinterpreted or misreported what they'd said, but I can't recall a single instance where anyone claimed to have been forced to write something that was patently opposite of what they believed, or who claimed that the anyone forged a statement that they did not make ("that's not my handwriting!"). Will you claim Carr as the first? Your exchange below is not based on the actual documents I've cited, Wim; they're based on the synopsis I wrote previously, and only on the initial, second-hand report made by FBI agents and not that submitted by Carr himself. You have also ignored - and probably will continue to do so - the fact that there was nowhere to go on Houston Street in a northerly direction from the TSBD. It was physically impossible for any car to have sped off that way without first breaking through barriers, being seen doing it and leaving debris behind, and then gone bouncing over a torn-up roadway that was itself littered with broken road debris. Funny he missed that, and that Richard Romack missed him. This minor little detail invalidates his story, which seems to have "improved with age." I agree with Antti regarding the reliability of his Shaw testimony ... when it stands alone, and there is nothing that might contradict it. When, after the testimony is given, we find a contradictory and contemporaneous document signed by him that contravenes that testimony, I begin to rightly question that reliability. As to personal gain: fifteen minutes of fame on the stand, going down in history as an "important but ignored witness" (even if he wasn't ignored!), a free trip to The Big Easy? This guy found jobs where he could and lived in a trailer park; how many opportunities as this often presented themselves? The fact that he claims to have gone downtown to search for a job, went to a jobsite, found out where the foreman was, didn't talk with the foreman either before going to Dealey Plaza or after, then simply went home without ever accomplishing his stated purpose for being there in the first place, makes me wonder if he was ever really downtown in the first place. Roger Craig's Rambler was green, by the way, not gray. Carr did mention the color in his statement to the FBI if not in his testimony. That's hardly corroboration, any more than the cars that Lee Bowers described "corroborated" the three different - and different-colored - cars that Ed Hoffman claims to have seen. As I'd suggested, review the testimonies of Pop Rackley and Richard Romack, and then tell me all about the testimony the FBI and WC changed in order to discredit this particular individual's future claims. I'm all ears.

A wise choice. On reflection, I think the only reason he was able to get away with this testimony - or to be more generous, the only reason it was not challenged by opposing counsel - is that the Commission Documents hadn't been released and nobody knew what was in them. He could've said that he'd contacted the FBI and they refused to talk with him and it would've been unverifiable and all that much more dramatic. Keeping his mouth shut "like he was told" was a deft touch, tho'. Conversely, one would have to believe that the FBI covered its butt by first creating a report from a person who didn't exist in order to have a reason in the first place to contact Carr. Why not just say he called them himself? His word against theirs, after all, so why fabricate someone whose existence might be questioned or who might be found? ... And then put together such a pitiable story that he brought his wife and kids to the hospital and left them there, went to apply for a job but didn't talk to the foreman he'd gone to see (after walking up six flights of stairs!), and got so distracted by what he thought were backfires that he left the jobsite without talking to the foreman and didn't bother returning to talk to him again later! ... And finally, burying all of this fabricated "evidence" in a file they never expected anyone to see in the first place for the next 75 years. An exercise in futility or incredible foreplanning; which might it be? I actually was leaning toward believing the guy until I got your message and read the (partial) testimony. When I've got time, I'll see what else got left behind. I wouldn't stake my reputation on this guy, tho', if I were you, Wim. I can't confirm or deny any role - including that of Devil's Advocate - in the beatification of Mother Teresa under threat of excommunication. Sorry. Nice fishing trip, tho'!

I gave you the citations, Wim: CD 329 and CD 385. Unless you think Rex Bradford is also "part of the conspiracy," I'll consider what's on History Matters and Mary Ferrell to be legitimate copies of the actual documents. Go ahead and look them up. His testimony from the 1967 Garrison deal - at least, as much of it as you'd originally posted before putting in the link to your site - is diametrically opposed to what he told the FBI in early 1964. Go ahead and re-post it and let other people make the comparison; it's not copyrighted material, after all. Better yet, I will, below. The simple fact is that one of the two sources is lying, misremembering or misreporting: it's either the FBI or Mr. Carr. I'll give you one more bit of errata: in his Shaw trial testimony, he said that the Rambler was parked next to the TSBD, on the "wrong" side of the street and facing the wrong direction (i.e., northbound on a southbound-only street ... which makes either side of the street the "wrong" side!). I have already shown that, as high up as Carr claimed to go (six floors in 1964, seven in 1967, and neither, apparently, to the ninth to talk with the foreman), he could not have seen Houston Street in the vicinity of the TSBD. The intervening buildings haven't changed, so neither has the view. (I took the picture, so I'm satisfied that it's accurate. I also looked back from the "museum" section of the building - the old loading dock area - and the view wasn't much changed; you'll just have to take my word for that or go look for yourself. The man simply could not have seen that portion of the street from where he claimed to be.) Furthermore, after his 1967-version Rambler took off going north on southbound Houston, did you know that he had nowhere to go? That's right, he took off northward, hit the construction barricades and vanished, poof, just like that ... because that was his only option. You might also wish to review the testimony of "Pop" Rackley and James Romack in the 6th WC Hearings volume, witnesses on Houston Street behind the TSBD and compare it below. Yes, someone had a colored version of the truth. The question is whether it was Mr. Carr or other witnesses and the FBI. And try not to forget: what he claims to have seen was three football fields' length away from him. Would you care to attest to the superior power of his vision, even with glasses? I also told you that of what I'd read so far, it was baloney, so don't give me this "you didn't even read it, Duke" crap. This is really pretty amazing tripe coming from a guy who writes his own Wikipedia entry and then cites it to prove that what he wrote isn't "just his own opinion." This is not Dave Perry's website and I'm not Dave Perry, so don't play those silly "nibbling around the edges" games with me, with a constant stream of objections when your first ones are obliterated, thus proving that they're all valid because you always had a new one and didn't outright agree the others had been demolished. I don't have the time and won't play with you. On the whole, both sets of statements are incompatible. One is full of "facts" that are demonstrably not facts. I will tend to rely on those statements that are not demonstrably false. If there are some weak spots in there, so be it, but there are fewer in the FBI's reports than Carr's sworn testimony. I feel sorry for people like him who so desperately need the attention. Pity defense counsel wasn't ready for him with his then-unpublished statements, cuz he, like William Whaley, would've been "taken apart." If you feel otherwise, please feel free to defend each of his later statements vis-a-vis his earlier ones.

Gosh, what can I say, Wim? The FBI obviously lied three times. I cited the docs, even if everything wasn't a direct quote, just as I said it wasn't. One citation of a "Negro" was the second-hand report from Mary Sue Brown, in which she advised that "Carr told them that there was a Negro man with a gray-colored car waiting for this individual after the assassination." The rest of the sentence you quoted above is also from Mrs. Brown's second-hand statement. The other is a quoted, presumably hand-written statement purportedly signed by Carr, which states that "the station wagon, which had Texas license and was driven by a young negro [sic] man, drove off in a northerly direction. Deal with it ... but thanks for the additional information. I'll dissect the obvious bull later, but three things jump out at me just from cursory reading: 1) He was on the seventh floor in his 1967 testimony, the sixth in his 1964 statement, when he looked over to the TSBD; 2) In 1967, he heard one shot followed by two more; in 1967, he heard one shot followed by three more; and 3) In 1967, he added the detail of "large ear-pieces," which he could not only see 275 yards away, but behind the guy's ears as well. Besides the "obvious" claim of the FBI mis-reporting, what other explanation do you have for this? Do you swallow everything whole, without even chewing on it, before regurgitating it as god-given fact?

I've expanded on this whole Carr thing in a new thread, "Richard Randolph Carr: The end of the story?" which you can jump to using the "arrow" link below:

Under the thread "11-22-63 aerial of Dealey Plaza," I posted the following: Robin Unger posted this frame from the Hughes film as well, showing a different perspective of the new courthouse building under construction: I wanted to clarify some points after viewing reports on this question (CDs 321 and 385, available on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site). Carr's observations first came to light on December 27, 1963, after the sister (Mary Sue Brown) of a friend of Carr and his wife's (Elsie Johnson) reported her recollection of a conversation held between them and a fifth party, Holly Jordon (possibly in conjunction with a holiday visit?). Carr had opined during this conversation that Lee Oswald had not shot Kennedy. There are some inconsistencies in this report and future ones, so I'll hit the highlights of Mrs. Brown's report to the FBI (all should be noted excerpts and that they are "according to Mrs. Brown"); the FBI report was written on January 8, 1964: Carr was making an application for a job at a building which was under construction near the court house. He was about five hundred yards from the place where the President was assassinated and he had seen the individual who fired the gun from the TSBD and that it was not Oswald. The individual wore a hat, horn-rimmed glasses, and was of athletic build. There was a Negro man with a gray-colored car waiting for this individual after the assassination, and the man who did the shooting got into this gray car. There were four or five other steel workers on the building who likewise saw the assassination. Carr was sober when he told the story, and did not seem to be a braggart or to be joking when he told the story. Naturally, the FBI wanted to know more, so contacted Carr and interviewed him on January 4, 1964, eight days after Mrs. Brown had been interviewed (they might've wanted to know more, but weren't in a hurry to learn it, apparently. The report of the interview was written up on January 14). In this report, Carr is said to have given the following information (once again excerpted, direct quotes so noted): He had taken his wife and child to Parkland Hospital and left them there at about 11:30; he went downtown in search of work. The new courthouse was being built, so he went there and was informed that the foreman was on the ninth floor, so Carr began walking up the steel stairway. He had reached "approximately the sixth floor" of the building when he happened to look toward the TSBD and saw a white male, wearing a hat, a tan sportcoat, and wearing glasses, looking out of the top floor window of the TSBD. "A few minutes later," he heard sounds that he thought were backfires and looked toward the triple underpass, where he noticed people "falling to the ground." He advised that he "did not look at the TSBD again and immediately proceeded down the staircase with the intention of going over to the triple underpass to see what had happened." Once on the ground, he proceeded to Houston and Commerce at which time he "observed an individual who he believed to be the person he saw earlier on the top floor of the TSBD building." He did not walk over to the triple underpass area because of the large crowd there. He also noted that "from his position on the steel structure of the new court house building, it would have been impossible for him to observe the lower floors and entrance to the TSBD," and that he could only see "the top floor and roof of the TSBD" and the grounds around the underpass. He "denied making any statement to the effect" of seeing anyone fire a gun, and likewise "denied observing anyone leaving the entrance of the TSBD and getting into a gray car." Some points of note in this summary: although it's difficult to make out the number of floors with the bare girders, it appears from present-day images that there are nine floors to the "main" or lower part of the building, and three more in the narrower, upper part of the building. It appears from the aerial that the staircase was outside the west wall of the building, which is of course impossible to duplicate exactly today, and if it was inside, it's likewise impossible to view from given that there are no windows to look out from. So if ever we hear that someone "looked from where Carr was," it can't be so. Coupled with the image above (taken from Elm & Houston) and using Google Maps' "Street View," the images below are "shots" from about the middle of Elm Street toward the new courthouse building, the top one from a point about even with the southwest corner of the TSBD and the bottom one about even with where the Newmans had dropped to the ground, we can extrapolate the area that would have been visible from Carr's location on the side of the building; ground level farther east toward Houston would've been obscured by trees even if the angle is otherwise okay. We can see both the sixth and ninth floor areas of the new courthouse building from this area (he upper shot below may or may not have been partially obscured by a tree, as it is today, depending upon how tall the tree was 45 years ago). One question that's hard to discern - at least thus far - is on what floor Carr had been. He said he was at "approximately the sixth floor" when he noticed the "roof and top floor" of the TSBD where he'd seen the man in the hat, and "a few minutes later" heard the reports and saw people falling, whereupon he "immediately" went back down the stairs. Had he reached the ninth floor in this "few minutes?" Had he found the foreman? Was Carr still looking for him? Had they already met and Carr found out that no work was available? It's a curiosity if he'd climbed up that far in search of work and went back down simply on account of hearing backfires and seeing people hit the ground without finding out if work was available; he did not mention in this or a subsequent report (below) having gone back to the building to complete his mission, and we will find that he wasn't aware of the shooting even after arriving at the corner of Houston & Commerce or until some time later in the afternoon. On February 3, 1964, the FBI re-interviewed Carr "to clarify information previously furnished:" He reiterated that he'd learned the foreman was on the ninth floor, clarified that the "steel stairway" was on the west side of the building, and that he'd gotten to "approximately the sixth floor" when he looked toward the TSBD and saw the man "looking out of a window of the top floor," a heavy-set man wearing a hat, tan sport coat and horn-rimmed glasses, "not in the end window next to Houston Street, but ... in the second window over from Houston Street." He "continued on up the stairway and a minute or so later" heard what he thought was a car backfire "or a firecracker." He did not think that he'd looked back toward the TSBD after hearing three reports. He reiterated that he'd "immediately proceeded down the stairway," and had walked to Houston & Commerce when he'd reached the ground. At the corner, he saw a man who he "believed was identical" with the man on the top floor of the TSBD, who was "walking very fast," proceeded south on Houston to Commerce, then east on Commerce to Record (a block away), where he "got into a 1961 or 1962 Grey Rambler Station Wagon" parked "just north" of Commerce Street. The car had Texas plates and was driven by "a young negro man," and "drove off in a northerly direction," apparently out of site behind the Old Red Courthouse. He then went back to his car [and didn't return to the new courthouse, apparently] and drove to "the residence of my brother and then to Pete Cates, All State Trailer Park, Zangs Boulevard and Clarendon Street." His "sister-in-law was watching TV and she come and told me the President had been shot and Pete Cates and I then watched TV until it was announced that the President had died." This was the first time he realized that the noises he'd heard on the new county courthouse had been gun shots. He went on to emphasize that he did not see a gun in the man's hands or in the TSBD, did not see the assassination, and didn't tell anyone he had; that his opinions about Oswald not being the shooter were based on "various statements I had heard on radio and TV concerning the assassination and how it was supposed to occurred, and various other disclaimers. All of this leaves for some confusing testimony. We might first ask what had become of Carr's wife and child at Parkland: they might have made alternate arrangements for returning home after whatever they were doing at the hospital, including by bus, since Carr was off in search of employment. It's odd, however, that Carr didn't report having actually made application for work at the new courthouse, or even of speaking with the foreman, but instead went "immediately" back downstairs after seeing the people hit the ground and, before going all the way to where this major curiosity had drawn his attention, he decided not to investigate it further because of the "large crowd" (which was not even close to "elbow-to-elbow"), even despite it having apparently distracted him from actually trying to get a job. Then, upon seeing another curiosity - the man hurrying away from a building that had no real significance to him at that point in time since he was unaware that the noises were gun shots or that the President had been shot - he then went back to his car and drove home without looking for any other employment, and certainly not returning to the new courthouse to talk to the foreman if he hadn't already. Curious. Also curious is his ability to recognize someone as far away as he was from him: according to Google Earth's "Ruler" function, the distance from where Carr was (based upon the approximate position of the steel staircase per the aerial photo) and the approximate position of the second window in from Houston Street on the TSBD was approximately 815 feet, 271 yards, or almost three football fields long, per this image: It is curious that he could not only believe that the man who passed near him on the ground was "identical to" the man he'd seen upstairs in the TSBD, but moreover to credit his ability to describe the so precisely from so far away, right down to his wearing glasses! (If glasses are two inches tall and six inches across, how big would they appear from 800 feet away? Someone else can do the math, but my guess would be less than a nanometer, relatively speaking! The hat couldn't have been much bigger.) So, while the statements I'd credited him with making weren't quite accurate (seeing someone come out of the TSBD and run to a car), we are still left with the question of the overall credibility of this man Richard Randolph Carr given all of the details that he'd provided and those he'd not provided. Anyone want to weigh in on this? Two last things: First, whether Carr could've seen "the roof and the top floor" of the TSBD from his location somewhere between the sixth and ninth floors on the southwest side of the new courts building can be readily discerned by someone shooting a photo toward the courts building from the SE 7th floor window to see what of the courts building is visible (can anyone say "hey, Gary Mack?"). Second, this post is long enough without everyone reproducing it in their posts, so how about we try to refrain from quoting the whole thing in each new post? Please?

Is it necessary to note the sardonicism intended? One certainly hopes not.

When was the motorcade made a firm plan? When did the TSBD decide it suddenly needed to fix floor boards? When it realized that the chief conspirator, an 18-year-old mastermind just out of high school, had been arranged to come to work for them. He was specifically selected because of his sister's proximity to where the Russian emigree wife of a defector to the Soviet Union had lived for a couple of weeks. And yet the move wasn't an escape. His mother and step-father also came to stay with Linnie. And Buell was so keen to stay out of his step-father's way, he visited him in hospital on Nov 22 - though poor Linnie gave the cops a bum steer on which hospital that was.This was, of course, a cover arragned by Frazier himself. So thorough was the charade that, rather than having "come to stay with Linnie," he arranged for a hospital room for the old man, paid for through off-the-books large monthly "bonuses" arranged through the TSBD (undoubtedly underpinned by "unemployment checks" arranged through the Unemployment Commission via John Connally; has anyone looked into this area of potential financing?). Frazier played a well-rehearsed role as the dutiful step-son as a ruse to explain his whereabouts after the assassination, most likely to confer with this man who, if we research it fully, we'll probably find was not his actual step-father, but a deep-cover CIA agent wearing step-dad's severed head. The woman at Linnie's house was not Mom, but a cleverly-disguised "handler" assigned by David Atlee Phillips, which explains why he was in Fort Worth that afternoon. She actually claimed to see him walking to the car and admitted she had no line of sight to see him place anything in the car.This is among the most clever subterfuges I've seen, actually. Think about it: she sees a guy coming down the street with a package in his hand, and then notices him standing in the vicinity of her brother's car (assuming she's really Frazier's sister: after all, her middle name was "Mae," wasn't it, not Frazier?); she cannot see the package any longer, by her very own admission. By this ruse, we are led to believe that Oswald, walking down the street with a package in his hand, might still have the package in his hand when he reaches the car! And by what spurious device are we led to this conclusion? Her deduction! Women don't deduce, they intuit; who do these people think they're trying to fool?But fool us they did ... and this is cleverer still: having placed the package in the designated patsy's hands, she then testifies under oath - under oath, as if putting one's hands on a Bible would have meaning for a Godless Communist! - she then estimates its length (which she couldn't have been able to judge since she couldn't see it at the closest proximity outside her window) not in accordance with the item in evidence, but shorter, in keeping with her brother's pre-arranged testimony, thus allowing them to be adjudged "mistaken" (but mistaken together!) so that the issue could never reach resolution. That accomplished, of course, numerous books followed and continue today, 45 years later, together with television specials and documentaries ad infinitum, the spawning (devil-spawning, if you ask me!) of an entire industry, proving once and for all that it was really all about money in the first place flowing to the rich and powerful. Have we considered JFK's plans on curtailing the power of the press to make money? No such reporting was required.True. The phrase "reporting to work" was coined recently to allow Aynesworth to make this claim, and surreptitiously inserted into contemporaneous dictionaries to make it appear as if this was done in 1963. This illustrates the influence the man has, or conversely, the extent to which he is privy to the inner workings of the CIA's "Lex" (short for Lexiconography) division.I, too, have some problems with Hugh's article, especially in his innate inability to accede to his subject's point of view in favor of his own: while Frazier, for example, said that he didn't believe Oswald was the shooter, the author nevertheless put Oswald in the window - not even deferentially saying "allegedly" - as if his subject really doesn't know what he's talking about, and if he does, well, he's wrong and the "freelance writer and author" is right, thus leaving the realm of "reporting" and moving into that of "editorializing." (While Enron chairman Ken Lay was convicted in a court of law but died before his appeal could be heard, he is "not guilty" and is seldom if ever referred to as such; living people - perhaps on account of potential lawsuits - who may be guilty but haven't been convicted always "allegedly" commit a crime. Oswald, however, was not convicted, but lately no longer seems to be an "alleged" killer as if his guilt is firmly and legally established. But, I guess if Marina and family don't care, why should anyone else?)

He was indeed questioned vigorously. He was almost back home when he was driven back for the polygraph. It's true that he was said to have passed this test. What Aynesworth neglects to say is that Frazier passed by saying that the bag was made of cheap crinkly material like you'd find in a five and dime. There is however, at least some reason to doubt such a test was administered and it's more than possible that a phony test was rigged to bluff a confession.This is the most important revelation in the post, so let me first congratulate Greg on obtaining the actual questions and transcript of Frazier's polygraph, along with the graphed results. I hope it will be posted here soon because I've often wondered whether the questions he was supposedly asked were those he was really asked, if he was asked questions different than was claimed that he was asked (e.g., an exchange like "Is your tee-shirt white?" "Yes." substituted to read "Did Oswald recruit you?" "No." showing a negative reaction - a truth - to the wrong question), or if positive reactions - lies - were simply shrugged off and claimed to have been negative - truthful - responses.This is a potentially important area of future study. He had already capitulated to pressure from the FBI to agree it was not cheap crinkly material, but the same paper as found in the TSBD.Exactly! Since he was guaranteed the protection of the FBI, why be "fearful for his life?" Clearly this article is propaganda, designed to elicit sympathy for this guy when obviously none is deserved. Having passed a test that was not administered but was phony and rigged nevertheless, he changed his statements that he didn't make to conform with what they'd wanted him to say if he had said anything. This guy is clever again by half! Which is a pity because he needs to clarify a few points.1) He gave various contradictory statements to officials over the years as to what his usual lunch-time habits were. If, as he claimed in one instance, he always ate in the domino room, why did he choose to eat alone in the basement that day? His likely excuse is that there were a lot of people milling around, poking into things, acting like they were investigating something, and he "found it difficult to find somewhere to eat in peace." Delving into this, we may be able to postulate that it illustrates the possibility that the two of them had spent the previous evening together and didn't think to cover that fact by at least picking something different out of the refrigerator. It's usually the little things like that, that end up unravelling the whole mystery. Amateurish at best, methinks. Once again, the devil is in the details. Most innocent people do. It's a point well taken.[continued]

For something just a little different: If you'll go back to Jack White's original post in this thread, you'll notice that there is only one building under construction around Dealey Plaza, clearly visible at the right edge of the photo Jack posted (which should appear below). That building is what became the Dallas County Government Building downtown at 600 Commerce St. This is the building on which Richard Randolph Carr had been working several floors up, from which he purportedly saw someone run from the depository and jump into a car to make good his "escape" from the TSBD. I've heard it said that Carr could not have seen such a thing occur, this from someone who had gone into the building and looked out, and said he couldn't see what Carr claimed to have seen. Well, I've tried to get into the old Post Office annex without success (emphatically without success!), so haven't felt the need to try to get into any other building that I thought would pose similar problems. Then, I had a brain drizzle. The image below was taken from the southeast corner of the TSBD looking toward the building that was under construction on November 22, 1963, the only one of sufficient height to have afforded Carr the view he claimed, and this is what there is to see: The Government Center building is the white corner that shows nestled between the turrets of the Old Red Courthouse. This is the best view of the Government building that could be obtained (closest to it south, and farthest from it west; moving north on Houston or east on Elm reduced the amount of the building that could be seen) where, from the opposite view, Carr could've seen a car (yeah, yeah, I know: punny me!) ... from which Carr could've seen an automobile, okay? You can see that Carr could only have been standing atop a very small portion of the building under construction, either on the very top girders or perhaps on the second row down, and only in a small section of the overall building; also, since the "skin" wasn't on the building, he could've been on the south side of the building looking through the uncompleted construction (it doesn't look as if any safety flooring has been laid in the aerial photo). So, in light of this, I'd have to say that it's not impossible that Carr saw what he said he saw, but qualify that by saying that it was only possible from a very small section of the building. What, then, specifically, does Carr have to say about where he was and what he saw? Folks who'll be in Dallas this week for the 45th might want to take a stroll along Houston as well to see if as much of the building or more remains visible such that he could've seen all that he'd claimed to have.

I don't think they said they did. They used a high-powered rifle, so of course, the entire head exploded. Nobody knows what kind of gun it was that fired the fatal shot from the GK. The heads were so expensive they *couldn't * have done the test a second time, it would seem. The positions of JFK and Jackie in their reenactment were far from Z312 also. Their claim that Jackie would have been killed is nonsense. She was nearly killed though; and that's why she climbed out the back of the car.It strikes me that there has been considerable controversy over the spectrographic or NAA analyses of the supposed composition of the bullet(s) and/or fragments that struck JFK, inasmuch as whether those metallic compositions were, in fact, the composition(s) of the lot of bullets from which CE399 and the fragments came from, if indeed they were from the same lot (and if not ...?).That being the case - and in consideration of the fact that, initially at least, the MC 91/38 (or /24) was described as a "high-powered rifle," which many people dispute - the question is: exactly what "high-powered rifle" should be used in recreations of a Grassy Knoll shot? It would seem that, in light of the SA/NAA tests, which latter did not apparently fall within the "exact" match of the bullets from the batch CE399, et al., were made from (but theoretically could have come from nearby batches), if we are going to be so specific, and since we want a different rifle to be used, is there anyone here (or anywhere else you can think of) who can suggest exactly what weapon, ammunition, manufacture and batch that we should use to validate the test? Let's say it was a 30.06 that did the shooting; the bullet(s) fragmented entirely upon hitting the target. How do we know it was a 30.06 since there's nothing left to give us a caliber? If we don't know the caliber, how can we know the gun? If we don't know the gun, how can we know what ammo was available, from which manufacturer(s), or its composition? If we want to be so particular as to describe the manufacturer's lot of the ammo that was supposedly used, how can we possibly be satisfied with the use of any old "high powered rifle" as long as it wasn't a Carcano? Was it an M-1 that fired the round? If we don't know, can we use an M-1 in a recreation? If we don't know what rifle - assuming even that it was a rifle! - was used, how can we begin to determine its effect upon impact, much less the composition of the bullet which absolutely must fall within the parameters of the SA/NAA tests done "back when." Should we use every "high powered rifle" available at the time, along with every type and manufacture of ammo available for each, all to arrive at ... what? Since we're not entirely sure of the result of the shots - based on autopsy matierials - how do we know what any caliber from any gun by any manufacturer under any circumstances would have or might have done? There is actually no "scientific proof" that the fatal shot was "fired from the grassy knoll," and what any of us might think there is, is disputed, hence hardly "proof." There is much less in terms of what kind of "high-powered" weapon may have fired it, and thus no way to duplicate the shot to anyone's satisfaction until that's absolutely and positively conclusively determined. As for Jackie having been "nearly killed though; and that's why she climbed out the back of the car," I think that there is nothing more than speculation to support such a claim. XP-100.My guess would be largely on account of the fact that Remington has stated that the claim is, um, hogwash, impossible on its face, didn't happen and couldn't have happened. Granted that Files is not credible, the program still used a high-powered rifle for the knoll shot, though there is no reason to suppose that the knoll shooter used a rifle, especially since the target was well within pistol-range.A hollow-point bullet from a Remington rifle causes such-and-such damage, the program tells us, but it tells us nothing about the effects of a bullet fired from a pistol. It seems to me, then, that a pistol would logically be the grassy knoll weapon. You don't have to dismantle a pistol, and it would in any case be easier to hide than a rifle.As above: what pistol? what ammo? Remember, it has to be a valid test!! On exactly what bases do we make it valid? C'mon, specifics, y'all!!! Don't gripe if someone else didn't demonstrate something to your satisfaction if you don't know just what it is that will make you satisfied! A bullet from the wrong batch of MC ammo will put us all up in arms about the invalidity of the test, so how do we determine what will satisfy everyone as to the validity of an unknown round from an unknown weapon?

XP-100.My guess would be largely on account of the fact that Remington has stated that the claim is, um, hogwash, impossible on its face, didn't happen and couldn't have happened. A brief synopsis of the reasons why, including not only Remington's remarks: Mr. Files claims (claimed?) to have fired one shot; two shells were found in DP by John Rademacher. Where'd the other one come from? The shells found were .222 caliber; the XP-100 fired .221 caliber bullets exclusively. Barrels of early XP-100s were notoriously brittle, as stated not only by Remington, but by Mr. Files as well. In spite of this brittleness, he claims that the barrel of "his" XP-100 was re-bored to accept .222 rounds. First question: why the need to re-bore? If given a "prototype" XP-100, would not ammo accompany it? Would it not be simpler to obtain .221 ammo and fire what the gun was intended to shoot? Second question: with the barrel being so brittle - to the extent, according to Mr. Files, that it would frequently "explode" - why increase the likelihood of its fracture by boring it out further, thereby increasing its brittleness? The evidence is contrary to the use of an XP-100; the only person who can "substantiate" the claim against this evidence is locked up in prison and has no "proof" but his word. If you were the producer of a television experiment that was going to have enough difficulty with evidence as it was (e.g., the position of the bodies, the origin of the shots, the nature of the wounds, all of which are arguable at best), would you compound the problem by adding a bit of unsubstantiable evidence that appears bogus based on all of the available, substantiable evidence?

.bump. Who's going, what conference, what hotel, Dealey Plaza, etc.?

I think, based upon the Couch frame and film, my placement of the motorcycle barricade has to change to somewhere farther north on the highway. From those, it seems that traffic is being allowed to exit Continental, and the men shown on the highway, while probably behind (i.e., farther north from) the barricade) suggest that it couldn't have been before the railroad bridge, where I'd placed it earlier. Similarly, it would seem as if they'd want it positioned where they could prevent someone from trying to drive around it, either by driving over a median to the Commerce Street entrance where the motorcade would come up, or by exiting at Continental and driving over the median to get back onto the main highway. (I also suspect that they'd want to keep that fellow running toward them on the highway waving his hands like he was (NOT!) and jumping into his car parked over yonder (NOT!) ... at least it doesn't appear in these images, does it!) So, the modified position might be this; does it make sense? (It also extends the total stopping distance from 0.09 miles to 0.15 miles. Not that we really need to know that anymore ...!) New placement of police motorcycle barricade based on Couch film images.