Duke Lane

Well, yes, theoretically that's what happened, but did Furhman explain in his discourse on the matter how a paper bus transfer that is torn off in 15-minute intervals was "stamped" with an exact time? Maybe if you forward a copy of this to him, he can point out where the "12:36" is. See? All one needs do is to make a bland assertion as a fact, and ouala! it becomes one. We must remember, in any case, that Furhman's evidence didn't convict OJ. Some "authority," eh? In the event that you're unfamiliar with these transfers, there is a block for each hour, so you see the "1" on the left and a "0" on the right for 1:00. Within that square (3/4 of which is torn off) and beneath the "0" is a "15" and beneath that a "30" and beneath that, a "45." Then there is a line, beneath which there is a "2" on the left, and the same sequence of numbers on the right, then a block for "3" and "4" and so on. The transfers are bound together in a pack of - I'm guessing - 50 (about 1/4" thick), each marked with the date and a list of the routes (e.g., Belmont, Forest, Harwood). The driver uses a punch to mark the route issuing the transfer, in this case Lakewood. The purpose of this is to ensure that the person getting the transfer actually transfers to a different route and doesn't use the transfer to board the same bus going either farther along the route or back in the direction he'd come from (which would require a new fare). In the morning, he also punches the "A.M." and at noon discards those and punches a new stack with the route and "P.M." The time that is shown - in this case, 1:00 - is the time of expiration, not the time that it is issued, thus this particular transfer is good to get on an intersecting route until 1:00; in actual practice, someone might be allowed to transfer as late as 1:15 depending upon the driver's generosity, but probably not afterward. The cut edge at the top is situated closest to the driver; the torn edge is created when the packet of transfers is put into a holder with a straight-edge that has springs at either end to put pressure on the packet, holding it in place to allow the driver to simply pull up and tear along the desired lines. When a sufficient number of torn tickets has amassed beneath the straight-edge making the line less distinct or the tickets harder to tear, the driver typically would readjust the packet in the holder by folding the used transfers back, placing the straight-edge directly on the next transfer to be issued. This typically also occurred when a 15-minute interval has passed, in which case the driver pulls more of the ticket out from under the straight-edge to reveal the "15" or "30" or "45" or the next hour. Since the "1" appears only once in the block, some drivers might cant the ticket so it cut from the "1" diagonally to the "45;" others might simply pull it straight out so it cut straight across and nothing would be on the left (the "1" being well above the cut) and the minutes showing on the bottom right. Since the transfers for 1:00 would necessarily be shorter than the transfer for 1:15, the driver would usually fold back the issued transfers up to that time, putting the straight-edge on the first 1:15 transfer. (Is all of this making sense?) Now here's where it gets interesting. First, there is the question of how much time Dallas Transit allowed for someone to board the bus and get onto an intersecting bus. Transfers were (and maybe still are; I don't know, I don't ride busses anymore) usually issued when the person boards the bus, only rarely afterward and only begrudgingly when they're debarking from a long ride, the object being to allow someone to travel where the initial bus doesn't go and NOT to allow them, say, to spend 45 minutes shopping before going on (and not, as already noted, to return on the same route). If Dallas Transit policy was to issue 30-minute transfers, then perhaps this transfer was issued as late as 12:30 or maybe even 12:35, but not conceivably later than that. If the driver waited until 12:45 to move it to 1:00, then it becomes only a 15-minute transfer. More likely it was moved to 1:00 prior to 12:30, giving passengers a "bonus" five minutes rather than penalizing them five minutes. If they issued 45-minute transfers, this one is a real problem. Now, nobody wants to "cancel" their transfer by tearing it to show an earlier time: why would I want to get on a bus and get a transfer that's good until, say, 3:00 and then cut it back to allow me to get on my next bus no later than 2:45? Clearly, I wouldn't, which is why the tickets are designed this way because if they were done opposite, all I'd have to do is cut the part I was given in order to have more time to do something. There is, however, nothing that would prevent someone who wanted to prove, for example, that they'd gotten directly on the bus after school and didn't go smoking with the boys in the woods for an hour before coming home, from getting a transfer at 2:30 that the driver cut at 3:00 and then tearing the transfer again to reflect an earlier time. "See, ma? I got on the bus a half-hour before 2:30! I'm late cuz I just barely missed the connecting bus, and here's the transfer to prove it: I had to pay a new fare cuz I was late, that's why I still have the transfer!" ... Or, for that matter, to prevent someone from boarding Cecil McWatters' bus at 6:00, taking a transfer good through 6:30 (or one good until 3:00 at 2:30), and then cutting it back to 1:00, and then say "hey, lookee here what I found in this boy's pocket!" Everything would be in order on the bus, nothing would be missing or out of place, cut improperly or anything; it was a transfer issued but never used. Happens all the time (it does). The only constraints would be what time McWatters got off from his first shift on the Lakewood route before returning later to drive his second route, which is what he'd been doing when he was stopped at DPD that evening. Was he in the same bus, just driving a different way? Did he still have the transfers from his earlier shift with him? Were there any un-torn transfers left over from the Lakewood shift still in a discarded pack?

Jim, thanks for the response: I was beginning to despair of anyone having any interest in this at all! My impression of McCloy is as a major "power behind the throne," although I claim nothing like the knowledge you have of the man. It was interesting to learn, for example, that while he was also a member of the WC, he was simultaneously involved with negotiating a treaty with the Soviets half-way across the world (in Berlin, as I recall; maybe a nuclear test-ban treaty?). His casual mention of having to fly to London in the morning to give a speech, only to return again later on the same day - hence his inability to commit to attending a possible WC meeting - attests to the wide-ranging influence he had, and those are but examples. I'm not sure whom in today's world we might compare him to. I'm likewise not as familiar with how he came to be selected to be a part of the Commission as I am with Hale Boggs and Dick Russell's telephonic arm-twisting sessions with LBJ (and I've always been curious about Allen Dulles' selection). Nevertheless, someone who'd held the positions that McCloy had - without ever being elected to any! - could not have NOT held a lot of sway in those conference rooms: even with the lofty (and lifetime) title of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States - above and beyond the always-tenuous titles of Congressman and Senator - Warren had to acknowledge that McCloy was in every way his equal and in many his better. (The "retired" Dulles is another thing entirely.) In any case, I don't perceive Warren as necessarily being the leader of the Commission, even despite his name being attached to it and the distinction of chairing its meetings and presiding over its hearings. I think there's little doubt that his name - or perhaps more accurately, his title - lent credibility and prestige to the Commission's work, but it certainly can't be said that he "ran" the Commission or even that he necessarily gave it any real guidance: imagine a lawyer, politician, former state attorney general, governor and sitting Supreme Court jurist - its Chief Justice - not thinking that subpoena and immunity powers might ever be needed! Where in that do you read the word "leadership" anywhere? I think, though, to reduce his role to that of simple figurehead is a mistake: he was at least the equal of most of the other men on the panel, not only in title (and some might argue that his was superior to others') but in political ability: it's not the average, run-of-the-mill schmoe who can be elected to a governorship, any more than than to senator or representative. Or, if that's not so, he was at least no less of a schmoe than the rest (McCloy and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Dulles aside). One of the things that I find particularly interesting about Warren in light of his Supreme Court standing, is the contrast between the concern and indignation over the FBI's leaking the major findings of its report on the assassination (CD 1) to the press, and his apparent frustration with Hoover's attempt to "sell" his "solution" to the public ahead of the Commission's work and the FBI's - as Senator Russell phrased it - having already "tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect," versus his obviously having already "bought" the FBI's case himself: after all, there is never any discussion in any executive session about there possibly having been anyone other than Oswald involved. One would likewise think that a judge would be more sensitive to the aspect of a defense and cross-examination, even IF the Commission wasn't a court of law. While Warren believed that they should gather ALL the pertinent facts - dissecting Oswald's youth and finances, for example - and be certain that their findings would have proper foundation, never once did he suggest that both sides of the matter be explored: putting together the "prosecution's" side of the case was apparently sufficient to establish the actual "facts." Were that true, I submit that we only think we have over-crowded jails now! But I wax eloquent (or am at least being verbose!). I see well your point even while I'm not familiar with McCloy's possible influence in those other areas of Warren's life. Mayhaps you can suggest some good light reading on The Life and Times of John McCloy? Then I might have a different perspective. Something on The Real Earl Warren might even make a good accompaniment!

Those are towels, Greg! Our sheet-wearing 'friends' have names like Bubba and Jim Bob.

THE REDLICH INCIDENT I was privileged to have received some material from another researcher in advance of its publication (details when available) regarding the attempted ouster of Norman Redlich from the WC staff. In a nutshell, here's the background and the deal: There were some questions that staff counsel apparently felt unresolved regarding the assassination site; the information and answers they had gotten to date were provided by the FBI, and Hoover was apparently upset over their not simply accepting the Bureau's (his) pronouncements. The staff wanted to spend some time at Dealey Plaza sorting out the issues themselves. Hoover was backed into a corner and didn't appreciate it. Suddenly, as if out of the blue, information surfaced that Redlich was a member of the national council of this Emergency Civil Liberties Council (ECLC). As John Simkin noted, it was classified as a "Communist front" because its charter was to "defend the cases of Communist lawbreakers." This classification was made by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) based on reports made to it by the FBI; the FBI, of course, had no hand in HUAC's reaching such a determination. Apparently, the ECLC was dedicated, at least in part, to the dissolution of the HUAC, which it believed was overstepping its bounds. Part of its mission was, in fact, to advocate for people who were unfairly charged (or smeared) by the HUAC. Well, since HUAC had determined these people to be "Communists" (sans trial, of course), then ECLC would naturally be "defending Communists." Since only Communists would defend Communists, ECLC and its members must also be Communists. And any person or organization that would subvert the HUAC - which in turn was against "un-American activities" - in any way must therefore be subversive, un-American, and Communist. It's a neat little package, don't you think? With Redlich a member - or counsel to - its "national council," clearly there was a grave security breach here, in which it might also be possible for a "leading Communist (sympathizer)" to influence the outcome of the Warren Commission's investigation, possibly laying it at the feet of not "Communist" Oswald, but ultra-conservative American patriots, of whom Director Hoover was a patron saint. Karl Mundt, who backed up Beerman in his call for Redlich's dismissal, sat on the the HUAC for several years, including as its chairman and consequently became close friends with Hoover (Cartha DeLoach reportedly characterized him as a "close friend" of Hoover's, one who "would go to the wall for him when the need arose"). The friendship - and the information exchange it brought to Mundt (he was possibly privy to at least some of Hoover's O&C files) - earned Mundt the enmity of Truman's Attorney General, who threatened any of this staff known to associate with or pass information to Mundt with being "out on their ass" (Truman himself is said to have denounced the HUAC as "most un-American thing in the country today"). Mundt served South Dakota in Congress from 1939 to 1948, when he resigned his Congressional seat to accept an appointment as Senator, an office he held until 1973; the HUAC was abolished as a standing (i.e., permanent) House committee in 1975. (Beerman served two terms in Congress from 1961-65; his 1964 re-election bid failed. One wonders if it might've been because of his failure to get "Communist" Redlich off the panel investigating "Communist" Oswald!!) While there is a great deal more source material on "the Redlich incident," quite a bit will be gleaned from a first-hand reading of the transcript of the WC Executive Session of May 19, 1964. In it, you will see that it was indeed Jerry Ford - and only Jerry Ford - who actually made the call for Redlich's dismissal, but failing to get a second from any other Commission member, the question never was put to vote. Chief Justice Warren's low-key but nevertheless exemplary defense of Redlich on the basis of due process (or lack thereof) is a must-read and might have served him and his Commission in good stead if he'd applied it to "defendant" they all gathered to "convict," for it must be said that, from the outset, the members of the Commission never once considered either that Oswald didn't do it, or that there was any cause for due process - at least to the extent it could be applied to a defendant in absentia - in his case. As may be a surprise to several, WC counsel Joseph Ball was also a focus on this "Red Scare" based on his backing of a measure to abolish the HUAC. Rankin's vouchsafe of Ball removed him from the line of fire early; it was perhaps Redlich's being "quite the crusader" that kept him in the limelight, if not the need merely to have a scapegoat to show the Commission's willingness and resolution to "deal with" these kinds of problems to insure the integrity of their investigation and report. Mundt's concern that "Who but the most gullible would believe any report if it were written in part by persons with Communist connections?" seems to have been the least actual cause for concern. After all, "Communist connections" or none, who believes it anyway?

The Redlich incident is well documented, and in reality, he got to keep his job because only Jerry Ford wanted him gone, and he could not get a second to bring his motion to vote. It would be interesting to see exactly how Ford presented the WC's decision to the floor of Congress inasmuch as, when the decision was made to keep Redlich - or some might more correctly say "failed to have been made" to get rid of him - Ford said that he'd be glad to inform Congress of the result of the WC's deliberations and that he would also be glad to add his personal, opposing opinion to the record that he'd never have hired Redlich in the first place had he known of his supposed associations, and thought he should be fired then. The other members of the Commission effectively (tried to?) shut him down by emphasizing the need for the Commission to show unanimity among themselves at all times, and not appear to have petty internal squabbles between the members. As much as Ford seems to have acceded to the will of the majority, I wonder what he really said (if anything) when he went back to Congress to tell them about the "Red" on Warren's staff. He really was something of a weasel in many of these proceedings. As to the Olney affair, it doesn't seem to have happened, in my opinion. See the thread Olney v. Rankin and see if you agree.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not convinced of this "dump Olney" business. See the thread Olney v. Rankin for details, and tell me where I've got it wrong.

It appears to me that this is not the case; see the thread Olney v. Rankin for details and correct me if I'm wrong ....

While I haven't yet read Gerald McKnight's excellent Breach of Trust, I have recently had occasion to peruse some of the executive sessions of the WC and hit on a matter that's gained some attention here. I speak of the supposed intrigue in the appointment of J. Lee Rankin over Warren Olney. Some earlier postings from other threads here: From Breach of Trust, p 42: Katzenbach and Hoover initiated a "dump Olney" campaign, for which DeLoach was the point man. The Crime Records Division resorted to the "gray art" as opposed to the "black art" of outright blackmail - of collecting tidbits of information on Olney; pitching them with the calculated derogatory spin; and in DeLoach's words, identifying a "number of sources to confidentially brief" the commissioners on why the candidate was unfit for the position. Sometimes the threat of blackmail is more effective than the actual act. I'm sure this was not lost on the members of the Commission as they witnessed what happened to Earl Warren's personal choice for chief counsel. Sorry. Michael, as much as I admire McKnight's book and research, what happened to Olney is not blackmail either. Nor is it gray mail.Blackmail would be if Olney had been appointed counsel and forced to do what he was instructed to do lest the derogatory information in his past be publicly disclosed. Or, if Olney had been asked to withdraw his name lest the information against him be made public, THAT would also be blackmail. In this case Hoover used the information he had against Olney to prevent his appointment in the first place. Hoover may have "blackballed" Olney but he clearly did not blackmail him. ... As you know from reading the book, Hoover was just incensed at what the WC was doing to the FBI. Yet, presumably, he never tried to blackmail Warren to change the direction of the WC. ... The record of the WC is bad enough. It just discredits critics of the process to add claims that are not supportable by the facts. Also: And finally: If the transcripts of the December 5 and December 6 Executive Sessions are accurate, I'm tending to have to agree with Tim's view that these are "claims that are not supportable by the facts." It was during the December 5 ES that Warren brought up the question of counsel for the Commission - after "General" Katzenbach had left the conference room (apparently, Attorneys General, like Surgeons General, are addressed in such a fashion, although they hold no military general's rank) - and his recommendation of Olney. Several pages of minutes are of Warren's recommendations for the man. During that same meeting, several of the Commissioners voice reservations - not objections, necessarily - not about Olney personally (although to some extent wondering if it was a wise idea to appoint someone so close to the Chairman as counsel), but more the wisdom of not selecting among several names, and even whether it wasn't a bad idea to have either the American Bar Association or even the FBI make suggestions. Both of those ideas were rejected, again in part to underscore the Commission's independence and authority. (Also raised during this session were the questions of both subpoena power as well as that to grant immunity to witnesses. Both were ultimately agreed upon and granted by Congress.) Prior to adjourning, the Commission agreed to set up a "subcommittee" to further consider this question, said subcommittee to meet the following morning, and the whole Commission as was present to meet again in the afternoon. On December 6, the first question discussed and resolved was that of the Commission's ability to grant immunity and issue subpoenae. In sum, it was agreed that it was better to obtain those powers at the outset rather than to have to go back to Congress to obtain them should they become necessary (on the grounds that Congress might then feel compelled to ask what information a witness was going to provide to necessitate immunity). In reality, the Commission at this point hoped that they would not be interviewing witnesses at all or only selectively, and did not actually anticipate the need for either. In my own turn of phrase, it was nevertheless felt "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." Allen Dulles had pressing matters to attend to, and announced that he'd have to leave in about 10 minutes shortly after the start of the session. At which point, about 2/3 of the way down the third double-spaced page of transcript, Warren again himself brings up Olney, suggesting that they discuss it before Dulles had to leave. Warren begins by noting that "Mr. McCloy and Mr. Dulles and Congressman Ford all had some reservations about whether he [Olney] was the great ability to do this job. I'm sure that discretion is used here, but I told them I would not want to have anyone here that would not have the full confidence of the Commission. So as far as I'm concerned the question of Mr. Olney for counsel before the Commission is closed." In the space of one day from the original suggestion by Warren, and within ten minutes of the start of the second session, and with the use of three short sentences, Warren withdrew Olney's name from consideration. Just like that. Done. "I would not want to have anyone here who would not have the full confidence of the Commission." Some "dump Olney" "campaign" spearheaded by Ford and with Hoover as antagonist and DeLoach as "point man!" There doesn't appear even the time to get one started, much less the intrigue implied by some of the above. Most of the Commissioners, on December 5, had expressed some familiarity with Olney, but few "knew who he was." He was a man Warren described as "utterly without political aspirations," someone who worked diligently in the background but made no effort to "make a name for himself" or become widely known. Some of them felt that the general counsel needed to be someone with a bit more "visibility" and media-relations prowess, someone to inspire confidence in the public if you will. On December 6, after undoubtedly "making the rounds" the previous afternoon and evening, and of course meeting prior to the Executive Session, yes, they had a "short list" of names. One of them was Leon Jaworski, Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas (and later Watergate special prosecutor), was rejected simply because he's from Texas. Others were also discussed, and the Commission reached concensus on Rankin by page 6 of the minutes, and the Chairman had completely bought into the idea - if that's the way we want to phrase it - by page 10. This sort of disproves the notion that "recently released documents show that DeLoach had a series of meetings with Ford while he was a member of the Warren Commission. They worked together in making sure that Warren Olney III did not become chief counsel of the WC," because they'd have had to have that "series" of meetings in a course of 24 hours, and it really doesn't seem as if there much need to have "worked together" to "make sure" of much of anything. Warren did not do more than field his choice's name, argue briefly for his appointment, and then withdraw it when he realized the other Commissioners weren't fully behind it. Not, apparently, much time or need for a "campaign," either. It's not a matter of record - at least, not of WC record - to whom the subcommittee members spoke with. If the "newly released documents" that have been referred to were, say, FBI memoranda or personal notes or whatnot, then it's not apparent that there was any move to "dump Olney." Of course, like I said, I don't have the book (hasn't hit Half-Price Books yet!) and I don't know what "newly released documents" that are being referred to, but here at least is a conflicting account that doesn't seem to support such a move. What is there that suggests otherwise? As to the question of Redlich: I guess this will be the subject of further reading.

Here's a photo of stuff taken from Beckley that's on the same page as a cropped version of the one Dave Greer posted (post #153476, #12 in this thread) in Curry's book. Don't know if it's got what you're looking for in it or not ....

Prior to Dallas, JFK had been in Fort Worth and had been in a motorcade (not, to my knowledge, a parade as the next day). As I recall reading, there had been some consideration in Dallas on the 21st about where the Presidential limousine would be stored, including the possibility of it being in the police garage, but eventually it was decided to be at Love Field. It strikes me, too, that there are photos of SS-100-X at Love Field before Kennedy arrived.What, then, did JFK ride in during his Fort Worth visit? SS-100-X? Another limo, similar or not? Was there thus only one limousine that LBJ could choose from? What was wrong with the one he'd ridden in as VP? With the idea of there needing to be a car available for the President at each place he visits, and it presumably needing to be there when he arrives as opposed to arriving shortly after he does (at two of the three Presidential visits I've seen, Ford and Bush 41 were both essentially whisked from the plane into the car and then off the airport tut suite, which wouldn't be possible if the car they'd been in, in a different city was still on its way. Nixon, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, actually pressed flesh before leaving), I'd presume there to have to be a small fleet of "the" Presidential limousine. Not so? I would imagine, then, similar to your close encounter at NARA, if one actually wishes to look closely at the car, one had best have a very, very good reason? Is the top still removable in its new configuration?What is the history and pedigree of Nick Ciacelli's "replica" limo? By the latter I mean, if nobody wants to discuss details of SS-100-X for "national security" reasons (or whatever), how was an "exact duplicate" made of it, or how exact is it? Unfortunately, my good friends didn't give me a heads-up that it would be in Dallas when it was, so I didn't get a chance to see it.

A most original observation on your part. You seem to always want to pick a fight with me. Did Gary Mack say something nice about me to generate this? What price civility? A bad choice of words; I'm not in the film business, so to me - like most people, I'd imagine - someone who's "portraying" someone is "playing" them. "Sitting in" works for me. Semantics and a layman's naivete to technical terms.I don't have the impression that it's a drama - more a documentary - tho' I'd imagine there will be some dramatic parts and, from what I gather, some aspects not dealing strictly with the car, per se. We'll see come November. Setting that issue aside, what became of the original limo? I seem to recall having been at the car museum - where was it, Harrah's? - in Las Vegas, and them having a car purporting to be it or a close replica (and one of Hitler's vehicles as well, if I remember correctly). With so many mint Deusenbergs - a broad collection of some pretty fancy vehicles - it's hard to imagine them having a "fake," but I wouldn't know. Working to raise my coherence level ...!

So? Problem solved, nicht wahr? Personally, I'm of a mind that - until and unless I publish something significant - whatever I write simply must carry copyright notice and be reprinted in its entirety. You can Google my name plus "Cowtown Connection" and you'll get about 10 hits in different locations for that one article. If Jerry Rose continued to sell back issues of The Third Decade, I'd have no problem with it. Since there's no financial loss to me due to its additional publication elsewhere in print, I likewise don't think I'd have a difficulty in it appearing in, say, Deep Politics Quarterly even without my advance permission (I might go nuts, however, if someone published my writings in a volume that they sold en masse, say like $5.00 apiece for Freeway Man on the grassy knoll ... like that's gonna happen!). "Cowtown" was reproduced by someone and placed here on the forum before I was even a member. Now, a few more people have read it than had before. No problemo. While I take your point (and I think the idea of charging for a PDF is more than a little ridiculous), I don't think it's anything worth fretting over much. As I said, you've accomplished your objective, end of story. Their corporate structure is of even less concern (and I have a copy of their articles of incorporation and annual filings right here in front of me), es machts nichts. Such fights need not be publicly aired. They're nobody's business and most people don't care anyway.

So your point is that while what they're doing is legal and above-board, you just don't like it? Or that it's incumbent upon people to do whatever generates the most paperwork, fees and taxes, and the least revenue? I understand your point about "rural southern churches," but because some people take extraordinary advantage of the tax code does not mean that everyone who does what makes the most fiscal sense for themselves is a scam artist. It matters not to me whether Lancer is a non-profit or for-profit corporation or of what stripe of the latter they may be. I can't imagine why it's important to anybody else unless they've been getting pressured for "tax-deductible donations," which I've never known Lancer to do (tho' any company or person can take donations!). Beyond that, who cares?

You are clearly out of your depth on this issue. It is not a fact there is stock owned by anybody simply by dint of incorporation. I have personally incorporated more than a dozen non-profit corporations, the articles thereof specifically stating that "there shall be no capital stock" in the corporation, ergo there cannot be stockholders. All but two are or were chapters of national non-profit organizations, and the form of the articles is that promulgated by the national body for use throughout the United States. It meets the approval of all 50 secretaries of state, and has for nearly 100 years.A non-profit cannot, by definition, distribute dividends because dividends are a result of profit. It is perfectly legal for it to have greater income than expense - what is generally called "profit" - but it must provide for its use in some other manner than a distribution to any it may consider stockholders. There is nothing illegal or even sinister about incorporating even a minor enterprise for any reason, and nothing underhanded about filing as a non-profit entity. "Non-profit" does not mean "charitable" as I have already noted - most trade associations are non-profit corporations - and creating a surplus ("profit") is necessary for both the survival and growth of the entity and the services it provides. In Lancer's case, where it sponsors symposia at which someone might easily be injured, incorporation is an absolute for limiting one's personal liability. If one of us went to a "November in Dallas" convention, tripped and broke our neck (ending our ability to produce an income for our family for the next many years), I for one would not want to be worried about whether I'll get to continue to live in my home - or any home - due to any liability that may be adjudged my symposium might have. (Just because it happened at hotel doesn't mean only the hotel will be sued.) All incorporation does is to establish a "legal being" - a corpus, or body - with the same standing as an individual. Only it can be sued to the limit of its ability to pay, the directors not being personally liable unless through a direct act in their official capacities as directors (e.g., company truck runs over someone crossing the street and kills them; directors aren't personally liable for damages unless they'd formulated a company policy that stated that company trucks shall not stop for pedestrians). You're creating a tempest in a teapot.

Clearly not a fan of the Fourth of July, eh? Just what do you call those bright little yellow-red-white thingies that go off in several directions when the powder inside a firecracker is released hot into the air? And if said firecracker is thrown to the street where it then explodes with those little thingies going in all directions when it hits the ground is called ... striking the ground? And those thingies are ... sparks? Roget and Webster would be so proud of you! Not that I'm suggesting that any firecrackers were involved, but one must nevertheless wonder what she saw (not "strike" but) "hit" the pavement and cause those little thingies. (Where'd you get that "striking the street" quote anyway?) Of course, there's no "hard evidence" of such an occurrence, so clearly, it didn't happen and she's mistaken. I remember they dug up the street and tested it for metallic traces, just like they did the curb right away. Oh, and the windshield, too (how could I forget?).

I guess we will see.If I recall correctly, the "White House Garage (simulated to look like)" was at Executive (formerly Redbird) Airport. I cannot imagine how there could be any "experiment regarding the firing of Z-313 from ... two different locations" if, as you say "nobody will be portraying any historical figures," since I am reasonably confident that JFK and Jackie didn't show up for the filming, as I am most of the other "historical figures" did not either, most - of course - being dead ... and Nellie not being quite up to it. So, if there is any footage of, say, a shot from the south knoll, then that perspective could ONLY have been shot with peope "portraying ... historical figures." You can check to see if the limo went to Dallas. Ask who was in the passenger seat, who "played" Kellerman, and who also drove it. My "speculations" are not "way off." They rarely are. I think there is no reason for you to suggest that they are just because you don't know me and clearly don't consider my expertise on par with your own. FWIW, I share your concerns.

Are we destined to be at odds? I can think of no good reason why. You can apprise me otherwise privately if you wish.Some people think that anything to do with this topic should be done purely from the goodness of their hearts. Authors, I suppose, should donate the proceeds from sales to ... somewhere, doesn't matter, so long as they don't keep it, I guess. If they can do this full-time and not take a penny for it, so much the better. Making a profit is essential for any business, even a "non-profit" business which, when it spends more than it takes in, goes out of business. A non-profit cannot expand its services if it does not make more than it expends. The term "profit" as relates to IRS regulations concerning for-profit and non-profit corporations deals strictly with how the money is accounted for after it's been made. I'm a director of three NPOs and I will tell you for a fact, all strive to make a "profit." I personally hope that Debra and company are at least breaking even, and if they're making a living off of it, more power to them. Groceries aren't getting any cheaper, and last I knew, we all eat them.

It really doesn't matter one way or the other. "Non-profit" does not mean that a company can't make a "profit," only that the money has to be spent in furtherance of the organization's goals or, what's not spent, is allocated for some future use, which use can be changed in the future. While it is true that a "surplus" - the term used by non-profit corporations for "profit" - can be used to pay officers' and directors' salaries, it can likewise be used to hire additional workers, etc., as long as it's "in furtherance of" the organization's goals. Salaries are reported in exactly the same way with exactly the same taxes, etc., accruing against them as a for-profit organization. Non-profits typically do not have shareholders, or if they do, the shares have no par value and in either case, nobody receives dividends arising from a surplus. There are several types of 501.c non-profit organizations; not all are charities (specifically 501.c.3) or churches (501.c.1), and not all are tax-exempt and contributions to many of them (e.g., 501.c.8 fraternal organizations) are not tax-deductible, and in many cases are not fully tax-deductible (e.g., you pay to attend a concert at a church-sponsored function; the value of what you receive - entertainment - is not deductible). So, whether Lancer is non-profit or for-profit matters little as long as /a/ their operation is legal under the tax code, and /b/ they are not claiming that money sent to them is (or even may be) tax-deductible. Es machts nichts.

Aye, indeed! What Kathy said, begosh 'n' begorrah ...!

Ouch! That was unnecessary.I'd have to guess that I was talking about the article you provided a link to the article "Replica JFK Limo comes to State Fair" in the Eden Prairie News online. The show, I'm thinking, is the one referred to at the end of the article, in the sentence reading "McElwain-Brown was also interviewed at the Henry Ford Museum for an upcoming Discovery Channel program set to air on Nov. 4." The sky is yellow and the sun is blue. Roy Kellerman is portrayed by a Dallas-area researcher.

Reading the article, I'd have to say, yes, that's the same show that my friend "Roy Kellerman" will be in!

Quoting three, four, then five lengthy posts merely to call out one sentence of the last one is a terrible waste of space. Most can remember what was said in the post above what they're reading. My pet peeve having been walked .... What we're looking at is the tail end of a Carcano bullet sans lead core. It weighs about 21 grains, and was found in the front seat area of the limo by the USSS on Friday night and turned over to the FBI. It's about 1/8th of the bullet. What seems to be lacking here is any kind of flattening that would suggest that it caused the dent; the forward end isn't "mushroomed," but more "torn." No dispute about it being a Carcano bullet; the question is if it is either proved or inferred to have been what caused the dent, which is fairly substantial. My vote is for inferred unless there's an analysis of the dent that shows the same composition of metal on it. My recollection is that there is testimony or a report to the effect that the windshield-frame damage had occurred elsewhere, and that therefore it was not tested for this purpose. It is true, though, that both things can't be true: the damage "caused by Q-3" (aka CE569) could not have been there before the shooting. If there is license to infer that 569 caused the dent, but if those responsible for the vehicle say that the dent was already there, there likewise is license to infer that, if there was no damage at Love Field and there was at Parkland, then either /a/ those responsible are mistaken about it being there already, or /b/ that something other than a Carcano bullet struck the frame. Clearly, inference is not proof in either case. But disproving an inference cannot be done by making a different inference. Incidentally, Frazier said that they could not state that any of the fragments were from one or more slugs: "they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets," he testified. Not even a percentage of likelihood that they were parts of the same bullet came from his lips. Simple point: there is no proof as to the cause and origin of the dent, whether by a Carcano bullet or something completely different. No proof, therefore, of a "full velocity" round. Try as anyone might to suggest otherwise, it remains ambiguous if only because what "the" or "a" bullet supposedly hit was not tested to find out what hit it. But at least we agree that it probably occurred during the shooting sequence.

I'm beginning to think this thread is a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society. Happy to flick off those pesky little gnats with sardonic asides as with not responding to those which are perhaps a tad more challenging and continuing with sweeping generalities. If, as noted before, there was no dent in the windshield frame at Love Field, and there was one at Parkland, then I guess one of those "full velocity" "silent bullets" that "made no noise whatsoever" must've done it. Unless there's another solution? And how do we know there was "no noise whatsoever?" The acoustics analysis, for whatever weight you might give it, did not attempt to analyze where any impulses there may have been had emanated from - whether the TSBD or elsewhere, or anywhere in particular from the TSBD - so to say that a noise that was not analyzed did not come from any particular location is, again, a fallacy. "I heard a noise but don't know where it came from, so that fallen tree over there didn't make it." Hullo?!? Still haven't heard back on the question of how you know any "full velocity" round was involved since, presumably lacking evidence of that what kind of round it may have been, we don't know what its full velocity was. You're offering presumptions as proof and derision to create doubt. If this is a crusade, I fear it's failing miserably.

How can we leave that aside? That's part of the whole question we're looking into in this thread. Isn't it?I guess from your comments that we can leave that aside because 1. there's no good evidence of Oswald practicing anywhere with the M-C 2. there's no good evidence he ever had the rifle at Paine's or on Beckley 3. there's no good evidence he brought the M-C to TSBD on 11/22/63 or any other time. So you're saying Oswald never had an M-C rifle on the 6th floor of TSBD to begin with, so the whole "how did Oswald get bullets" question is totally irrelevant? I guess that is the gist of it, isn't it? No GSR on his face as would be expected of firing a rifle. No prints on the rifle except a palm print on a part that is inaccessible during the firing of the rifle. Nobody who saw him on the sixth floor near the time of the shooting (and trust me on this: there was at least one other person on the sixth floor within five minutes of the shooting, possibly within as little as two) or on that floor with a package of any sort at any time. Nobody saw him bring any package into the building. Buell Frazier and his sister both described a package that was not at all consistent with that "found" on the scene (as if that could be proved). Almost certainly no rifle at Beckley, hardly proved there was one at the Paines' (and anyway, neither Marina nor Ruth put him in the garage ... and don't start with the "blanket fibers in the bag" argument - see photo below of evidence turned over to the FBI by DPD and tell me how that might've happened!). Items are #7 "A paper bag probably constructed from wrapping paper and tape at the TSBD," and #10 "Oswald's green and brown blanket from the Paine's [sic] garage in Irving. From Jesse Curry's Personal Assassination File, pages 88-89 Photo attribution to "Dallas Police Department" No sixth floor, no rifle, who cares about the bullets? It's only an exercise in possibilities of how something could even be possible. It's like wondering how often I've been to the Eiffel Tower if I've never been to France (but if I had been, I might've gone once!). The disposition of the other cartridges is germane only to the extent if Oswald ever had them, then he either fired them, kept them, lost them, or gave them away. The last necessitates someone with a similar rifle to give them to; if he kept them, where are they? We might also ask, if he lost them, how does one "lose" 16 out of 20 bullets that were in a box? And if he fired them, when and where? Tom's citation of Sterling Wood in a message above isn't an answer because the totality of his testimony - no matter how closely he thought the marksman beside him may have looked like Oswald or the rifle the man used looked like "an Italian cabine" (he was not shown C2766) - does not portray Oswald or his known circumstances, even if the Sports Drome was only five miles from his boarding house, and he wasn't in Irving the weekend described (the week before the assassination ... which also necessitates Oswald's already having the gun in Dallas then, thereby - considering his not having the means to return it to Irving - obviating the need to go out on Thursday the 21st to get it, doesn't it!). Or, to put it another way: he was in Dallas with the gun on November 16, did not return it to Irving, then went to retrieve it from Irving on November 21. How the hell did it get to Irving? No matter. The question is whether the bag he brought in on Friday could've held the gun that wasn't in Irving. If the gun was there, then could he have had the gun in the sack? Only if Buell and Linnie Mae were mistaken ... and oh: if the gun was in Irving. We are left to care about only one of these two things: 1) Was Oswald at the Sports Drome on Saturday? If so, then the gun wasn't in Irving on Thursday, ergo nothing about him and the bag on Friday matters; or 2) Was the gun in Irving on Thursday? If so, then it wasn't at the Sports Drome on Saturday and, while maybe the bag's important, nothing about the Sports Drome is. Oddly, people continue to argue both, sometimes even in the same conversation!

Forgive me, but I'm not sure what Sterling Wood's testimony even suggests in this context. Can you elucidate?