Duke Lane

... The walk from the "snipers nest" to where the MC was located is very short and would not have taken much time. I made the walk myself in seconds through a crowed room with numerous assassination displays to obstruct my own recreation. The MC was located adjacent to where the stairwell was and would have been a natural place for an assassin to have stashed a weapon before moving downstairs toward the confusion which must have been created by the assassination.

I believe there is an accurate video recreation of how the assassins escape could have been accomplished in the time alloted without leaving the person who performed the recreation winded in any way. Gary Mack was involved in the recreation and I believe a copy is available at the 6th Floor museum.

Did you actually read what I wrote, Jim, or are you arguing with a straw man?

Yes, the timing was possible. Gary wasn't the only one involved in that timing, and I'm fully aware of it, even have the address where it was done. So?

It has nothing to do with the timing. It has nothing to do with being winded.

"Would not have," "would have been," "must have been," "could have been." I just want to know how someone going at any speed can go from point "a" to point "b" without being seen by someone who testified to standing at point "X" on this image:

If there's no explanation for that, I'm not sure what the point of "reconstructions" is.

Robin...your suspicion is correct. The "shoe" was added by a retouch artist who did not recognize it as JFK's right hand on the seat back.

OK, color me stupid (me being the LN'er that I'm supposed to be) ...

Is there an original image showing JFK's right hand on the back seat? If there is, why was it substituted? To what end?

If there isn't, how do we know anything was substituted if we don't know - or at least can't prove (since there appears to be a difference) - what was there originally?

In the Hankins and Newman photo Clint Hill seems to be prone across the back of the Limo with his left arm resting on the door frame:

If you look at the Miller photo it appears to show clint hill standing "INSIDE" the back of the limo?

Actually, I don't find any real difference between Hankins, Newman and Miller that can't be attributed to perspective: Hill's position is about the same in all photos. There's only a distance of 1.6 miles from the entrance to Stemmons from DP, to the exit at Industrial (now called Market Center) Blvd, about .4 from the Oak Lawn exit to the Industrial/Market Center exit, which is, of course, where the limo would no longer have been on the highway. At "speeds approaching 80 mph," that only puts the limo on the freeway for a minute, minute and a half total; less than a minute from DP to Oak Lawn, and less than that to Industrial.

Here's something from another thread:

Gary Mack was kind enough to share the following information with me ...

"Corham Art Flower Company was at 1645 Stemmons, which puts it just 1/2 block south of Oak Lawn Avenue at Stemmons. Here's the map: http://tinyurl.com/g3dcx [here's the map on Yahoo]

Market Center Boulevard was called Industrial in 1963 and the Trade Mart is at the northeast corner of Industrial and Stemmons, about 1/2 mile away."

This is just a short distance from where I'd remembered the old Corham building being; it's actually just south(bound) from the entrance going from Oak Lawn onto Stemmons southbound.

What's even more interesting is that, based on a 50 mph drive-by observation of the cityscape to the north of the freeway around that location, it appears as if the Hankins photo was taken almost directly across Stemmons from Miller. That is, Miller was taking the photo from the northbound side of the highway looking roughly southwest, while Hankins was taking his from the southbound side looking roughly northeast.

In fact, if anything, I'd say that the signs we see in Hankins are actually the signs over the exit to Oak Lawn - note how there is one sign (to our right) that's over the highway, while the other (our left) is smaller and on the opposite side of the post, the post being on the median, the big sign probably being the "Industrial Blvd - 1/2 Mile" sign, and the smaller one being the "Oak Lawn" sign - meaning that these are probably pretty close to the positions the two occupied using Google Earth:

If that's so, then there are probably less than 10 seconds between the two photos ... and Hill is in the almost-exact same position in Miller as in Hankins.

I would pose the question to any conspiracy involving LHO as "A" shooter - or any non-conspiracy theory involving LHO as the shooter - how did he get downstairs?

That is not "how did he get downstairs in 90 seconds, calm and unwinded," etc., but simply how did he get downstairs?

Consider that there were three men - Bonnie Ray Williams, Hank Norman and Junior Jarman - directly underneath the SE 6th floor window who did not hear anyone running - or even walking - upstairs, nor did they see or hear anyone - anyone at all - near the NW stairwell and elevators during or after the time they had run to the western windows to look out over the railroad yards, and certainly didn't see anyone shooting from the fifth floor.

Consider also that Jack Dougherty, another order-filler, was standing on the fifth floor approximately 10 feet west of the west elevator - that is, just about directly between the stairwell coming down from six and that descending to four - when he heard the first shot, which he said he thought (at one point) was a simple backfire, no cause for alarm or curiosity. Without going anywhere else on the floor - which was also occupied by the three men above, who did not see anyone at all on five - he then boarded the west elevator and rode it down to the first floor.

Since Lee didn't run by Jack (who nobody has ever claimed was deaf or blind), and since he didn't and couldn't have taken either elevator and managed to get it back upstairs by the time Roy Truly looked up the shaft, how did Lee get downstairs?

Simple answer: he couldn't have ... ergo he couldn't have been a shooter from any floor above the fourth, which was all offices across the front, not to mention the fact he'd have had to walk by a handful of women who were watching out the SW corner window of four at the time of the shooting, one of whom went down the stairs at the same time Lee would've had to have gone down, too, no matter what floor he'd been shooting from, yet she testified to not having seen or heard anyone on the stairs. Perhaps it was the noise of her high heels, or having to look down to be sure of her footing?

But wait! We know he did, so therefore, somehow, he did. As Sherlock Holmes is credited with saying, "when you eliminate the impossible, you're left with the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald did it." Or words to a similar effect ....(!)

... the photo was taken by David Miller. Millers first photo:

This first photo seems to have a different frame ratio than the second, it seems taller than the one taken on Stemmons. It appears to me that the Stemmons photo has been tightly cropped, possibly to highlight the SO CALLED shoe hanging over the limo.

There is a slightly different version - different aspect ratio, anyway - here.

I am suspicious about that second image, i beleive the shoe shape may have been added in at a later date.

Is there no such thing as an original, or original copy, of this photo someone can look at through a lupe, maybe scan at very high res and crop to see what's really there or not? Ditto the "man with rifle" image.

I can almost understand why some people might want to add the rifleman artifact, but to what end add the shoe? And by whom?

... According to Trask after this photo was taken, [Miller] then quickly jumped in his car and drove to Stemmons where he took his second photo. (Not sure how he managed that?)

Depends where on Lemmon the image was taken. Here are a couple of possibilities, all in residential areas and prior to the turn onto Turtle Creek. Bear in mind that Miller needn't have parked his car directly on Lemmon and could've taken any of a number of sidestreets to get where he eventually got, in much less time than it took the motorcade to travel through downtown:

The destination location is based on my recollection of where the Corham store was located, approximately opposite where the InfoMart is today, but clearly before the motorcade would've exited Stemmons. I could be off a little since recollection sometimes fails, eh? Google maps (from which these images were taken) estimates the drive to be no more than 5-6 minutes.

Do-able? I'd say "eminently!"

Curious question, tho': I've seen the "Corham" image described as Miller #3; you call the one above his "first" image; what was the second photo he took?

...and maybe someday he'd do a follow-up volume with the second generation researchers. (hint, hint!)

For myself, I'll be simply satisfied that my name is in the book, even if it's not there in reference to me!

I hold the belief that Williams indeed saw both 6th floor sniper teams. I was told Williams died in 1996. Are you able to confirm that, or not?

I think it's unquestionable that he was there as xxxx was going down, tho' exactly what he saw ...? He saw whoever was there, whether that was Lee Oswald or half the Olympic Rifle Team, and I don't believe that he escaped their notice either. Can we say "fear of God," boys and girls? If we can, that eliminates one Lone Nut Assassin anyway, eh?

Walt Brown also told me Bonnie Ray had died, tho' I haven't confirmed it yet with an obit or anything. I know Slim Givens is dead, but I'm not sure about Hank and Junior.

Duke, I realize it is a WIP. My sense is that Bonnie Ray Williams lied - as did some others. Setting aside his movements and lies, for the moment, there is precious little on who he was as a person...political leanings; friends; connections, etc. Any light you care to shed on this aspect now? What became of him after Dallas? Thanks.

I suspect that many of the lies were ass-coverings, mixed in with a few broad hints that there was more to the story than met the eye. Until and unless I meet people he knew personally - and I don't know of anyone who's done anything like that - I suspect that information about what he was "all about" will remain about as forever shrouded in mystery as my neighbor's outlook on life! The views of most "average Joes" don't gain wide publicity, and often I wonder at the wisdom of delving too deeply into witnesses' personal lives, if only from the standpoint that it must be pretty wierd to have people you don't even know telling you things about yourself that you've long since forgotten or shrugged off as unimportant.

It strikes me that Walt Brown wrote a short albeit posthumous piece about BRW in Deep Politics Quarterly some time ago. I'm not sure if he's got an index to DPQ online or not, but may have it on CD.

Have you gone to the TSBD Building and examined the material that is available there on the subject matter you are researching?

Not as yet, tho' in truth, I don't know exactly what they might have. It seems I'm never in the neighborhood at a convenient time, am not being sure what I'm specifically looking for anyway, "convenient times" probably need to be arranged in advance, and I almost never know in advance when I'll be able to do that. Perhaps some lurker somewhere will shed some light on the subject ...?

Don't know, but try searching through this index:

http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html

As most of you know my research centers around potential conspriators rather than the actual moments surrounding the death of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. With this disclaimer I would like to ask those of you who have researched those "moments" of death in Dealey Plaza,

"Do you believe that it is possible that Oswald could have been 'A' shooter on that fateful day?"

Jim Root

Absolutely, unequivocally not ... unless he was shooting from one of the offices on the lower floors, or perhaps from the loading dock.

I've been working the past couple of months on something I'm tentatively calling "The Great Elevator Shuffle, the Three Blind Mice, and the Invisible Man." It is practically a moment-by-moment dissection of what all of the "main players" in the TSBD did from about 11:45 until a few minutes after the shooting.

Close - one might even say minute - attention is paid to what these people said they did, what they said other people did, and what other people said they did:

• The floor-laying crew: Danny Arce, Billy Lovelady, Hank Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams;
  
• Supervisors Bill Shelley and Roy Truly;
  
• Order-fillers Charles "Slim" Givens and Jack Dougherty (and to a lesser extent, Lee Oswald);
  
• Order-checker James Earl "Junior" Jarman;
  
• Shipper Troy West and janitor Eddie Piper; and
  
• Street-level witnesses Arnold Rowland and Amos Euins, among a handful of others.
  

The results are quite surprising. Among the more surprising are that:

• Lee Oswald absolutely, positively could not have gone down the stairs from the sixth floor to the second, nor could he have taken an elevator (unless he had a helper ... which is the only way he could've been a shooter); and
  
• Bonnie Ray Williams was very probably on the sixth floor to within three minutes of the shooting, most likely saw the shooter(s), was seen by the shooter(s), and knew full well that Lee Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor with them.
  

All of this - about 60 pages to date, and the "Invisible Man" part isn't even started yet! - is undergoing fact-checking and some pretty critical review, so far with no strong dissent.

This is where I'm supposed to go into "blurb" mode, gush about "astounding" discoveries, "astonishing" facts, "shocking" new evidence, and other "startling" stuff "never before discussed in any medium," but I'll save that for someone else once I've finished this thing.

I know this isn't exactly what you're loking for Duke, but it's probably worthwhile logging for future reference: ....

Thanks, John. So far, I'm under the impression that I'm not going to find what I'm looking for since there doesn't seem to be anything either in WC Documents pertaining to the results of the examination, nor can I find anything in the HSCA or other files. It almost seems as if this piece of evidence - whatever value it may have had - ceased to exist when the prints on it turned out not to be Oswald's, without a clue as to whose they may have been.

What's interesting - did I say this elsewhere? - is that Bill Shelley had first reported (to the FBI, I think) that he had seen another employee, "who was not Oswald" but who otherwise remained unidentified, eating something on the sixth floor earlier in the morning, around 9:30 or 10:00. Shelley thought it was chicken because, he said, "those colored boys are always eating chicken." When he testified several months later, he recalled this and noted that Charles Givens had been saying of late that it was he who was eating up there that morning - "or so he says" - which Givens denied doing in his own testimony, that day or any other.

There seems to be more to the story than all of this, but what exactly it may have been is only open to speculation.

Could well have been Oswald's lunch. Dr. Pepper was his softdrink.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/IMG_1212.JPG

Wim

Thanks. Is there more info out there, tho'?

As everyone knows, the remains of a chicken lunch and a Dr Pepper bottle were found on the sixth floor after the shooting. These were widely purported to have belonged to the assassin, depicting someone who calmly ate his lunch while waiting patiently to shoot the President of the United States, a clear psychopath. The bottle was photographed being removed from the TSBD being held by a pencil. It was presumably taken to DPD for fingerprint analysis, but the prints did not belong to Lee Oswald.

Eventually, Bonnie Ray Williams claimed to have eaten eaten the lunch and drank the Dr Pepper while awaiting the arrival of his friends to watch the parade. This claim has been debated by at least two authors, Sylvia Meagher and Patricia Lambert. My questions, specific to the Dr Pepper bottle, are these:

1) If DPD examined the bottle and found prints, is there a record of the prints they found? I've not been able to find anything on the Dallas Archives site, if so.

2) If such a record exists, have the prints been compared with those taken by the FBI in 1964 - eleven employees in all, I recall, just those who'd have had any contact with the boxes and other items on six - and, if so, are they in fact Bonnie Ray's?

Interestingly, Bill Shelley recalled having seen "an employee other than Oswald" eating chicken on the sixth floor early that morning, around 9:30 or 10:00; he didn't name that employee. He testified to this, and also noted that Slim Givens had been claiming to have been the one eating upstairs that morning - "or so he says" - but Slim denied not only having made the claim, but also having ever eaten on the sixth floor that day or any other.

Does anyone have any insight into this?

Dumb question from the uninformed... who/what is "SOB" man?

Not a dumb question at all Gene. SOB man was an unidentified individual carrying a placard that said 'SOB Kennedy.' He has also be referred to as 'Gin and Tonic Man' - which isn't really funny if you look at the z-film and see why. Where's the sign in the z-frame?

And how come we don't know SOB's ID, along with the young couple standing near him, or the young man standing opposite on the stairs?

This guy would be in a perfect location to be providing a signal to the folks behind the fence. Robin's crop from the Cancellare at left, and the one frame of SOB that wasn't blurry from a high quality z-frame.

Hasn't Gary Mack said that everyone in DP at the time has been identified? If so, there should be little question here.

Because I don't know, who's the guy in the hat with the camera, and what's the deal on what he was filming?

I've been trying to look this up, but have had no luck. Weren't there 2 employees of the TSBD on the fifth floor, and didn't they report later that they could hear the shell casings hitting the floor from above on the 6th floor? (I wish I had a citation for this -- maybe Harvey and Lee.)

James Worrell near the corner of Elm saw a rifle at the 6th floor window before the motorcade arrived. I guess he couldn't tell anybody because he was afraid of getting shot? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. How could he not know Kennedy was going to be killed? And according to Harvey and Lee, it was Lee Oswald, hoping onlookers would think it was Harvey.

The two employees - actually, three - were James "Junior" Jarman, Harold "Hank" Norman, and Bonnie Ray Williams. Bonnie Ray was initially on the 6th floor, where he said he'd eaten the chicken lunch with the Dr Pepper; Junior and Hank had gone out front and, upon hearing that the motorcade was on Main Street, went up to the 5th floor. Bonnie Ray said he thought he might've heard them walking around down there, so went down and joined them.

All of this and more is the subject of an upcoming two-part essay, "The Great Elevator Shuffle" and "The Three Blind Mice and the Invisible Man," each about 20-25 pages. It's pretty in-depth - almost annoyingly so! - and arrives at different conclusions than have been presented before. It is why I'm trying to find out about the disposition of the pop bottle.

Worrell's story is a different deal, but as far as worrying about being shot, that much never seemed to have entered his mind. He was transported to DPD the next morning by the Carrollton PD, and was later interviewed by the FBI. He had nothing to do with the assassination. I did a piece on him - the first of three parts - in Deep Politics Quarterly in, I think, the Spring 2007 issue.

Removing anything "of color" from the discussion, neither Troy West nor Eddie Piper were by nature men who were aggressive,

Oh? Is there testimony, or other evidence to corroborate this, Duke?

As you well know, there isn't any, but as you question below ...

and shooting a gun at someone is definitely aggressive. I'm referring to a man who sat in one place all day long and wrapped packages because "that's where his work was." The other's job was as janitor, and what I described him doing is exactly what was described in official reports to be his job. If "scrubbing commodes" sounds less than glamorous, if that's what your job is, there's nothing "derogatory" or "demeaning" about someone saying that that's what you do, even if actually doing the job is.

So their job descriptions rule them out as potential suspects? Interesting way to proceed...

Really ... a guy who sits in one place wrapping stuff and a guy who cleans up after people ... really, where's the impetus here to shoot POTUS? I'm clearly missing something. The fact that something can't be disproved does not a fact make.

I have a different theory, which will come to light soon enough. Right now, I'm 40 or 50 pages into providing what I think constitutes proof, and haven't even gone back to make the citations yet. I got called on how I "felt" about Ed Hoffman, and spent considerable time - extemporaneously - putting together Freeway Man to defend my "gut feeling" ... which, as it turned out had much greater substance than that "feeling."

Greg, if you can put them on the sixth floor, then so be it. Until you do, there's nothing to it other than a 14-year-old boy's fleeting observation of an "elderly Negro." I submit that the only way he could have know if whomever he observed was "elderly" was not by his age - 150 feet or so away - but by the color of his hair. Are there photos of either man extant that show either with white or gray hair? And what about Rowland's of seeing a man standing there are "port arms?"

As to their participation in any conspiracy that day, I reject the possibility out of hand unless and until someone can come up with something a lot better than "I don't think their 'alibi' is good enough," as if they even needed one.

Testimony indicated an elderly Negro was at the "snipers nest" up to 5 minutes before the shooting. A description was even given. Shelley told the FBI only two men fit that description: Piper and West. That neither had an alibi which stands up to even the slightest scrutiny - and that they were the only two black men in the building without a good alibi, is worth considering. If you don't feel the same way, so be it.

We will leave aside the fact that Amos Euins only described such a person in that location taking aim and firing at JFK with a "pipe thing;" he did not indicate having seen anyone earlier. Said Amos:

And later:

In his statement on November 22 to Dallas County sheriffs, he said "this man was a white man." In his testimony with Uncle Arlen, he said "I told the man [the sheriff] that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head." Asked "did you tell the people at the police station that he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that down here?" Amos responded, "They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head."

Actually, it's killing me that I can't even find a reference to an "elderly" anything in Walt Brown's Global Index! Where the heck is this reference, or is it merely "lore" anymore?!?

So why would these two "elderly" black men - or for that matter, any black man - want to kill that particular POTUS?

Realize, too, that NONE of the women had alibis either, and they had to wear girdles back then, and here JFK was ... well, nevermind: I've done all the offending I intend to do this week! The last thing I need is bras burning on my lawn!!

On the other hand, we have people like William Manchester quoting people like Roy Truly, who - Manchester says - said that "except for my n****s, the boys are conservaitve, like me — like most Texans," and doubted that "half his boys would have gone out to see the parade if it hadn't been lunchtime." He - like most Texans? - "disapproved of Kennedy's policies abroad and believed he was a 'race mixer' at home," and Truly personally "didn't believe the races were meant to mix."

... Thus explaining why a black man who never left his work area or one who swept up after people would go shoot the SOB? Because ...???

Once again, please accept my apologies for anything offensive; it wasn't intended to be.

FWIW, I agree, you just said it like it was back when (and maybe so still in some parts).

This is my last foray into this thread. I understand you have a hot date with a Dr Pepper you'd like to get to, and I don't want to hold you up any further.

Perhaps when I post the other thing, we should engage. Meanwhile, if anything, I'd think this topic should enhance your position if there's any merit to it. If Bonnie Ray's prints were on the Dr Pepper bottle (I doubt they could be pulled from the bones or the sack), then it was his lunch; if not ...?

As far as I've ever learned, the bones and bottle were pulled from the sixth floor and vanished into the ether without any sort of resolution. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, that's what I'm trying to find out.

... My point wasnt about the post, but about your content of replies concerning these men. ... My opinion was made concerning what was posted about these men, and that is what matters to me. Im sure, as I stated earlier, that Im speaking for others also. Im sure your original question will remain unanswered. -MS

I apologize if any of my comments offended you; they were not intended to reflect my own opinions, but the "tone" and - I'm sorry to say - the reality of the times. That they were wrong realities doesn't make them any less realistic. We've moved well past the day when going to the back of the bus, watching movies from the balcony and drinking from a separate water fountain were the accepted norm; but 1963 was "the day when," and those things were "accepted" - even if not acceptable in everyone's eyes - in large measure, including by those victimized by them.

Were that not so, the name Rosa Parks would never have entered our consciousness: she would've just been someone doing what everyone else did, no big deal. The point is, tho', that they didn't, and that's why her name will be forever memorialized.

Removing anything "of color" from the discussion, neither Troy West nor Eddie Piper were by nature men who were aggressive, and shooting a gun at someone is definitely aggressive. I'm referring to a man who sat in one place all day long and wrapped packages because "that's where his work was." The other's job was as janitor, and what I described him doing is exactly what was described in official reports to be his job. If "scrubbing commodes" sounds less than glamorous, if that's what your job is, there's nothing "derogatory" or "demeaning" about someone saying that that's what you do, even if actually doing the job is.

As to their participation in any conspiracy that day, I reject the possibility out of hand unless and until someone can come up with something a lot better than "I don't think their 'alibi' is good enough," as if they even needed one.

Once again, please accept my apologies for anything offensive; it wasn't intended to be.

This post started out to be something of value.... But I have to say, where this post has gone, up to this point, has dropped to a new low. ....

Lighten up; we don't have to be serious all the time!

I agree regarding the "accusations" made against West and Piper; they're totally indefensible and unsupportable beyond my analogy that if they can't prove they were in New Hampshire, then they must've been in California.

My original question stands unanswered:

My primary curiosity here is to determine what, if any, results came about from the dusting of the Dr Pepper bottle that Bonnie Ray Williams left on the sixth floor. The bottle along with other "remains of the chicken lunch" were removed from the 6th floor on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; I'm not personally aware of the disposition of those items of evidence; can anyone elucidate them?

Does anybody know the answer?

Let's make one thing perfectly clear.

The lunch did not consist of chicken bones.

The bones were left-over after the meat on the bones was consumed!

Are you kidding? You mean - you're saying - you're trying to tell me that Bonnie Ray's nickname of "Insinkerator" - pulverizing chicken bones - is - isn't - you mean - it's not - it's not true?!?

Oh ... My ... Gawd. This sheds a whole new light on things, doesn't it.

To imagine someone put whole chicken legs onto a couple of slices of bread - or peeled the meat off the bones before making a sandwich of it ... and here all this time, I'd thought the man was someone who bit soda bottles open (after all, no evidence of a church key, right?).

I'm devastated. Deflated. Derailed. Deranged. Debunked. But mostly just deranged ....

Where's that emoticon with the balloon flying around at when ya need it most?

Anyway, neither of them can be placed - either definitively or even speculatively - on the sixth floor (or am I mistaken?), so any such description cannot be referring to them, can it?

You are mistaken. Neither had what could be considered a rock solid alibi.

And there is also this from the Victoria (Texas) Advocate of Nov 24:

"A building porter said he took Oswald to the 6th floor in an elevator. When he got out, Oswald asked the porter to send the car back up for him. The porter went to the ground floor to watch the Kennedy motorcade."

I would think it would take a heck of a lot more speculation than simply not having a "rock solid alibi" to make suppositions like this. By that measure, everyone who couldn't account for every second of their time and have someone to back them up is de facto under suspicion, and nobody is completely innocent anyway? I said that you can't place them there, and you responded by saying that you didn't believe what else they said was necessarily true. That I may not have been in New Hampshire yesterday does not mean that I was in California or Idaho.

As to newspaper articles, they are purveyors of absolute fact? If written, it is proven? What's a "building porter" anyway? Did anyone describe anywhere what a "building porter" did? Did he park cars? Act as the "elevator man" like this article portrays? If so, why didn't anyone ever mention anything about someone doing this task for anyone other than Lee Oswald, ever, at any time, for anyone?

Nobody - especially reporters - got any of their stories mixed up during the weekend, is that it? Nobody told whoppers to get their names in print? I know of one who got a free trip to Washington - and a supposed night out on the town in Earl Warren's limo - for that very same thing. Fifteen minutes of fame is all some of it is, at best.

And even if it can ... what were they doing up there, and why would they lie about it?

According to Euins, firing on the motorcade.

And why were they doing that? Because they could? And none of the Texas white boys wouldn't have loved to see a Negro hang for this? This is a tough sale. What's the motive?

In any case, don't you know that Bonnie Ray Williams was on the sixth floor "five or six minutes" before the shooting (and actually within two or three minutes of it)? And that he was working around plywood being sawed up all morning? Oh: and leaving that aside, he had something white in his hair, at least after the shooting, didn't he? (Greg, do you really believe it was plaster - of which there is no other evidence - knocked loose by the falling shells?)

If you recall... I don't believe Williams went back up there at all.

The weight of everything suggests otherwise. If he didn't go onto the sixth floor during the lunch break, what idiot - knowing that that's where the authorities said shots came from - would put himself there if he wasn't, casting suspicion on himself? Especially with the "elderly Negro" thing: you know that they were sawing plywood on 6 that day, which creates sawdust, and which can fall in one's hair, right? Appearance of white hair from a hundred feet away? Telling the cops and FBI that he'd been on the floor would've dipped him in it; a dumb story to tell if it wasn't true. What was the impetus? Fifteen minutes of fame? Free trip to Washington? Gets to keep his job?

The point of all this being ...? That it's all well and good to "believe" what you want to - like I simply "believed" that Ed Hoffman was full of it - but there remains the need to state your case. (I think I did, on that point.)

You're advocating on the one hand that a Southern Negro who was born near the turn of the century - intrinsically subservient - lied about what he was doing - either eating his lunch at the wrapping table, or sitting on a box at the front window; one a guy who did nothing but wrap books all day, the other who delivered mail, swept floors, and flushed commodes - when he was actually taking pot shots at POTUS.

On the other hand, another Southern Negro, substantially younger and theoretically more brazen, who said he was "where the action was," albeit not at that time, was NOT where he said he was, on the sixth floor, because ... why?

... But back to the fingerprints and the Dr Pepper bottle, shall we? (Where's the "here, smoke this" emoticon, anyway?)

Right next to the exploding cigar emoticon, no doubt...

Really, when you get down to it, I've only asked about fingerprints on the bottle. Is it simply that nobody has an answer? At the very least, if Bonnie Ray wasn't on the sixth floor, someone else's fingerprints on the bottle should go a long way toward proving that, eh? On the other hand ...?

I'll also invite anyone who wishes to, to visit my xxxxty little website, dukelane.com, and view the articles by Sylvia Meagher and Partricia Lambert on the topics that I'm going to soon address. The fingerprints, if any, are central to the theme that I'm developing, and I appreciate any help anyone can provide.

Again from Lambert:

A witness outside the building, Arnold Rowland, testified that he saw an elderly Negro at the window of the sniper's nest five or six minutes before the shooting. In addition, there is other evidence that another witness, Amos Euins, moments after the shooting, said the man at the sniper's nest was black. (Euins later said he could not say whether the man was black or white.) The Warren Report explains that while Rowland was not regarded as a credible witness, his assertion about the elderly Negro at the sniper's nest was investigated. This investigation consisted of interviews with certain employees of the Depository which determined that the only two men who might fit Rowland's description were on the first floor "before and during the assassination".

The two employees being referred to here are Eddie Piper and Troy West. This confirms for me something that I'd been trying to establish... they were not just the right age, but both both fit the descriptions. FWIW, my (curtailed) recent peek into Piper and West led to a tentative conclusion that Piper was the "Elderly Negro". This only further strengthens that conclusion.

For what it's worth - and quickly approaching those magical ages myself - let me point out that the sobriquet of "elderly Negro" would only half apply to either of these two men: yes, they were black, but I hardly consider men who were 54 and 55 (or was it 55 and 56?) years old to be "elderly" anymore!

Was 55 "old" back then, like 30 was in the 16th century? I've never heard Roy Truly described that way, and he was older than that. What constitutes "elderly?" Anyone over 30? 40? 50? What?

Anyway, neither of them can be placed - either definitively or even speculatively - on the sixth floor (or am I mistaken?), so any such description cannot be referring to them, can it?

And even if it can ... what were they doing up there, and why would they lie about it? Those questions need to be answered before that idea can be carried forward. They can't just be there solely for the sake of putting an "elderly Negro" there, can they? And if so, how did Lee Oswald force them to go up there from where they said they were, and how did he get them to lie about it after he was dead? Covering his ass, were they, you think?

In any case, don't you know that Bonnie Ray Williams was on the sixth floor "five or six minutes" before the shooting (and actually within two or three minutes of it)? And that he was working around plywood being sawed up all morning? Oh: and leaving that aside, he had something white in his hair, at least after the shooting, didn't he? (Greg, do you really believe it was plaster - of which there is no other evidence - knocked loose by the falling shells?)

... But back to the fingerprints and the Dr Pepper bottle, shall we? (Where's the "here, smoke this" emoticon, anyway?)

My primary curiosity here is to determine what, if any, results came about from the dusting of the Dr Pepper bottle that Bonnie Ray Williams left on the sixth floor. The bottle along with other "remains of the chicken lunch" were removed from the 6th floor on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; I'm not personally aware of the disposition of those items of evidence; can anyone elucidate them?

I'll also invite anyone who wishes to, to visit my xxxxty little website, dukelane.com, and view the articles by Sylvia Meagher and Partricia Lambert on the topics that I'm going to soon address. The fingerprints, if any, are central to the theme that I'm developing, and I appreciate any help anyone can provide.

... Was he drinking an extra large beer at noon?

Beer: it's not just for breakfast anymore!

Why are you trying to blame COPA for Big Tex being at the scene of the crime? And who really did put him there? Thanks for your report.

I didn't "blame" COPA for bringing Bix Tex there, only for not distancing themselves from him - or him from them - and allowing him to (at least) seem to be a part of their proceedings.

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Nobody wanted to "claim" him, or claim to know who might: it was all a big mystery that "everyone normally on-site" made a big joke of (e.g., Bob G.: "Across town, they call him 'Big Tex;' here, we call him 'co-Tex'").

I had the opportunity to ask the folks guiding the big dummy ("put your foot over here. No, no, the other foot! ...") who'd hired them, but, well, they had their hands pretty full making sure Big Tex didn't become an ex-Tex! (Seriously: even despite the chill, I don't think I'd have wanted to have been the guy in the costume! "Cumbersome" only begins to describe it!)

John Judge was too busy to even acknowledge me when I attempted just to say hello ... but of course, I do tend to travel incognito - blend into the crowd and all that (but with enough "authority" that the paper-hawkers don't bother me) - and don't really expect anyone to actually recognize me in the flesh!

(Actually, I think anyone who thought that they saw me, probably mistook me for the clown wearing the FBI baseball cap and carrying a copy of the WCR! I must admit that anyone with a telephoto lens also probably did catch me commisserating with him, tho!)

Long and short, nobody either claimed credit or laid blame. It's all a big mystery, sort of like the microphones in the water-collectors keeping tabs on the "Dealey denizens" that really know what happened. Maybe someday we'll find out ... if the images and documents aren't altered!

Are you stating - without equivocation - that COPA had nothing to do with it?

Shaking my head in wonderment, I still remain ...

Duke, COPA didn't bring the circus to Dallas, it was already there. Now if we can only get a big sign : Free the JFK Files - to put around Big Tex's neck

- BK

That's exactly the kind of bullxxxx that perpetuates the "circus" mentality. Maybe we could add some dancing bears in the middle of Elm Street ("all the way" with JFK!), planes running banners behind them, a mechanical menagerie of gunmen popping out of storm drains (pow! pow!) ... one of those air-filled things that wave atcha ... hey, "the circus was already there, so let's take advantage of it, whatever it takes, the message is the mission." Ho-f***ing-hum.

(A positive note: "the limo" didn't run down Elm Street this year with accompanying "gunfire!" Guess they must've been at home having turkey.)

Maybe we should all just go sell used cars so we feel like our message fits the mood of the masses, eh? As long as we can make our point: "ALL credit applications will be accepted; NONE will be refused" does not mean you're going home with a new car ... but at least we got you to visit our dealership and get sent home empty-handed. Oh: don't forget to spread the good word cuz we pay for referrals!

Big Tex ain't gonna solve the mystery for anyone either.

But if it works for them, why not us? After all, the audience isn't actually very intelligent after all, is it? Let's go with "all conspiracy theories accepted! None will be undermined or proven wrong!" Whatever you bring forth will work for us as long as we keep the focus on the fact NO "official story" is acceptable or truthful!

I thought that the "intelligencia" was who we wanted behind our cause. How better to alienate them?

I often wonder if whether some of the "celebrities" in this endeavor haven't abandoned it in favor of "back-door" efforts just so that they're not associated with the "wierdos" that propound just this sort of idiocy. The point of being a "respected researcher" in the JFK arena only shows, at best, that you're a big fish in a very small pond. BFD.

"Free the JFK files" around Tex's neck indeed! Is that how "we" celebrate the recently-deceased George Michael's memory and his contributions, Penn Jones' perseverence, Hal Weisberg's incisive invective? Flackery is how we "attract" the "fourth generation" of critics, to "prove" something other than the "official version" with whatever seems useful at the moment, whatever catches "their" attention, at whatever cost to us, the supposedly "legitimate" critics of a scenario most of us reject?

I reported what I saw at DP this year; I didn't see where anyone here has claimed to have seen anything different. So where the hell were all of you now that Penn Jones is dead? Apparently not at COPA or Lancer or DP. So get off the soap box.

... And let's hope that nobody else reads this thread.

Making friends and influencing people (but there ya go!), I remain sincerely yours ....

Duke,

John Judge has been going to Dealey Plaza every November 22nd siince the mid-sixties. One year, on a cold, rainy day, only Penn Jones, Judge and a half-dozen other people showed up.

Judge doesn't use a microphone, talks briefly from 12:20-12:30 and then holds a moment of silence.

There's only a circus if the media make it so. And it was the reporters who wants to portray whatever it is they want to portray.

Bill,

I've been going to DP every November 22 since I've had the wherewithal to be there. I don't go to participate in a circus, but it is certainly easy to understand how "outsiders" get the impression of it as that. Having Big Tex stand behind COPA during what should have been a solemn ceremony - or perhaps more accurately, either not moving him away from them, or them away from him - gave this year's ceremony very much of a "circus"-like appearance.

C'mon: a cartoon figure waving to the crowd and making inane comments in front of any and all who'd listen or were within earshot?!? Standing directly behind the COPA crowd during the ceremony, by all appearances a part of them and it?!?

Unless someone in the media hired Tex, then your statement above is simply not so. It was stupid and tasteless if it was anyone else, especially anyone trying to prove that the event is not a circus! "We resent Jackie Floyd saying that, and here to prove it today is Big Tex!" (Nobody said that, but they might as well have.)

Apparently, some people think their cause is so right and righteous that nothing - not even Big Tex or the Muppets - can distract from it, and people will understand. Appearances mean nothing, right? Perception is not reality?

Anyone who believes that is indeed delusional. Not to mention a fool.

John Judge's inclusion of remarks about Jackie Floyd and what she said had nothing whatsoever to do with JFK's death, and smacked of the "free publicity" and self-aggrandizement she spoke out against. Has he never heard the adage about not dignifying something with reply?

Stick to the freaking program, which has nothing to do with John Judge, COPA, Jackie Floyd or even MLK and RFK or our big bad government and its multiple and myriad lies and nefarious schemes.

Maybe if someone would actually do that - make it an actual memorial service dedicated to JFK - then maybe nobody would think it was a "circus."

Oh. And leave Big Tex at home, or at least stay away from him when you're talking. D'oh!! (Penn Jones might have even spun in his grave if he saw that! If I thought it was bad, you can rest assured others saw it in an even worse light. Isn't that what we're trying to accomplish?)