Duke Lane

...It is desperately important that a dialogue is created between liberals and conservatives. In reality we are not too far apart. The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society.

Nevertheless, it is always interesting when conservatives raise the cry against the "liberal media." What does all that mean? That the "conservatives" who control the media are "liberal" compared to the conservatives they "undermine;" that the conservatives raising the cry are trying to blame "liberals" who really aren't liberals, but rather other conservatives (a "right-wing conspiracy to blame the Communists," to put it in another context); that "liberals" truly do control the media, but aren't liberal enough for "true" liberals and are therefore "conservatives;" that this is a case where you truly can "have it both ways" ... or what?

If the "conservatives" truly "run" the mass media, then why do the conservatives rail against the "liberal" media? Conversely, why do liberals (for whom the media is supposedly writing) decry the conservative bias - and ownership - of media outlets?

Does it make sense to anybody?

I'm going back to Dealey Plaza in April ( will be in the area and plan on stopping by ), and likely in November, but I haven't seen the "Other Sights" - Tippit scene, Texas Theater, etc. I'm having terrible trouble finding directions other than 1963 maps ( and with how things change, I'm not sure they'd be of much use ). Anyone know of any directions? At all? ..Bueller?

Drop me an email. I'm local and can not only give you directions, but can also play guide if you'd like if I'm not too very busy.

I am posting this article because I believe it ties together the connections of the conspiracy better than any single article written concerning the 'connecting the dots' aspect of JFK's assassination.

Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used

In the JFK Conspiracy

Copyright © 1993 by Richard Bartholomew

I found a link to the whole article starting here.

... This all reminds me of Gary Mack's reconstruction of the shooting scenario where he had an "expert" fire on a limo on a track away from a tower with the limo being pulled directly away at constant speed on a level surface. The shooter was able to replicate the shots but the disclaimer showed how many times it took him to do it due to weapon malfunctions. Yes the weapon malfunctioned I am sure because it is a piece of crap. The other part of the weapon malfunction was likely due to shooter error as the shooter most likely short stroked this piece of crap rifle when hurrying his shots. Again, as in the true case, we will never know.

I've got a DVD copy of this "Unsolved History" broadcast, and have voiced my opinion regarding the use of a guy who skeet-shoots from the hip with 100% accuracy to fill in as the "Oswald shooter" and a fitness instructor to stand in for the "Oswald runner/walker" (the scrawny Oswald being described as "young and fit former Marine," suggesting that all Marines are, of necessity, in top physical conditioning). I don't know what - if any - objections Mack and Perry raised in this respect, but in fairness it must be said that their jobs were to ensure the accuracy of the physical setups, locations and routes and to be objective observers of the results: it was not "their" scenario insofar as the participants were concerned, but that of the producers.

The show set out to "prove" that Oswald could have done all the things attributed to him at the TSBD and in Oak Cliff. It required certain assumptions, it seems, that could only be "assumed" after the fact: e.g., the real shooter(s) could not have known in advance about the speed(s) of the limo, when it would slow down or speed up, whether it would maintain any kind of constant speed or what that constant speed would be, or where on the roadway it would be situated (i.e., in the middle, or nearer one or the other curbs). As with most people who want to "prove" something, it was skewed in favor of them reaching their verdict.

Whether or not Oswald could have done something does not, of course, prove that he did any of the things he might've been "able" to do, and neither of the "actors" involved even approximated anything we know about Oswald such that their performances could reasonably be considered "proof" of anything. That, of course, won't keep this broadcast from being cited by those who wish to "prove" their own points! (It's sort of like having Tiger Woods "replicate" a golf shot of mine, basing it on the fact that I've played golf and so has Tiger, so he's therefore "as good as me" whether or not I'm as good as he!)

Frankly, tho' I'm twice Oswald's age, I think that I am a better "stand-in" for Oswald, having been a "pretty good" (but by no means "excellent!") "shot" in my younger years, but having had no practice for quite a few now. I can now walk, even at a brisk pace, a whole mile(!) now, thanks largely to a quadruple bypass ... but in my teens, my best aerobics run was probably only a 6:15 to 6:30 mile (and I stuggled mightily to break 7:30 early on!).

Since I live near enough to Dallas and know where the warehouse used for the "re-enactment" is, perhaps one day fairly soon I'll try to re-create it myself and let you know what my own results are. In the meantime, however, I think that it is indeed possible that Oswald could have run down the stairs and into the lunch room, unwinded, if he was on the sixth floor to begin with, and could have walked from the rooming house to 10th & Patton in plenty of time to shoot Tippit, if he was ever at 10th & Patton to begin with. I don't think either happens to be the case, however, so it doesn't really matter, does it.

“RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 76th Texas Legislature hereby honor the memory of George Faithon Lucas and extend sincere sympathy to the members of his family: to his daughter and son-in-law, Carolyn Lucas Bass and John R. Bass, Sr.; to his grandson, John R. Bass, Jr., and his wife, Eloise Barry Bass; to his granddaughter, Sarah Elizabeth Bass; to his brother and sister-in-law, Faithon P. Lucas, Jr., and Evelyn Dees Lucas; to his sisters and brother-in-law, Elizabeth Faithon Lucas, Mary Lucas Barunes, Helen Lucas Pappas, and Pete H. Pappas; to his sister-in-law, Ethel Zotos Lucas; and to his 17 nieces and nephews.”

...

Dallas History Message Board

Re: Lucas B&B

Posted By: Lee Chevalier <lee.c2.chevalier@mail.sprint.com>

Date: Thursday, 12 September 2002, at 12:27 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Lucas B&B (Jerry Felts)

Actually, the Lucas family, though dispersed, is still in several food operations in/around DFW. They have that lovely Greek habit of large families, all tied to one another in sometimes remote ways. ... The last B&B location, since filled by Pappadeaux, included a separate cocktail lounge and the breakfast room replete with Miss Polly and other "Flo"-type waitpersons.

A potentially meaningless aside: the Pappas family has quite a large collection of restaurants of various types in and around Dallas, including Pappadeaux (seafood and Cajun), Pappas (Greek), Pappacitos (Mexican) and others. As to the other part of the family mentioned in the 76th Legislature's resolution - the Basses - I don't know if there's any connection, but the Bass family is one of the "old money" families in the region and is quite generous in its support of the arts, historical preservation and other civic endeavors. (They are also filthy rich.)

The new Bass Performing Arts Center in Fort Worth is one of the most beautiful and undoubtedly enduring (the stone walls' thickness is measured in feet!) memorial buildings that has ever graced the city or even the State of Texas. If you are ever in Texas, put it at the top of your "must see" list together with the Alamo and, of course, Dealey Plaza!

That is the second yellow stripe which is down, across the street from, the steps/walkway on which Mr. Hudson was standing.

The person to the left, standing on the curb is Mr. James Altgens who fully observed the strike of the third/last/final shot.

There is one additional yellow stripe which is approximately 45 feet (center to center) farther down the street. The last yellow stripe is approximately 22 feet (center to center) before reaching the concrete curb inlet cover.

See Z435. In it you will see two additional yellow stripes, from Z's perspective, on either side of the tree, one of them between the tree and the Ft Worth Turnpike sign. They are visible but not as clear in adjacent frames, but they do continue almost to - if not all the way to - the bridge.

I didn't notice any before Z295 when it appears in front of Mary Moorman's left foot. From Z231 to Z292 there's not much curb showing at all; before that, I noticed no such stripes.

If you posit a shooter from the TSBD, presumably SE 6th floor window, it almost seems as if these marks would be useless as that portion of the curb is almost in the line of sight of such a shooter. Perhaps not at the SW corner windows, but most likely from the SE window. I'll check it out when I'm downtown next. It might be helpful if you could email me an overhead view showing where the stripes are ...?

The "range finders" down by the bridge seem totally useless to anyone in TSBD.

Actually, it is inconceiveable to me as to why anyone would fall for the "acoustics studies" when so many valid earwitnesses have stated in effect: Bang--------------------------------Bang----Bang!

...

I do seem to recall that the consensus of witnesses was: BANG-------------------------------Bang--Bang!

I don't think there was a concensus at all as to how long there was between shots, only that the second two were more closely spaced than the first two. Either of the two "timings" above fit that bill.

It's my humble hypothesis that the first shot was taken by someone who "jumped the gun," so to speak, that is, fired before he was supposed to. He would be someone who had the time to stash the gun even given the Marrion Baker timeline, and clearly had time to leave the floor without being seen - in fact, he testified to that very thing, as did others, tho' he's never been connected to the shooting before. As to motive, it could have been as simple as the one most often ascribed to Oswald.

First off, it is my opinion that the motive was-----------------------MONEY!

Secondly, you are apparently quite correct in the "jump the gun", which would indicate a variation from the plan, in event the yellow stripes are in fact some form of referenc for "range markers".

Quite coincidental that the second shot/aka Z313 headshot was only some 5-feet past the first of these yellow markers, with a 5.8 to 5.9 second wait between shots.

The "jump the gun" appears to be the lack of experience factor which caused the shooter to let go with the first shot as the head of JFK came from under/behind the tree limbs.

However, even at this close range, it should have been a "gimme" as the distance from the ledge of the sixth floor window, to the position on Elm St. was only between 175 to 185 feet.

Nobody has ever ascribed Oswald's motivation to have been money. What anyone else's was ...? I wasn't commenting on that. I think the "lack of experience factor" plays well with this inasmuch as the shooter, while certainly old enough, saw virtually no active duty during WWII and had NO combat experience and in fact did not serve throughout the entire war as most men of the time (who survived) did.

Now this is a different Sam Pate than the Sam Pate who owned a garage near Davis Street in Oak Cliff, right?

Quite a few years ago, I gave a lecture on the Kennedy assassination to a college history class, whose teacher then took the class of ten or twelve students to Dallas for the November 22nd weekend that year. I got them in to the COPA conference and introduced them to Wes Wise, who gave them his trail of the assassins tour of Dallas.

Wes also invited us to a TSBD event on the 7th floor - the video taping of a show of a half-dozen Dallas radio reporters, including Wes Wise, and possibly Sam Pate.

I just want to make sure there's two Sam Pates - the radio guy and the mechanic.

BK

The garage was owned by Mack Pate, no relation. I asked Sam, and that's what he said ... along with an anecdote about his (Sam's) and his dad's bank accounts getting mixed up with Mack Pate's for a while, unfortunately not to their benefit! I don't know if Sam was a part of that taping or not. I'll ask him when I see him in the next couple of weeks. He ain't no shrinking violet, that's a fact!

I think this may be a good place to dump just about anything - but my primary intent was to look at KBOX-AM. Found some interesting stuff. ... 2 excellent websites on the HT220 radio:

http://www.batnet.com/mfwright/HT220.html

http://www.batnet.com/mfwright/secretservice220.html

Here's another interesting one, does anyone want to comment on it?

... [steve Eberhart's] answer to the question of not hearing gunshots on the broadcast, while plausible, is flawed. Not only did KBOX have exclusive coverage of the motorcade they had complete motorcade coverge. Sam Pate was not following at the rear of the motorcade, he was in front of President Kennedy's car and the police motorcycle escort. He was stopped just under the Elm St. triple underpass when the motorcade turned off Main St onto Houston St. so he could broadcast the Dealy Plaza procession.

News car parked under the bridge as limo was turning onto Elm?

Actually, it is inconceiveable to me as to why anyone would fall for the "acoustics studies" when so many valid earwitnesses have stated in effect: Bang--------------------------------Bang----Bang!

...

I do seem to recall that the consensus of witnesses was: BANG-------------------------------Bang--Bang!

I don't think there was a concensus at all as to how long there was between shots, only that the second two were more closely spaced than the first two. Either of the two "timings" above fit that bill.

It's my humble hypothesis that the first shot was taken by someone who "jumped the gun," so to speak, that is, fired before he was supposed to. He would be someone who had the time to stash the gun even given the Marrion Baker timeline, and clearly had time to leave the floor without being seen - in fact, he testified to that very thing, as did others, tho' he's never been connected to the shooting before. As to motive, it could have been as simple as the one most often ascribed to Oswald.

They were better than Cheney.

Yeah, our first "lone nut vice president!"

REASONS, 1, Bay of pigs 2,operation northwoods 3,threats against CIA 4, Hovers forced retirement 5,Threat to federal reserve 6, Threat to oil depletion allowance 7, RFK & the Mob 8, Threat to withdraw "advisors" from vietnam 9, almost certain re-election in 64 10,civil rights stance 11 Castro 12, Threat to "drop" LBJ 13, detant with Soviets 14, sacking of Gen Walker 15 revenge for "stolen" 1960 election 16, to prevent the building of a Kennedy dynasty.........Please feel free to add your own favorite.

You completely left out the fact that he was an avowed Communist and was in the process of turning the country over to Kruschev, which he probably would have completed in his second term. Just ask any Bircher.

The Birchers, incidentally, proclaimed that Kennedy's predecessors Truman and Eisenhower were "willing and witting instruments of the Communists." That being so, what would they have considered Kennedy to be? What would they have been justified in doing to have saved the country from going Red?

At the same time, consider that the FBI was then of the opinion that the Klan (it was at the home of a high Klansman that the John Birch Society was born, by the way) was "abetted by law enforcement at the local level."

The next question would seem, then, to be: could they have pulled it off?

First Rule: Approach everything stated by anyone with the "DOUBTING THOMAS" attitude.

One is far less likely to end up looking completely stupid if this approach is taken.

Secondly, despite what some have claimed, Mr. West told me personally that neither he nor his survey crew personnel were allowed access to the films in his work on plotting the positions of JFK/and or the Presidential Limousine. (during any of the multiple survey's)

The "GENESIS" of the survey data is not that complicated to understand when in possession of all of the survey notes as well as the actual survey plats.

1. Time/Life on 11/25/63 (with their original information) managed to accurately plat the impact point of the first shot as well as the Z312/313 headshot.

2. On 12/5/63, the US Secret Service completed their work utililzing the first generation copy of the film which they were in possession of.

In this work, there are the following variations from the Time/Life work:

A. The US Secret Service, as indicated by their notes as given on CE 875, utilized the rear bumper of the re-enactment limousine as their reference point, and the X on the map as well as stationing number are in fact not the exact position of JFK at point of impact.

As example, the X on the SS 12/5/63 survey plat for the second shot, is much closer to Mary Moorman & Jean Hill (&yellow stripe) than was the position of JFK at point of impact for this shot.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

B. All of the work done for Time/Life---The SS-----& the FBI Re-enactment in January 1964, utilized downward firing angles from the TSDB window to the exact point on the street, not the actual elevation of JFK's head.

C. The WC came along, and even though three separate survey re-enactments prior to their work had relatively accurately placed the impact point of the first shot, determined that this position could not be determined. Thus, this point was deleted.

D. The WC decided, against a large amount of evidence otherwise, that the Z312/313 headshot was the LAST shot fired in the sequence.

This BS scenario is in direct contradiction to considerable eyewitness testimony as to the second shot strike to JFK's head as well as the large amount of testimony which indicates the "longer delay" from the first to second shot, as opposed to that delay between the second and third shot.

E. Therefore, the WC decided that there was now nothing relevant in the Z-film past the Z334 point, which is only 21 Z-frames/1.15 seconds past impact of the known headshot. Which by the way is directly contradicted by their multiple pages of "circular reasoning" as regards THE SHOT THAT MISSED.

F. Therefore, impact point for shot# 3 was deleted from existence from survey work, along with shot# 1.

And thereafter, not unlike my friends/comrads/associates who were members of the Son Tay Raid,

Kept in Dark and Fed only Horse xxxx!----------------------aka the mushroom syndrone

Tom

So, then, you're suggesting that the acoustics studies are invalid, and that "earwitness" testimony and "courtroom gymnastics" are preferable to them?

From a purely hypothetical, practical standpoint, if you have just ONE shooter with a scope on his rifle, we'd have to suspect that he'd seen the blood fly at Z312/313, why would he shoot AGAIN four seconds later? I can understand TWO shooters doing this (maybe), but not ONE. Makes no sense.

Also with respect to other points of impact, several witnesses testified to seeing things hit the street, sparks flying, etc. You can't discount those simply on account of the fact that nobody took photos of where they were or counted them among the "missed" shots. You've also got to deal with the windshield crack/hole and the dent in the window frame, and the "Tague shot" too.

Or was all that what that later, post-313 shot was for?

Interesting concepts.

First, that "impact positions" could be determined when the exact trajectory through JFK's body is not known, but is at best only extrapolated, and the point of entry at the rear (back? neck?) is not unquestionable and the hole at the throat cannot definitively be said to be either one of entry or of exit.

Those not being proven scientifically / forensically, we cannot state with 100% certainty - other than based upon a belief - where the shots originated from. That applies equally to both the LN sixth-floor-window-only argument as well as any front-shot (grassy knoll, bridge, sewer drain, etc.) argument.

Robert West could not have been using any more scientific data than is available to the rest of us since it plain ol' doesn't exist. How then a surveyor could determine points of impact when points of origin cannot be determined with certainty is beyond me ... unless, perhaps, he used a metal detector to find bits of metal embedded in the asphalt, which suggests MORE bullets than the ones that hit anybody!

Also interesting to suggest a point of impact just 31 feet after the head shot. Is that a point of impact made before the head shot caused by a missed bullet, or one made after the headshot in the short time span it would take the limo to travel that distance (someone more mathematically inclined can figure that one out if they'd like)? What scientific proof did West apply to determine such a post-headshot impact?

Finally, given that streets in Dallas, in Texas, and throughout the United States are public thoroughfares and wholly unrestricted in their use (provided any such use does not impede the regular flow of traffic or public utilities, or destroy the surface or appurtenances of said streets), why would someone "risk arrest" for walking down Elm Street with a metal detector? It's not even jay-walking (a mere ticketable offense) if the traffic light for oncoming traffic is red!

First off, the US Secret Service had in their possession a FIRST generation copy of the Z-film.

Secondly, it doe not take any knowledge of the forensics and/or pathology to recognize the head strike at Z312/313. Therefore, why would one have to know the pathology & forensics of any shot striking.

no picture was taken at 5+00 mark as this was about 4 feet from impact of the third shot."

No one that I know of is speaking of "fragments"

So, if I understand, you're suggesting that the original/first generation Z-film shows a shot striking (somewhere) 31 feet (how many Z-frames?) past the Z312/313 head shot and that, since the USSS had a copy of that and (presumably) showed it to Robert West, his survey nail at that location proves an additional shot took place and where it impacted?

Presuming that to be so for the moment, one WOULD need to have knowledge of the forensics if only to know from which direction it came. The sole supporting "evidence" of there being but "ONE shooter" (emphasis yours) cannot be just that it was "possible" for two shots to have been fired from the Italian MC in the time it took for the limo to travel 31 feet at whatever speed it was then going. Because it could have been done that way does not mean that it was done that way!

Hence, if you don't know where the shots originated - the pathology does not tell us conclusively - then you can't posit how many shooters there were or weren't.

Likewise, we can't base the raison d'etre of a (second) survey nail 31 feet from Z312/313 on the presumptiion (assumption?) that the original/1st generation copy of the Z film shows any such thing (since most - if not all - of us have never seen either the original or a first-generation copy), or that, because West did a survey for USSS, that it necessarily showed him such a film.

So, eliminating (or ignoring, as the case may be) the possibility that West simply made a mistake on either one or both of the two surveys (and, if only one, which one?), what proof exists of another post-Z312 shot? For that matter, while "no one that [you] know of is speaking of 'fragments'" (I don't know who's speaking at all, in this matter; pardon me if I missed that somewhere), even where eyewitnesses have spoken of other impacts, even these don't talk about "fragments" - or even "whole bullets!" - but merely "strikes," so what does "fragments" have to do with anything? Since eyewitness accounts are considered "less than reliable" if not wholly unreliable and are generally discounted (correctly or not), what else is there that's certain?

Tom, I'm asking these things as honest questions, no sarcasm intended ... unless, of course, there are no unassailable answers! Call me "Arlen's Advoc -" ... er, um, I mean "Devil's Advocate!"

The "Rush" is on!

For those who are willing to risk the "arrest"!

Located just right of center of Elm St, in this vicinity, is a large nail driven down into the asphalt.

This nail was placed there by Mr. Robert H. West when he conducted the original survey for Time/Life Magazine, and then for the SS (in which another nail was driven into the asphalt slightly past the first nail.

This is what Surveyors do in roads.

To my knowledge, these nails are still in place and were merely covered over with the re-asphalting of Elm St.

This includes the nail for the SECOND shot to the head at Z-312/313 as well as the THIRD & final shot to the head some 31 feet past the Z312/313 head shot.

These nails can be located with a good metal detector and/or the type detector which a surveyor utilizes to locate survey pins.

In event anyone is up to "dodging traffic", I will provide the survey data and they can risk arrest and vehicle injury if they have interest in locating the impact position of the three shots that were fired in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63.

Interesting concepts.

First, that "impact positions" could be determined when the exact trajectory through JFK's body is not known, but is at best only extrapolated, and the point of entry at the rear (back? neck?) is not unquestionable and the hole at the throat cannot definitively be said to be either one of entry or of exit.

Those not being proven scientifically / forensically, we cannot state with 100% certainty - other than based upon a belief - where the shots originated from. That applies equally to both the LN sixth-floor-window-only argument as well as any front-shot (grassy knoll, bridge, sewer drain, etc.) argument.

Robert West could not have been using any more scientific data than is available to the rest of us since it plain ol' doesn't exist. How then a surveyor could determine points of impact when points of origin cannot be determined with certainty is beyond me ... unless, perhaps, he used a metal detector to find bits of metal embedded in the asphalt, which suggests MORE bullets than the ones that hit anybody!

Also interesting to suggest a point of impact just 31 feet after the head shot. Is that a point of impact made before the head shot caused by a missed bullet, or one made after the headshot in the short time span it would take the limo to travel that distance (someone more mathematically inclined can figure that one out if they'd like)? What scientific proof did West apply to determine such a post-headshot impact?

Finally, given that streets in Dallas, in Texas, and throughout the United States are public thoroughfares and wholly unrestricted in their use (provided any such use does not impede the regular flow of traffic or public utilities, or destroy the surface or appurtenances of said streets), why would someone "risk arrest" for walking down Elm Street with a metal detector? It's not even jay-walking (a mere ticketable offense) if the traffic light for oncoming traffic is red!

I suspect Ruby was involved in the conspiracy before the assassination.  I suggest he may have used his contacts on the police force to obtain police uniforms for the conspirators.

Tim,

Good suggestion, that could very well be.

None of the men whom witnesses saw at the TSBD windows, or who were seen running from it, wore police uniforms. But there was the unidentified uniformed officer whom Mabra encountered in the railroad yard, and there is of course Badge Man. ....

Ron,

That is not strictly true. White shirt and brown coats were the "uniform" of senior DCSD personnel and their version of "plain clothes" (versus shirts with badges and stripes and all that).

Luke Mooney was the first officer on the sixth floor other than Marrion Baker, and when he arrived there, he traversed the floor several ways and encountered nobody, then went up to the seventh floor. On his way up in the elevator, it stopped to pick up two women, but the electricity apparently went off (or they didn't close the door correctly?), so they all went upstairs on foot. One of the women was Victoria Adams, who testified (6H391) to the same thing. On his way upstairs, Mooney encountered an unnamed "deputy sheriff like myself" coming down the stairs from above.

The FBI (whose Hoover was big on "civil rights" of subjects of investigations ... as in "violating my civil rights" as opposed to the "civil rights movement") concluded at the time that organizations such as the KKK, JBS, NSRP and other "right wing" and "extremist" groups were "aided and abetted by police at the local level," and DPD officers have said privately that "half the force was Klan" at the time ... so why might anyone need to "obtain" police uniforms?

Ron, you say "But your suggestion brings me back to the two officers on the triple overpass." Officer J.C. White was assigned to the west end of the overpass, and James Foster was on the east end. I'm not sure what you mean by two officers being on the north end? Just curious where these guys would have been stationed in relation to the overpass.

Regards,

Roy Bierma

Roy,

The Triple Overpass spans Commerce, Main and Elm Streets, which run east-west, thus the railroad tracks atop the bridge run north-south. It is more accurate to say that White was assigned to the west side of the overpass and Foster on the east side, thus they would be at the north end at the east and west sides, i.e., over Elm Street, the northernmost of the three streets that converge at this point.

Hope that helps some.

My "scenarios" were intended to be absurd, just as I consider the idea that the SS would stand aside even for a staged, fake "attempt" if only on account of the (however remote) possibility that something might go wrong.... Indeed, the only way I could see this scenario being advanced is by someone actually intent upon "hijacking" it and hoping nobody would see [through] the ruse.

I consider it unfortunate that this thread's focus was shifted to the security stripping issue, which isn't integral to the fake assassination attempt hypothesis. That Oswald had been sheepdipped as pro-Castro, that there were a few wildly stray shots in Dealey Plaza which may have been deliberate misses - these have no necessary relationship to security stripping. But being misled to believe a fake assassination attempt was in play would explain a great deal about the position Oswald found himself in.

Sorry, but the "focus" seems to have been shifted from the start:

I would welcome an explanation from anyone asserting the authenticity of the supposed Chicago and Tampa plots and JFK's awareness of them, of how likely it would have been that JFK would have Jackie beside him in Dallas just four days after Tampa. The idea that JFK was aware of a pending fake attempt not only explains many things about Dallas, it especially explains Tampa and the manner in which the president stood in his limo through the motorcade, ostensibly aware of a plot against him that day.

I'm not sure how that last bit pertains to "the position Oswald found himself in," but I'll run with it for a moment. Yes, if Oswald were led to believe that there was a "scam" assassination attempt to take place, it might help to explain Oswald's "position," but what remains to be explained is why, how or by whom he'd have been "misled to believe" such a thing.

As to Chicago and Tampa, if we believe correctly that those were authentic assassination attempts (why set up three fake ones?), then there is all the more reason to exclude the possibility that, amid these authentic attempts, the USSS would stage such a scam - or allow one to be staged - for any reason, most certainly one driven by solely political considerations (re-election).

Repeat: absurd.

Jim Braden was taken into custody as a suspicous person at Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination. A suspicious elevator operator in the Dal Tex building called him to the attention of Sheriff Deputy Lummie Lewis, who took Braden in and took a statement from him before releasing him. ....

By "suspicious elevator operator," you mean "an elevator operator who was suspicious of Jim Braden" as opposed to "a suspicious person who was an elevator operator?"

Duke, there were many absurd ideas advanced in the early sixties. Look at the rather absurd proposals advanced to get rid of Castro. Many made little sense and yet they were advanced by intelligent men.

Are you stating that the United States could not have conceived of a way to "fake" an assassination attempt on JFK without risking anyone's life? If not, I do not understand why you consider the idea "absurd".

The dialogue that you propose shows you do not understand the concept of a fake assassination attempt at all. It was not a question of the SS standing aside to fail to prevent a real assassination. The suggestion was that there would be a staged assassination designed to fail (similar in concept to the staged assault on Guantonimo).

Had JFK survived a fake assassination attempt, whether blamed on Castro or on the extreme right-wing in Dallas, it certainly would have assured his re-election. If blamed on Castro, it could have been used to justify the "palace coup" propounded by "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Tim,

My "scenarios" were intended to be absurd, just as I consider the idea that the SS would stand aside even for a staged, fake "attempt" if only on account of the (however remote) possibility that something might go wrong. Like using real people in crash tests instead of dummies on the premise that the car won't accelerate to a speed sufficient to cause "real" injuries. (Oops!)

If such a "fake attempt" were to be planned and approved, a much better fail-safe would of necessity have been employed or the USSS would never have undertaken it (the USG was quite familiar with the notion of "fail-safe" at that point in time ... and to the USSS, the death of a president on their watch was not far afield of an accidental dropping of a nuclear bomb on Moscow). The key is in your observation of an attempt "without risking anyone's life."

A shooter rushing in on JFK in a crowd and allowed to get within a few feet of him with defective ammunition (which alone, being live ammo, would have been anathema to the USSS) and being deflected, even killed at the last moment would seem more plausible for an "allowed" fake attempt than gunfire during a motorcade. Of course, then you'd need to find someone willing to die for the "cause," which I don't think entirely likely (without, of course, getting into the issue of "government mind control" and "Manchurian candidates"). Even in such a case, the "risk" would have been too great.

On the other hand, someone being caught planting a bomb along JFK's route, whether in a motorcade or where he was making an appearance - something that would not involve direct or proximate contact with the protectee, and certainly not anything that could cause him bodily harm, much less death - would seem to fit the bill both as something the USSS could "live with" (since the situation - and the bomb! - would be defused long before the protectee would be in potential harm's way), as well as something that could be shown as an "assassination attempt" by Castro or anyone else. The "risk" is greatly reduced if not entirely eliminated.

In sum, any such "attempt," to pass muster, would have to be something that had a much greater element of control to ensure the safety of the protectee than the events in Dallas could have possibly allowed. While perhaps the idea of a "staged attempt" might not be wholly implausible, the suggestion that the "game plan" in Dallas was among those seriously contemplated and allowed to move forward is, yes, patently absurd, if simply on account of the element of risk, and possibly coupled with the notion that the USSS could possibly just "stand down" at the sound of gunfire from some unknown direction.

Indeed, the only way I could see this scenario being advanced is by someone actually intent upon "hijacking" it and hoping nobody would see the ruse.

Edit: Incidentally, other than political gain (re-election), what would blaming the right wing in Dallas have achieved of significant national strategic value that the USSS would acquiesce to any such scheme, no matter the element of risk or control? Blaming the right wing would achieve exactly the opposite of blaming Castro, wouldn't it?

I raised the issue of a fake assassination attempt as a possible scenario because I believe, like Tim C does, that it explains a lot of things. (See Tim's excellent post above.)

It does only if you can get past the absurdity of the idea in the first place. Isn't it a bit like testing your brakes by racing into a bridge abutment at 70 and hitting your brakes ... well, let's try 50 feet first, and then, if we survive, we'll try 40, and then ....?

No, it's actually more ludicrous than that: it's like saying "why install brakes since we're not going to crash into a bridge abutment anyway?"

This from the recently released Wine House tapes:

I don't think this "fake assassination attempt" scenario even qualifies as a straw man, does it?

Officer Parker (call sign #56) had radio'd going to e. jefferson for a code 5 at about 12:45 p.m. This has always seemed suspicious to me in the sense that he was the closest officer to Tippit's position, yet, he did not respond to the officer down call.

Dispatch asked "where is 56?" at 12:30 p.m., the appr. time of JFK's murder, and got no response.

Going through the transcripts of the day, nearly every time #56 was speaking with dispatch, there was some form of interference covering up their conversations.

W. P. Parker is, in my opinion, deserving of more attention.

Chuck

What is a code (or "signal") five? "Code" usually refererred to how officers travelled in their vehicles, Code One being "directly with haste," Code Two being "with lights," and Code Three being "lights and siren" (or very similar descriptions; it is among DPD testimony, I want to say Lt Pierce -?). I can't imagine anything faster than that, and don't know anything about a "Code Five."

Parker (or #56) may not have been the "closest officer to Tippit's position." It is quite possible that that distinction belongs to the man who was regularly assigned to the patrol district in which Tippit got killed, who was eating lunch less than a mile away at Luby's Cafeteria. It is also worthy of note that not everyone who responded to the Tippit "Signal 19" (shooting) reported having done so, so whether or not Parker(?) or #56 was part of that whole deal is an open question for the moment.

If, however, #56 reported being in or near central Oak Cliff at 12:45, it raises the question why Tippit and Nelson were told to report there just three minutes later, doesn't it? Especially since the regular officer was already there ....

code 5/signal 5 is en route to location/out to lunch or a break.

Parker, as far as I have been able to determine, made no further radio contact on the transcript I referenced, which ended shortly after 2:00 p.m.

Yeah, I would really like to know why Parker would decide to go to the area where Tippit was murdered at the exact moment that channel 2 was asking for all available cars to go downtown.

In checking the transcript, #56 says "Clear for 5" which doesn't really say it's a code or a signal 5. I wonder if he is saying he is clear for #5 (Lumpkin)?

Then dispatch asks his location to which he responds "e. jefferson".

Immediately following this is the report of the shooter's description.

Chuck

Chuck,

In common radio parlance, "Clear for 5" would refer to minutes, that is, he will be "clear" of his radio for five minutes. "Out for 5" could mean the same thing. As often as not, someone radioing "clear" would also radio that they were back on the air, but that's not always the case. Do you have a reference for this transmission? I'm scanning through CE1974 (radio transcripts) and not finding it.

East Jefferson Boulevard is a stretch of road about 1½ miles long, running from Beckley east and north to the viaduct over the Trinity River. Click here to see a map of where 56 could have been relative to where things were happening.

I don't find it as interesting that Parker or any cop was in the area where another cop would soon be murdered as much as I do that there were already two cops in central Oak Cliff when dispatch found it necessary to send Tippit (and Nelson, who ignored the order) in to patrol "at large for any emergency that might come in."

Somehow, the "quotations" seem not to be working, so I've got to look back at who said what to whom. Apologies, and be back you soon!

Well Nic,

What you said, sorta reminded me of something else....Here is another new interesting story in regard to Tippit. I'm sure some have heard about it, but it might be new to some. I first read about it in Walt Brown's, JFK/DPQ Publication and is also included in Livingstones new book.

For Reaseach Purposes Only!

A woman by the name of Mrs. Doris Holan, lived at 409 E Tenth Street, She lived upstairs directly across the street and her windows looked directly on Tippit's Patrol car and the murder scene.

Mrs Holan has been an unreported witness all these years. Yet she was dying of terminal cancer and talked to Dallas Researcher Michael Brownlow prior to her death in 2000. She met with Brownlow twice and once accompanied with reseracher Prof. BIll Pulte.

Mrs Holan had just returned home from her job that morning, a few minutes after 1:00, then she heard gun shots. She hurried to her window and saw Tippit's patrol car, across the street and parked in front of the driveway between 404 and 410 E. Tenth Sreet. Tippit was lying on the street, near the left front of the car. She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward towards Patton.

Mrs Holan also noticed something else that had not previously, ever been reported. A second police car in the driveway, which went all the way back to the alley, moving forward slowly towards Tippit's car on Tenth. Near the police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street where Tippit was parked.

She went downstairs at once and over to Tippit. The man in the driveway continued to the street, walked in front of Tippit's patrol car, paused and looked down at Tippit's head, and retraced his path up the driveway. At the same time, the police car changed direction and backed up in the driveway to the alley running parallel to Tenth, behind the houses on 404 and 410.

In 1963, the driveway could be entered from the alley from the rear, as well as from Tenth. Because Tippit's car was parked in front of the Tenth Street entrance, the alley provided the only passage from the driveway for the driver of the police car.

Mrs. Holan's account of a second police car is supported by the comments of Sam Guinyard, who told Brownlow in 1970 that he saw a police car in the alley shortly after the police shooting. The man in the driveway was apparently also seen by others: a resident of the neighborhood, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Prof Pulte, in 1990, that he had heard about a man in the driveway who approached Tippit's car.

Another thought...Earlene Roberts saw a police car stop and honk in front of the boarding house on 1026 N Beckley, where LHO lived.... at around 1:03. Tippit was shot at around 1:10 to 1:15 at the latest. This could possibly have been the police car she saw.

Dixie

P.S. Nic, don't feel too bad about your Mom not allowing Right Wing Books in the house. When my daughter was a pre-teen, I told her that I didn't want any of those $#%@*& "Beatles" records in the house. Then sometime later, I changed and was even trying to play their music on my guitar....:-)

Officer Parker (call sign #56) had radio'd going to e. jefferson for a code 5 at about 12:45 p.m. This has always seemed suspicious to me in the sense that he was the closest officer to Tippit's position, yet, he did not respond to the officer down call.

Dispatch asked "where is 56?" at 12:30 p.m., the appr. time of JFK's murder, and got no response.

Going through the transcripts of the day, nearly every time #56 was speaking with dispatch, there was some form of interference covering up their conversations.

W. P. Parker is, in my opinion, deserving of more attention.

Chuck

Some comments and questions on the above:

First, it is difficult to credit the comments of a dead witness who was not under oath and who can't be questioned to clarify any of her points. If you've been to Dealey Plaza around any November 22, it's not unusual to find even cops there who claim to have been a part of something that they clearly were not. We cannot, therefore, suggest that the "testimony" of an ordinary citizen must be taken at face value, especially 30 or more years later.

This is likewise akin to the alleged sighting of Tippit at the Gloco station when all the other evidence suggests that he was in the Kiest/Bonnieview area. To suggest that his report of being there is somehow fabricated requires some pretty fancy footwork on the part of whomever supposedly doctored the tape: it takes just about exactly eight minutes - the time between Tippit's transmission indicating his position there and his report of being at 8th and Lancaster - to travel between those two locations.

(I have done this personally more than one occasion with similar results each and every time. I have travelled at about the speed limit - 40 mph - and stopped fully at each place necessary since Tippit was not told to proceed at any code into central Oak Cliff: we can only assume he went directly but not "at speed" or in any particular haste. There is only one way to travel directly between those two points without either going unnecessarily through residential side streets, or first entering central Oak Cliff and then leaving it only to turn around and go back in.)

Since there is only the belated word of someone who may only be seeking their "fifteen minutes of fame" that contradicts other facts and evidence, I tend to discount the entire Gloco incident, and lacking any kind of direct corroboration of a police car in the alleyway (the driveways do not go directly through from 10th to the alleyway now, and I've seen no indication other than the Holan report that they ever did), I'm not inclined to lend any credence to this report.

Sam Guinyard did not, as far as I can read, indicate anything about a police car other than Tippit's own being anywhere in the area. He gave no affidavit, and his testimony is somewhat "off" from what other people reported, such as his statements that the gunman ran down the east side of Patton until he'd gotten to within feet of Jefferson Blvd., and that he ran with about ten feet of Guinyard. He also said that he was at the shooting scene when Benavides drove up in his truck coming from the east ... or at least, that's the way it sounds like he's describing it (I think there's another explanation, but that's for a later post).

His testimony reads that 7H398 he went to 10th St with Ted Callaway and "saw a police car there" and "the police[man] that was lying down in front of the car." That was the last time he or Joseph Ball used the word "car," the only other references to "car" being relative to the used-car lot he worked at; use of the word "police" was used only once in relation to a car, all the other times being related to "police station," "policeman," or "police officer." So, where the idea that he said he saw a patrol car in the alley came from is beyond me.

Officer Parker (call sign #56) had radio'd going to e. jefferson for a code 5 at about 12:45 p.m. This has always seemed suspicious to me in the sense that he was the closest officer to Tippit's position, yet, he did not respond to the officer down call.

Dispatch asked "where is 56?" at 12:30 p.m., the appr. time of JFK's murder, and got no response.

Going through the transcripts of the day, nearly every time #56 was speaking with dispatch, there was some form of interference covering up their conversations.

W. P. Parker is, in my opinion, deserving of more attention.

Chuck

What is a code (or "signal") five? "Code" usually refererred to how officers travelled in their vehicles, Code One being "directly with haste," Code Two being "with lights," and Code Three being "lights and siren" (or very similar descriptions; it is among DPD testimony, I want to say Lt Pierce -?). I can't imagine anything faster than that, and don't know anything about a "Code Five."

Parker (or #56) may not have been the "closest officer to Tippit's position." It is quite possible that that distinction belongs to the man who was regularly assigned to the patrol district in which Tippit got killed, who was eating lunch less than a mile away at Luby's Cafeteria. It is also worthy of note that not everyone who responded to the Tippit "Signal 19" (shooting) reported having done so, so whether or not Parker(?) or #56 was part of that whole deal is an open question for the moment.

If, however, #56 reported being in or near central Oak Cliff at 12:45, it raises the question why Tippit and Nelson were told to report there just three minutes later, doesn't it? Especially since the regular officer was already there ....

So how did it come to pass that they allowed the parade route to be changed to that highly vulnerable turn on Elm?

According to a lengthy and detailed report compiled by DPD Asst Chief Batchelor, and Deputy Chiefs Lumpkin and Stevenson, the route was not changed, and DPD and the USSS travelled the entire route, including the Elm Street bend, prior to November 22. The report was made to Chief Jesse Curry, dated November 30, 1963.

According to the report (HSCA record #180-10107-10137, file #003019, Box 71, released 05/18/93), the route had not been finalized as of November 14, nor had the location for the luncheon. On Nov 15, USSS asked DPD what they felt was the best route, which they responded Lemmon to Central Expressway, to Main as "the route requiring the least manpower for traffic." "It was pointed out" (the report does not indicate by whom) that the route that would "generate the greatest number of spectators" was the one ultimately selected.

The route was driven "in its entirety" from Love Field to the Trade Mart on Monday, Nov 18. USSS Lawson and Sorrells rode with Asst Chief Batchelor and Deputy Chief Lunday. Running time was determined to be 38 minutes. The report goes into details for "security," manpower and other factors.

Of course, this is DPD's version of events. If someone has a reference to any contradictory or complementary information from USSS about this, please let me know.