Trent Adams

Actually, this is pretty interesting to me. However, it sounds a lot like the movie "National Treasure".

Agreed.

OK....I appreciate the detailed response and I agree with the premise of what you are saying. Also, I am quite familiar with aviation disasters, as that is an investigative responsibility I have had for 9 years, and well too often at that. Anyway, you won't get any argument out of me about what you have posted above, and I agree that the Tippit murder is the key to understanding this entire riddle. Having said that, the specific reason I used "the scene" in the context I have, is based on the earlier posts in this thread. There were comments regarding Hill's statement about the gun being an automatic, and it was stated that it was because he saw the shell(s) next to the body, and this caused him to assume they were from an automatic. I understand how that could cause that mistake, if there were any shells near the body. My points were that there was no body when Hill arrived, so it would be quite a feat to observe the shell(s) next to the body. Additionally, the theory that the shells were near the actual site of the shooting (I'm being very specific about near the car, or anywhere within let's say 30 feet), because they were ejected from an automatic during the shooting, doesn't hold water. I base this on the fact that the casings were found over 100 feet away and around the corner. I'm not debating the fact that the gunman might have been unloading the shells as he ran through the yard, through the hedge, or around the corner. What I am saying is that the shells were not visible near the car. No matter what he did with them, they were found on the west side of the house. These comments were made by me to eliminate the reasons given by other members, as to why Hill reported over the radio that the gun was an automatic. No casings at the site, and they weren't ejected over 100 feet and around a corner. Like I stated earlier, that would make the SBT sound plausible, in comparison. Whatever reasons he had for saying what he did, those couldn't have been the reasons. At least not in the way he claimed. At least that's my opinion.

I believe Callaway saw the gunman come through the hedge at the southeast corner of 10th and Patton, which would be the northwest corner of the Davis' dwelling. This is a quote from Callaway: "When I saw him jump through that hedge, he had his pistol in a raised position and his left hand going to the pistol." This is exactly my point regarding "shells at the scene". The shells were actually found on the west side of the building the Davis' lived, which ran along Patton. This is more than 100 feet away from the shooting site AND around the corner. If the "scene" is the entire area/block/intersection, then technically, they could be "at the scene", but there is NO way they were seen at the site of the shooting. I don't think they coordinated the story at all. Hill says that he took the last cigarette out of the package and placed the shells in there. Benavides says he used a stick and put them in his cigarette package of his own. Hill later says that Poe shows him a cigarette package with 3 shells in it, that a citizen had given to Poe. Then even later, Hill states that Benavides showed him and Poe the location of the shells, but that Benavides never touched them and only he and Poe picked them up and put them in his cigarette package. No, I don't think any of the stories make sense, and that the first story of Benavides was the correct version. No shell 'near the body' because there was no body. All the shells, according to the Davis sisters-in-law and Benavides, were found off of the street in the Davis' front/side/corner yard. Side yard, yes. Never found anything regarding the front yard. The only reference I found to "corner" was the "window on the northwest corner of the house", which was actually on the west side of the house.

I am curious about what the members of this forum feel about all the stuff regarding New Orleans, as it relates, or might relate, to the JFK Assassination. I realize that this community has members that "love" Garrison and what he did; "hate" Garrison and what he did; and some in between these two extremes. However, I read a lot of the posts on this forum (old ones especially) and find an interesting thing with some of them. I sometimes run across members that have expressed great disdain for Garrison and his investigation. Yet, in other commentary they make on the forum, when expressing a point of view and using information to explain their "theory", they actually use information that only became available because of Garrison's investigation. I find this somewhat amusing, but not totally unrealistic. This post is primarily looking for responses as to how people view Garrison; his investigation; and what value it added or what it diminished in the "search for the truth". Is New Orleans discounted by most of the community, etc. etc.? Did Garrison at least open some doors, or did he create doors that weren't there? Just curious, I guess.

Amen!

AFTER YOU FOUND THE AERIAL WHICH GAVE YOU THE ANSWER, WHY DID YOU START A THREAD ASKING FOR AN ANSWER? Why is that question so hard to understand???????????????? I believe that Jack is saying that at the time he posted this thread, on May 6th, that he didn't know. But during the next week, he found the answer. This thread was dead after the 7th, and then revived in the past day. Actually this makes sense to me. However, Jack could have probably posted what he found after the original posting, to make sure the thread died after he answered his own question.

Thanks Trent. I am inclined to agree with you - however, most of the experts I contacted about this believe this is simply wind in the bushes. I don't. The only confimation I ever received was tenuous at best. I once stumbled upon someone who claimed to have witnessed a film taken from perhaps this location - based upon the description provided [TSBD doorway in background, etc] - that's all I managed to get. I didn't see the film, and I have no way of knowing if this person was credible. That's how it goes. Here's a crop - thanks to Robin Unger - this was one of his high quality frames. I interpolated it, cropped this section, and slightly tweaked it. Now I know what the wind looks like anyway. - lee LOL! Thanks for sharing what the wind looks like! Although I am sure there is some issue involving physics, line of sight, or a previously unknown presence of a large fan in this area, the "it's just the wind" opinion is somewhat weak in my eyes. The reason for this is that this wind seems to be blowing east to west, at the same speed of the limo. Now, with just a quick study of the video, that seems to be the only place that the wind is blowing in that direction. The first thing I looked for was truly noticeable movement in clothing or hair by people in the crowd, but this is difficult to see, even if it is there. No luck. The next reference I used was the flags on the front of the limo, and using this could be deceiving, because they will inevitably move with the movement of the limo. However, it appears possible that even with that movement, the flags do seem to be waving a little to the north side of Elm. Inconclusive, but it appears that way to me. The next reference is the lady next to the Stemmons sign on the North side of Elm. She has that white handkerchief on her head which is definitely appearing to be blown in a North to Northwest direction. Although neither of these is conclusive, it does give at least a possible direction of the wind at that time. However, the East to West direction of the wind in that area that I spoke of would seem to be obstructed by that wall immediately behind and the wall to the east of "the shooter" and his friend "the wind". I'm not ready to buy the "it's just the wind" theory yet.

OK, I am not looking to debate the details of some of the issues in the posts, as I know this has been discussed previously. However, these are some of the things that I believe to be correct, and I would like to be made aware of where I am wrong and/or enlightened as to where some of this evidence can be located. The events surrounding the Tippit murder are of GREAT interest to me. Therefore, please educate me on my misgivings as I list them here: - The first report that the gun was an automatic was by Officer Summers around 1:37 pm, based on information from witness Callaway. Callaway based this on how the gunman was holding the gun when he came through the hedge, and his experience with a .45 in the Marine Corp. - Nobody ever claimed to find a shell near the body of Tippit. I don't know of anyplace that it indicates this occurred. - Additionally, I don't believe Hill arrived at the scene until after Tippit's body was removed, so it would be somewhat tough for him to see a shell near the body... - The shells were found at the northwest corner of the building the Davis sisters lived, and this was actually on Patton, not on Tenth. - Hill, Poe, and Benavides all had differing accounts of how the shells were placed in the cigarette carton. I think they all had a little problem with getting this story correct. - The first shells were not found or recovered until at least 20 minutes after the shooting. This would be quite remarkable if in fact, there was a shell near the body. I'm just trying to figure out where this information is, so that I can correct my records, so that I may add some other dots to try and connect. Thanks in advance!

Hill's original radio report refers to a singular "shell", not a plural "shells," if the transcript is accurate. In the heat of the moment I don't think it is unreasonable for a policeman to jump to the conclusion that the presence of an ejected caridge is an indication that the murder weapon was an automatic. This issue, like the issue of Poe's supposed marking two of the shells, has been a blind alley for researchers for over 40 years, and it is time to get over it and look at the real evidence, IMO. To be honest, I'm not debating what someone might assume, especially in the heat of the moment. Based on what I know of the DPD at the time, I hope this was just a poor assumption, because I know A LOT of the officers who were on duty that day and who are often mentioned/criticized in books and on this forum, and I don't feel they were ALL involved in sinister dealings that day. But just to clarify my point and the record a bit: Hill's actual radio transmission is as follows: "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with a automatic 38, rather than a pistol." So, the mention was "shells" and not a singular shell.....just to clarify. The reason I made the sarcastic comment about the "bionic" ejection of the mentioned shells was based on where they were found. They were found around the corner on the East side of Patton. That type of ejection, if it were claimed as fact, would make the SBT seem like the gospel in comparison. Not only would that have caused them to be ejected more than 100 feet, but then they would have turned around the corner from the shooting. Therefore, it is for that reason that I don't think there were shells at "the scene" for Hill to make his assumption from. I know Hill's explanation for his error, but still it doesn't make sense to me how he reached his conclusion based on shells at "the scene". There weren't any shells at the shooting scene! Although I might believe he made an honest mistake/assumption, I still keep it in the back of my mind that there is a possibility of some shenanigans with the shells and the murder weapon. Other than that, I agree that there are too many things researchers get caught up in, trying to make something out of nothing. At least this one didn't appear out of thin air. I hope that clears up my comments a bit.

Of the five persons I know who have viewed the other film, ALL: 1. Had not seen the Zapruder film at the time they saw the OTHER film 2. Had no reason to know that they were not looking at the Z film. 3. Only years later when seeing the extant film did they realize IT was different. 4. Saw the limousine turn the corner. 5. Saw the limousine come to a stop before the head shot. All of the people saw the film at different times and places. None of them was aware of the others, but described the same film. One of them saw it on two different occasions. One of them saw it on several occasions; it was shown to him by a retired French intelligence agent. He is a respected French journalist. He attempted to buy the film, but the man feared for his life, since he was not supposed to have the copy. All of these people are honest, reputable people. Why suggest they are lying? Jack Huh? I didn't think I suggested anybody was lying. However, I re-read what I wrote to make sure and again, I didn't see where I suggested they were lying. To make sure that I am clear on what I wrote, I began with the word "Perhaps". This was suggesting that they weren't lying when they said they were shown a different version of the Zapruder Film, but that the different version of the film could have been an enhanced version as I related in what I wrote. Basically, I was offering another alternative to what they were shown. I don't know these people and will probably never talk to them. It was just a way to say that they may have been telling the truth, but what the version of the film they saw may not be anything more than a version enhanced for effect. However, I do not know. Although, I feel comfortable in stating that I did not suggest they were liars. I guess the question would now be: "What did they see in the other version that could be of benefit to analyzing the assassination any differently?" That is the key to all of this. Anyway, I just thought I needed to make sure that I was clear, and made myself clear.

This is very interesting to me. Thanks for your time and effort on this theory. One thing in the film and photos (where you put your boxes for us to follow along) that stands out to me. It appears in the video that just to the right of the image of the shooter (definitely movement there), there is also movement, which appears to be directly in sync with the movement of the limo. At least that is what I see.

From Sylvia Meagher, Accessaries After the Fact, P. 273: 'Gerald Hill signalled the dispatcher with the following message: The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol (CE 1974, P. 78) Hill did get a chance to examine the shells, but that was long after he sent this broadcast. I challenge Jack White (or anyone else) to provide evidence that Hill had actually examined the cartridge(s) when he sent this broadcast. Knowing that there were spent cartidges at the scene, it was a perfectly logical assumption for any policeman to make that the murder weapon was an automatic. I propose that the most sensible way to read the issue is: "The [fact that there is a ] shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol" (CE 1974, P. 78) Not that I reject the notion that there may have been honest confusion regarding the reports of the "automatic .38" instead of a pistol. However, based on my understanding of where the shells were found (I could be mistaken), I am hard pressed to believe that by looking at "the scene", that the shells in evidence were laying around "the scene". In other words, that "automatic" must have had bionic ejection skills for those shells to wind up where they were eventually found. Now, after saying this, I am going to look for the locations of the shells, because I don't think I would have been able to conclude that the shells were ejected from an automatic, based on where they were found. I could be mistaken.....but I don't think so.

Perhaps its not an alternate version of the same film, but maybe an "enhanced" version of the film. This could be done for effect. Obviously, it could be frames that have been enlarged and manipulated to "show close up" the effects of what can happen when one in their position fails to remain focused on their duty. What better way to illustrate this or drive home the point, than to show Jackie Kennedy close up, with her husband head next to her, when all of a sudden she witnesses the horrifying sight of her husband's head "exploding" right in front of her face. This type of version of the film would not surprise me in the least.

OK, I understand the points you make here about the people on the North side of Elm (including your overlay, and thanks for putting that up). I even understand your second post. Here are the questions I have, based on what you said: 1) If the 8 or 9 frames of the Zapruder film span a time of about 1/2 of a second (which I would agree with provided it was continuous filming), then how did those folks on the South side of Elm: a) follow his car by walking the sidewalk area as the limo rounded Elm in that same 1/2 second? some obviously turned around, but others transported into the picture within 1/2 second? 2) Actually, how did the limo get around that corner in 1/2 second? 3) Can you make one of those overlays showing what people are doing on both sides of the street? Maybe I am stupid about this, but I believe a more likely version of this episode is that there is a break in the filming by Zapruder, or there is a section missing, because I don't see anyway for those folks on the South side to get into position within half a second, and certainly not for the limo to get around that corner that fast. Something doesn't add up for me.