Michael G. Smith

Hugh Betzner, Jr. made explicit reference to doing just that. At least one other well-placed eyewitness described guns in the hands of Kennedy's detail before he was shot. Three further points. The murder took place at the motorcade's fag-end, at the least populated part of the route. Second, can you be sure that witnesses were expressly asked the question by statement-takers? Third, how would you react to seeing a presidential bodyguard shoot a man in broad daylight? Would you not be intimidated by what you saw? On the day of his death in June 1993, a close friend of Connally's was asked on a local Houston, Texas, radio station, why it was that Connolly had been the only presidential candidate ever to refuse Secret Service protection when he ran against Ronald Reagan in the 1980 primaries. He replied: "Well, John always said that having the Secret Service around was a good way to get yourself killed." But not if the car was slowed to walking pace or stationary. The list of witnesses who said the presidential limo stopped is, as I'm sure you're aware, formidable. Besides, is a rifle shot from 15 to 100 yards away easier than that from a hand-held weapon fired from under 10 feet? It is not self-evident to me that it is. Or simply landed on the grassy southern curb of Elm, assuming the presidential limo swerved to the left as Greer concentrated on things other than driving. Interestingly, witnesses from the front, rear and side of the Lincoln stated that the limo did indeed veer into the southernmost curbside lane of Elm; and there is a close-up sequence of a suited gent pocketing a discharged case from the grassy south curb. Fair point, if hardly dispositive. According to the Parkland doctors, the fatal head shot did indeed enter the left temple. McClelland wrote exactly that, while a surprisingly large number of his colleagues raised the question of a left-front headwound in their testimony before the Warren Commission.Remove the blinkers, Erick, and have a good, long, honest look at what was actually said and written, not what the grassy knollers have fruitlessly parroted for the past 5 decades. By the way, I think Cooper either a nut or a disinformationist. He was beaten to the punch on the Greer-did-it scenario by twenty years. Newcomb and Adams' Murder From Within remains indispensable reading. Paul Great post Paul. I had similar thoughts myself. Plus by the time Kennedy was hit the Connallys, were down on the floor. I agree with the left side hit theory myself, as I posted earlier. It also sounded like the shell would have been out in front of his head when, and if he shot. [he wouldnt have shot with the gun that close to his body] As you said, it would have ejected cleanly out of the car. If you think about it, alot of things would fit into that scenerio. It just seems far fetched to many, as it is a theory that isnt looked at that much, or thought about. Just my opinion FWIW thanks-smitty

I hear you Myra! I liked the part where he said "I didnt want to see my friend have the stigma"?? Like he wasnt going to have that shadow [the whole Watergate affair] following him around for the rest of his life! All of the publicity everyone has been hearing about Ford, and what a great man he was all of his life, Ive yet to hear anything about what a skunk he was, especially during the WC! Just my opinion FWIW. thanks-smitty

Lee, Very interesting stuff. I take it that the 2nd "quote" you showed was the "anon" email you recieved? I have not read that book, but it sounds like its something I should do. Do you know of anyone else who has seen the "said" video? That would be something to check out, if possible. Personally, I have heard the theory that Greer did the shooting some time ago, but never put anything into it, until you brought this up. Sounds like he was "silenced" by the Sherrifs Dept. during the raid of his home. Raid for what, I wonder?? thanks-smitty Hey Smitty. I really enjoyed the book - however, I should preface my comments by saying - it's not for everyone. He goes into some detail with respect to secret societies, the new world order, etc. I was very intrigued by some stuff he related concerning the disc technology, in addition to some of his personal experiences - for example, with disc technology and with respect to things like the cable that was broadcasted [from the JCS?] the week before Nixon's impeachment ordering that any communications from the White House [TOP HAT] were to be ignored and referred. That appears to be public knowledge now - but at the time Cooper was revealing it, seems like it was still under wraps. Anyway - I was curious about the film Cooper talks about. I have heard it was simply a bad production copy of the z-film, and not to be confused with the one discussed in that anonymous email. I tried to contact Bo Gritz about it - no response so far. He's another interesting individual. Anyway - Cooper appears to have been fairly paranoid - with good reason - since he appears to have been divulging some information that may have been sensitive or restricted - and took some heat for it over time - according to his book. His house could have been raided for any number of reasons - seems that Cooper was pretty outspoken. On the Greer bit - trying to keep an open mind myself ['Survivor's Guilt' made an impact] -- until some of the unreleased footage / photos emerge. I would like to have had the opportunity to view even one of the seven? alleged films I have heard about. I still tend to lean towards either an individual on the stairs and one behind the fence for the fatal headshot - but there still exists the mystery [for me personally] as to whether or not there was more than one hit to Kennedy's head. Aside - interesting connection for another Cooper [William and Gordon Cooper] with respect to disc technology and the assassination. - lee Lee, the book still sounds good, as any information on the disc tech. sounds good, but it seems like he was touching on quite a few different "hot topics" for that period of time. I guess you have to, as you said, take it for what it was at the time he wrote it. Ill have to start hunting around and see if I can find a copy for myself to read. I havent finished "Survivors Guilt" yet, but what I have read seems to be very good. I dont think its far off on JFK getting hit [from a few different positions] more than once on the head shot. From what I can recall, several people stated that they saw what appeared to be a left side [temple/forehead] wound. I have still left that open, as a real possibility. That shot could have come very easily from the south knoll [or similar] area. Any pictures, autopsy or other, ever show a clear picture of his "left" side. [from what I have seen anyway] Sorry for getting off base with your thread, I surely dont want this to turn into another "headshot" thread. Thanks for posting this, and I will see if i can find that book. If i find more than one, maybe I can list who has them, as others, Im sure, would like to read it also. Just my opinion, FWIW. thanks-smitty

Lee, Very interesting stuff. I take it that the 2nd "quote" you showed was the "anon" email you recieved? I have not read that book, but it sounds like its something I should do. Do you know of anyone else who has seen the "said" video? That would be something to check out, if possible. Personally, I have heard the theory that Greer did the shooting some time ago, but never put anything into it, until you brought this up. Sounds like he was "silenced" by the Sherrifs Dept. during the raid of his home. Raid for what, I wonder?? thanks-smitty

EBC, I have bought two sets of the complete 26 volumes almost a decade ago and have read nearly every volume completely through .... how far along are you in your set? As far as the points you listed above, I don't buy the WC's evidence, but instead I rely on the views from those key locations and when it comes to the road sign - it was not a factor. I have also logged several hundred hours in Dealey Plaza while taking photos from about every possible position with the exception of the alleged sniper's window. I have actually went into the middle of Elm Street to run test in between the light changes .... sometimes having traffic have to make a lane change to get around me because I didn't complete a task fast enough. I also took the time to shoot 360 degree panoramas so to have those views to work with upon my return home. I have taken several rides in the replica car while sitting in JFK's place while holding a video camera to my eye so to see what locations were visible and at what points - have you? As far as a first shot(s) coming from the RR yard and passing through the road sign - I do not buy it for several reasons. One is that once a shot is fired from that loaction ... there were plenty of witnesses who would have their attention immediately drawn there. Gordon Arnold for instance never mentioned a shot coming from behind him until the President was at the kill spot. You are welcoome to go to Dealey Plaza and do as I did and report what you found ... I will look forward to hearing what ever information you bring back with you. Bill Miller Everyone is entitled to their opinion Bill. You are entitled, as am I, Lee, and Eugene. I may not be as "knowledgeable", but I am entitled to what I think. I dont need you to bust into a thread I started about this subject, and have you start trying to push people around. I respect what you have done, and what you know, with no disrespect intended. You dont see me busting into "anybodys", and I repeat "anybodys" thread, and disrespect them in any way, shape or form. I would expect the same professionalism from someone who has the "knowledge", and doesnt have to guess at "probables". Even if I had the knowledge, and experience, I surely wouldnt be boasting and bragging. I have a copy of the WC Report, [which to be honest, I havent read it completely] and I have been to Dealey Plaza and surrounding areas, and took lots and lots of pictures. That doesnt make me even close to being an expert. If you cant play nice, play somewhere else. After looking at the plat, it is very obvious, that "one" of the signs COULD have been hit from that angle, and it would also help explain the frontal hit for the throat shot. [if the plat is close to representing what did happen] Personally, it has never been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Gordon Arnold was even present that day, in that position, to give any statement, one way or another. Anyway, that is just MY opinion, and Im not trying to shove it down anyones throat. FWIW-smitty

Thanks Dave, same to you, and everyone else here at the "forum". Have a Happy New Year too! -smitty

Hi all, I just wanted to wish you all here a Merry Christmas, or whatever anyone else might be celebrating at this time of year. It is really nice being able to join you all here, and be part of the "Forum". Celebrate, be careful, enjoy, and dont over do it! LOL! thanks-smitty

Lawson gave a fairly detailed interview on video which was shown on C-Span (I think in 2003). Unfortunately I did not record it. Lawson had some interesting things to say about Forrest Sorrels' role in planning the motorcade route. As I recall, the interview is part of the Sixth Floor Museum's oral history project. It would be interesting to see a transcript of that interview. I remember watching that interview and coming away with the thought that Sorrels was the prime mover in deciding the route. FWIW, this was Gerald Posner's conclusion also. Here is a link to Vince Palamara's discussion in Chapter Four of SURVIVORS GUILT. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter04.pdf Thanks Raymond for the post on "Survivors Guilt". It goes into great detail about the S.S and what was done and by who. I havent finished it yet, but hope to shortly. Very good book to read if you are interested in the parts played by the S.S on the trip to Dallas and the motorcade. thanks -smitty

Jack, go to this link to see if one of these people can put you in touch with Diana so you can ask her yourself. http://www.bestpsychicmediums.com/thelist.htm Jack, dont waste your time. Those psychic mediums arent the "best", as claimed. LOL! -smitty

Pete, Thanks for the "review" ! I was hoping to see it this weekend if possible, one way or another. Im glad you posted your thoughts on it. Movies like that, I seem to get "lost" in, but hopefully, I can follow the trail this time! lol! thanks-smitty

Ed, Sorry if you took my post about the Iowa badge, literally. I just posted that as a "general" idea of what i meant. Meaning being, that you wouldnt wear some "type of out of state badge", while trying to represent some other type of unit in Dallas. I appologize if you too it that way. No harm, no foul. Merry Christmas! thanks-smitty

To throw in my 2 cts. worth, any badge that was used that day to "imitate" any type of offical, wheather it was suppose to be a policeman or G-man, it had to match his position. That person surely wouldnt be wearing a "firemans" titled badge if he was supposed to be a G-man, Lets face it, if they were S.S, FBI, or anyone else in the "G", they wouldnt be wearing a badge, at least visably. Now on the other hand, If they were supposed to be a Dallas PD official, they would have to have a badge that represented the "police", or something to that effect. Most of what was heard that day was that people attempting to get to the fence, or behind it were stopped by men showing Government ID's. There very well were "policemen" there that day doing what they needed to do, but as i said, the badges had to match what position they held. [They surely wouldnt be wearing an "Iowa Police" badge and try to represent a Dallas patrolman!] Anyone from the Dallas area, or surrounding areas, would probably know what an area badge looked like, or resembled. From most views, there didnt seem to be many people at that time who wasnt related, knew, or werent personal friends with someone from the Dallas PD. Im sure most people knew [maybe not exactly] what a Dallas PD badge looked like, or what it closely resembled. I think the badge shown in the first post most closely resembles the one worn by the "unknown" policeman", cutting across the infield with the "woman". Im not positive, but I dont think they would go to the trouble of making "molds" and creating their own version of the desired badge they wanted. It would be a "generic" type badge, readibly available, that they could put on their hats, that said "Police", and get away with, in a quick glance. God forbid they got put in a position with a bunch of legitament Dallas PD patrolman or detectives, that werent "in on" the whole affair. They had to make their assigned "moves", do their jobs, and get out. Quick, clean, and fast, before anyone caught on to their "game". Just my opinion, FWIW thanks-smitty

I have had this problem for months. So do most members. I spend a lot of time deleting people's double posts. Knock on wood, Ive never had that problem. I dont know if this makes a difference or not, but I always "preveiw post" before I add it to the list, to check my spelling [awful!] and for any other corrections i might need to make, but maybe it makes a difference. ??? I dont know, I figured I would throw in my 2 cents, FWIW. thanks-smitty

Why don't you, with all your "research" of the "matter", put us all out of our misguided and moronic-lack-of-understanding-misery give us the benefit of your "research" of the "matter" and tell us all in this forum what you have found that tells you there is " acually (sic) very little that is difficult to understand in regards to the sign removal as well." Although most of what you ask was done a considerably time back, it is highly unlikely that it will put you "out of our misguided and moronic-lack-of-understanding-misery", as one has to take the time to read and understand it. And, until such time as you have studied the WC and: 1. The Adjusted Position 2. The Alteration of Survey Data 3. The multiple run-through's during the re-enactment 4. The multiple filming of the re-enactment from different angles and elevations 5. The jacked up rifle/filming position in the sixth floor window Then, it is most unlikely that you will also grasp the necessity for removal and replacement/relocation of the road sign just prior to the WC's re-enactment of the assassination. And, it also helps to know that neither Time/Life nor the US Secret Service or FBI originally had any great difficulty in location of the approximate point of impact for the first shot fired. (which information I also provided a considerable length of time back) Thanks again for your posts and thoughts on this subject. Not being as knowledgeable, as others, and still trying to "fill in" some questions that always seem to nag us, one thing has become clear for me. The WC and others must have been going crazy trying to figure out what, and how, to make everything "jive" after finding out that people were asking alot of questions, and what a big part the Zfilm was starting to play. They had to somehow, to the best of their capabilities, come up with a solution to make everything they "claimed" happen, and what really did happen, come to a comparison that closely matched. But they also had to worry about all of the other "films" taken that day, along with pictures, didnt pop-up and completely "blow-up" what they were going to put forth. They surely didnt figure on "researchers" to be still checking and comparing the Zfilm to this day! It is painfully obvious that they went to great lengths to ensure, to the best of their ability and talents in 63' that what they said happened, was backed up, at least enought to satisfy the public. Considering that the film wasnt released publically until years later, thay still had to know that eventually they would have to face up to it sooner or later. Many of you here have proved years ago what was thought to of happened, did.............the "probable" altering of the film. I ,at least, have gotten alot of good information that i didnt have before, from this thread. It has also become painfully obvious to me that the film WAS altered, at least to some point to prove their findings. It makes me wonder, at least, as to what other things the WC and others did, that we as a "group" havent found or touched on yet, to fall into their "version" of events?? I want to thank all of you that have posted here, and your input into my questions that were asked here. They all have helped me considerably. Just my opinion FWIW thanks-smitty

Now that there is a little more attachment space, this can continue. Thanks for printing those copies. Isnt it funny that they wanted the "exact" dimensions, and "exact" height, but not the position???? Because they would put the sign where they "needed" it to be!! The other sign down Elm further, I assume, the one in front of the fence and before the overpass, was completely disregarded, and no dimensions, or position, was wanted or needed, as it didnt play into the shooting zone or Zfilm. Thank you very much again Tom for printing them. These go a long way in "showing" what the WC and others were up to concerning the Zfilm and the others taken that day. Just my opinion FWIW thanks-smitty

Michael Parks.. "The SecretService performed a reenactment on 12/5/63 of the shooting of President Kennedy at Dealey Plaza. A survey plat was made for this event by Dallas County Surveyer Robert West and his assistant, Chester Breneman. This survey plat later became Commission Exhibit 585.. Nice that others are running around now claiming to know things of which they have for the most part only read. The Secret Service re-enactment was done on December 2, 3, & 4th. The Survey Plat for their work was drawn up on 12/5/63, and Chester Breneman was not associated with this work. We do not know why the Secret Service needed a pre-reenactment. At the time of this event, they had the Zapruder film and may even had a survey plat made on 11/25/63 for Time/Life by the same survey team of West and Breneman..The Official story during both the Secret Services reenactments was three shots, three hits.This story did not change until the following year with the advent of the Magic Bullet... There was no "pre-reenactment" by the U.S. Secret Service. Robert West survey had conducted the survey work for Time/Life on 11/25/63, (Survey Plat dated 11/26/63) which only located the first (behind the sign) impact as well as the Z313 impact points. This also happens to be the survey work which Brennan participated in and the reasons for requiring other work become quite obvious. Mr. West had hired Breneman for this work, and Breneman did not even report measurements to the one/tenth foot. All measurements were rounded to the nearest foot: as example, the window ledge of the sixth floor window was reported as being exactly 60 feet above the sidewalk below, when in fact it was 60.7 feet above the sidewalk. In addition, all horizontal angles as well as vertical angles which Breneman computed were rounded to the nearest "minute". At that time,(1963) most legal survey work required distances measured to the one-tenth foot and angles computed to the nearest "second". (degrees/minutes/& seconds) For these (& other reasons)* the Time/Life Survey Plat, as drawn by Paul D. Hardin, does not and can not represent a legal document, and it is extremely lacking in detail as well as final accuracy. This is the reason why most of the survey data as gained from the Time/Life work (measurements/locations/etc) can not be easily transferred to either the SS/FBI/ or even larger WC Survey Plat. *Breneman did not determine true street elevations at the designated shot impact points. In addition, all angles and distances were determined to street elevation with no consideration being given for the actual aiming point height of JFK's head which was in excess of 3 feet above the pavement. Therefore, ALL angles, distances, and measurements are incorrect. In addition to this, he gave no distances and established no station numbers along Elm St. which could be utilized for later reference The ONE & ONLY U.S. Secret Service survey plat and re-enactment demonstrated that the impact point for the third/last/final shot was approximately 40 feet farther down Elm St. than was the impact point of the Z313 head shot. Lastly, as with most "shared" information, I am just "sneaky" enough to not tell all. Thus, the "Magic Bullet" theory was not the next step in the evolution of the genesis to the WC lie. You see, when others were allowed this knowledge, I inadvertedly omitted the FBI Survey work and re-enactment of 2/7/64 in which the third/last/final shot down in front of James Altgens (40 feet past Z313 impact) was left in place, as was the impact point of the first shot, up behind the road sign. The FBI was foolish enough to think that they could move the impact point of the Z313 shot, which they most certainly attempted to do. I must assume that the yellow stripe on the Elm St. Curb ended this attempt to misrepresent the facts. Breneman stated that they had a full set of Zapruder frames from which to work with during the December reenactment..The was furnished by Life Magazine to the Secret Service .These slide were used to place the shots on CE 585..... As was pointed out by Chuck Marler in his several informative articles on the topic, shots were placed at Zapruder frames 208, 276, and 358.. These locations were marked on the county survey plat and it became an official document.. Mr. West says otherwise, and had Breneman had anything to do with the U.S. Secret Service Survey work and Survey Plat of 12/5/63, then he most assuredly would not have been running around claiming stories of bullet impacts to the curb of Elm St. As there most certainly were none surveyed in during this, or for that matter during any other survey. In addition, one would assume (unless he was drunk or on drugs) that had Breneman had anything to do with the U.S. Secret Service Survey work and assassination re-enactment of December 1963, that Breneman would have noticed that the U.S. Secret Service had added in a third impact point which Time/Life HAD NOT determined. And, this impact point for the third/last/final shot was some 40 feet past the impact point of the Z313 head shot. As to Chuck Marlar, for the most part, he knows only what I allowed him to know! The next year to back up the theory of the Magic Bullet, the FBI and the Warren Commission held a third reenactment in the Plaza..on 5/24/64....the actors used the Zapruder film, and West and Breneman made another survey plat..CE 882...they move the Head shot to Z 313 from Z 358.. As with anyone who is not provided with ALL of the facts, they tend to make mistakes which demonstrate same. And since information was "selectively shared", Chuck & others had no idea that another "re-enactment" by the FBI was snuck in. The WC was in fact the fourth re-enactment. 1. Time/Life of 11/25/63-------------Survey Plat 11/26/63 2. U.S. Secret Service of 12/2, 3, & 4/63------------------Survey Plat 12/5/63 3. FBI of 2/5 to 2/7/64-------------------------Survey Plat 2/7/64 4. Warren Commission 5/24/64*----------Survey Plat 5/31/64 *Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment. (personally, I would prefer the word "PHONEY" over that of "staged".) In addition, many fail to recognize the "pre-re-enactment" work. Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; southwest corner. After he heard the shots, he hurried down along the curb of Main Street, but did not remember exactly where he was standing. On the basis of his motion pictures, we were able to analyze the pictures using his camera, and on the 23d of May of this year, during the survey, preparatory to the reenactment, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recognizing that there are some "new guy's" here, please do not accept what Chuck Marlar or for that matter anyone else has to say in regards to the survey work in Dealy Plaza. That is unless of course they can provide copies of the actual survey's as well as the survey notes. Try as I may, it seems a virtual impossibility to keep persons from wanting to jump off down into these rabbit holes, armed with only rumor; hearsay; innuendo; and half-truth. Thanks again Bill, Bernice, and Tom for the detailed information. It is really beginning to appear that the "signs" had the WC and others worried, and took steps to verify their "work", by altering and changing sign locations, to match their version of the Zfilm. Getting back to the earlier post by Bill, I was always under the impression that the "Stemmons" sign was metal, as others were at this time. I have never heard of it being made of wood in anything I have read over the years. It "wood" [pun intended] be nice to know exactly when the sign was removed, and exactly by who. Just my opinion FWIW thanks-smitty

It might just be my eyes playing tricks on me Nope! You apparantly have excellent eyesight. Might want to take a look at Z200 and the slight "notch" on the right hand side. Always helps to follow the vertical line which is just in from the outer edge of the sign, created by the difference in shade/texture, whether looking for the right notch, or for the left notch. So if I understand you guys correctly - there must be several bullet holes in the road sign because you have managaed to take blurred frames and found what you think are "notches" in the road sign. If this is the case, then the same can be said about the road sign before the first shot was ever fired. I think that if you look at some other areas of the sign that you will find where light colored objects have bled over onto the sign, as well. I would also like to point out that in the days after the assassination and before the sign was ever removed .... there was a photo taken of some nuns lines in front of the road sign as they prayed for the fallen President and in that good clear photo you will be hard pressed to find even a scratch on the road sign - let alone bullet holes. Bill Miller Thanks all for the input! Its getting better and better. Thanks for the pics Bill. I can see what you are saying about the pictures being "blurred", and that is always what has been the problem with trying to actually "see" what was actually there. The information page you posted is good, and helps explain that it was a "marker" for the Z film. Where did this information sheet come from? The color picture is in good detail, and you can see pretty well what is going on. What struck me right away was on the back of the sign about 3/4 way down on the left hand side, about a foot or so in from the pole, appears to be a "major" [looking] dent, with the "hit" mark right in the center of it. When something is hit hard enough, whatever hits it can leave an impression in the center of the dent from the blunt force of the impact, but doesnt "break" through. Smething left a dent in the sign from being hit in the front. Its hard to see [the front of the B/W picture of the Nuns praying] beacuse it appears that it may have been hit in the dark [green i suppose] area of the sign, and it is hard to tell because it is in the dark area. I could very well be mistaken, but at least that is what it appears to be from my standpoint. The Nun picture carries a date of the 25th, so the picture could have been taken the same day [22nd] or up to the 24th i suppose. Do you know when it was taken? The reason I am asking is, as to when the sign was actually removed. It would be nice to know the "actual" date was that it was removed. I have to assume that it was the named "survey" company that was hired to remove it. Maybe in his "kept" notes and records he has it recorded as to when they removed it. It would be great to get access of those records, and see what was removed, put back, and removed completely. It may even tell of "relocating" a sign, as i posted earlier, to throw off peopledoing any investigating into the Zfilm, or any of the other films taken that day. Just my opinion FWIW. thanks-smitty

John, It could be said that it was "set up", as the empty bottle of pills was found of Seconal, and the test report came back with Nebutal residue in the empty glass. Im sure both of the drugs are close, but can be found differently by a chemist. Who ever did it, "set her up the way she was found" but drugged her [forced] with a "load" of lethal drugs, more than enough to kill her, along with alchohol residue also in the glass. [there were 2 empty glasses?] I have to assume the pills were her prescription, and not someone elses. The killer used Nembutal, and left the Seconal bottle as evidence. The set up was that she was to have been found "looking good" with eyelashes, make-up, blouse, etc..... indicating that she committed suicide, but wanted to be found looking "glamourous", as Im sure she was vein, to some point. There also is a descrepancy on the "found" times in the reports. I dont know if this had anything to do with it or not. Just my wild guess for now. thanks-smitty

Thanks for all of your input guys. Nice attachment Tom, thanks. Adam, I will try and see if i can pick it out in the "copy" of the Z film i have. I have tried to check all photos i have of the sign, but as of yet, nothing. The pictures I have are "grainy", and hard to pin point anything. I have tried to see "light" holes through the sign, but like I said, its hard to make out. Its a shame noone that i know of, didnt get a real good "shot" [no pun intended] of the sign that day. Raymond, that could be a good possibliity. I dont know if the location of the sign would have extended that far to interfere with such a shot. I have a picture I took out of the sixth floor window [one over to the west] i can go back and look at it, and see if it might have been close. Estimating of course, the location of the sign back then. [maybe Ashton could "recreate" an image of the sight line with sign in place, with his "magic imaging machine" LOL!] I dont believe I have seen any photos from the window to Kennedys location with the sign still in place. There are alot of things that will go unanswered, as im sure that we all have nagging questions about. Such as the "pool of blood" found on the sidewalk by the pergola. I have heard that photos were taken of it that day, but as of yet, have not seen them anywhere. FWIW thanks-smitty

You need to concentrate on the knife. John, were there any other "wounds"? If no other wounds were evident, im going to have to think about this one! thanks-smitty

John, I would have to agree with Greg on his point. I dont think that a "battery operated" small type tape recorder could possibly simulate the 'actual" sound of an "actual" shot being fired in the other room, even at full volume. I have to assume that it was this type of recorder, for him to be able to retrieve it in the way described without someone noticing. Just my opinion. I dont mean to put a damper on your "mysterys", and having fun with this! lol! FWIW thanks-smitty

John, without asking questions, my take is that he stepped on the trap, [even if it was his, it would have been hidden under the snow-maybe he forgot it, or his son had placed it there] almost surely cutting his leg off, deciding that his leg couldnt be saved, finished cutting it off with his knife, after applying the tourniquet. He then tried to crawl to safety somewhere/somehow, and finally bled to death there. But now you say he was murdered. Well, I would say the same thing, only his son found him shortly after it happened, and because for what ever reason his son had against his father, untied the tourniquet, and let him bleed to death, reapplied the tourniquet, and found the other men. His tracks had to have been at the site, as he said he "had" found him already. I could ask a bunch of questions, but i wont at this point. I have to assume there was no other tracks at the scene, and no other fatal wounds. thanks-smitty

Eugene, thanks for your input. I know that when I was there, you can see the "supposed" bullet strike on the south side of Elm manhole cover concrete form. It looks to be coming from the Records building, or the Dal-Tex building. If it was a bullet strike, and they knew it, they left it alone all these years from what i know of it. The curb where Mr. Tague was standing was left alone until one of the "Commisions" had it removed for testing, I believe. We know of the "supposed" bullet stikes in the south side grass that was checked by Ptl. Foster, Det. Walthers, and the "unknown" FBI guy, but there was nothing permanant left there. If the sign was "hit", it was destroyed long ago, im sure, because of the evidence left from it. All evidence was hidden and repaired immediately on the limo, so we know they were covering up whatever they could as soon as possible for evidence reasons. Thinking on the sign removal, if it was hit, or was a "marker" for the Zapruder film, why didnt they replace [an exact replica] it later in a "slightly different" place, say a foot or so, one way or another, just to throw off anybody looking for evidence later on checking the film? They could have said they removed it while they were doing their "investigation" as I stated earlier, and replaced it when they were done their work there. Why wasnt it replaced? Seems odd, I would think, as it drew alot of attention at the time that it WAS removed. Just another question to the "puzzle". Just my opinion, FWIW thanks-smitty

John, good question, Ive never seen anything either, but have heard of people "SEEING" a hole in it. [that bullet would have to be accounted for] I know this seems like an old, beat to death question..........but has there been anything positively answered about it? Not that I know of. To me, its like the Tippit killing. Lots of speculation, but nothing in concrete. Everybody seems to have their "own" answer to the nagging questions, but to me, this just starts these crazy "solutions" people come up with. I would just like to hear from some of the more "knowledgeable" people here, what their answers are to the sign removal. Like I said, if its been discussed before here, PLEASE send me to the previous postings, if possible, and I'll be GONE. I have heard that the sign was there for a few days after the shooting, and I have also heard that it was removed within a day. I have also read somewhere that the "city/county" workers removed it, and Ive heard it was just "gone" one day, with no one witnessing its removal. I have thought several things, other than the above. If there was nothing "sinister" about it, then maybe they removed it because it may have been in the way of "officials" taking investigation photos of the area and site. It looked pretty large, so I can see that it would get in the way of people taking photos from the ground/elevation, for the investigation. But then again, it has to be figured into the whole picture because it was there during the shooting. I can see where it was a "marking site", for the lack of a better term, for the Zapruder film if it WAS altered. One thing is for sure, from Zapruders film, [the one we see] Kennedy was deffinately hit while he was behind the sign. As he re-appears, he has his arms up, and is deffinately in distress. Not to "beat a dead horse", but I would just like to hear some other "versions" of why it may have been removed. Just my opinion. FWIW thanks-smitty