Don Bailey

Sorry John,

I didn't think there was a bandwidth issue so I will use another source for my photos. Of course, November will always be a month of high bandwidth usage because of the JFK anniversary. Members should be notified during October to delete their old photo attachments.

Jack: Create a Myspace page... you can use the links to your pictures from Myspace.

Don

The slower version of the Towner film clip posted on another thread looks like Tina was zooming in on the president. An object will become larger when you zoom in.

No ... I don't think you are necessarily a LN'r .... but I do think removing the "L" would be appropriate.

So what if I am, it’s what helped me to become a great investigator.

So what is your take on this ... is it your position that the people who carried out the assassination were not complex enough to come up with signals that only they would recognize as such, but instead handed out giant mallets to be waved around like one would see in an "Itchy and Scratchy" cartoon.

It certainly would be an eye-catcher for the SS to look at when they passed-by… another diversion.

That thread about Hudson maybe being one of the tramps was certainly a classic.

I’m not finished with that subject.

Don

Thanks Bernice for the full photo... no window or doorway in front of JFK means another alteration to the photo.

It's the Dallas motorcade.

Gary Mack has told me that the photograph of the limo was taken on "Main just west of the Adolphus Hotel," and that the original negative is kept at the Sixth Floor facility.

Mack also speculates that the version herein reproduced is darker than other prints he has seen, and that this contrast issue may account for the problem I have identifying the head as that of JFK.

The large crease in the jacket is new to me.

The hairline and part don't seem right.

Nor does the line of the jaw.

But I understand that non-sinister image degradation likely is the culprit here.

Unless the image has been manipulated to support yet another bogus SBT argument ...

Charles

Charles,

JFK's head is in front of a window or doorway and you can barely see the outline which makes the top of his head and jaw look square.

A straight black line is noticeable above JFK's head and runs down the back of his head. Another black line is below the large crease in his jacket. White lines appear above JFK's right arm just below the cuff of his jacket… splice lines?

Don

One cannot help but wonder if some of the more ridiculous claims are being made so to make it appear that CT's are off their rocker. Just think of it .... what better of a way to counter CT's than by pretending to be one of them and then waste tons of time raising some of the most ridiculous observations possible. The man at the wall raised a mug, glass, or what ever to toast the passing President. Another old guy being said to be giving the 'OK' sign as if he is signaling someone . These things coming from someone who cannot even look at a photo and see a shade line on a man's arm only to mistake it for being the handle on a mallet.

You are the one with the ridiculous claim if you think that I'm a LN'er... matter of fact, I don't care what you think of me or my views. When I signed up for this forum it was to discuss the topics on the JFK assassination, there is nothing in the rules about conforming to your supposed golden word.

And if that isn't bad enough, then let's waste forum space trying to make something out of nothing.

Why not discuss the issues? After all, this is the JFK Assassination Debate.

It does make sense to have a signalman or several signalmen on the ground. The enormous object in this man’s hand is out of the ordinary. Signalers and markers were in place for the shooters… like the yellow paint on the south side curb of Elm.

Don

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=58836

Please look at the photo on the page.

It certainly seems to show that JFK's coat was "bunched up".

I still think the hole in his coat would be an inch or more below the bunching but it does place the hole higher in his back.

Could a bullet entering the back an inch or two below the coat-bunching have exited his throat?

Well I do not think the throat wound was large enough for an exiting bullet but for the time being ignoring that consideration if a bullet did hit JFK in the back about where the photo suggests and exit his throat right around the top of his collar it certainly suggests a trajectory far to close to level to be traced back to the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Your comments?

Yes it can happen if you are playing a video game... make sure to grab the box of magic bullets on the way to the sixth floor and use the firing code: left-up-down-right-down. With the code and the box of magic bullets you can fire up in the air and it will hit your target everytime without leaving evidence or mangled bullets.

No exit wound leaves a 3-5mm entrance wound.

Ok Denis,

Look at the man standing behind the man with the large object in his hands... the man is holding up an OK hand sign. Soon after the limo passed these men a shot hit JFK in the throat. When JFK passed the Umbrella Man the first volley of shots paused until the head shots. Since the first volley of shots didn't kill JFK they had to rely on phase 2, the 2nd volley of shots hit their mark.

Sorry Robin and Miles but I do not see a doffed hat as the object in the man's hand... there are no shadows to make it look like a doffed hat. The object appears to have a beveled edge and flat at the top and bottom similar to that of a gavel.

Don

Thanks Miles,

After my first post I did a search of beer steins and only found one that kind of resembles the one in the picture. Was he drinking an extra large beer at noon?

Don

The mallet/mug-o-brew/coffee cup...

Two words...

False Attachment.

It's a real attachment taken from the Croft 3 photo. If it is not a mallet/mug-o-brew/coffee cup... what could it be?

Mr. Miller claims he has a travel mug that big but I doubt anyone sold travel mugs that big in 1963.

Thomas:

You will find lots of information about the Ramblers in DP at this link:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6365

The new photo's outline is drawn on the Powell photo. Several shades were closed in the Powell photo and open in the new photo.

Don

Don:

I do not think you can see what you call the mallets handle in the black and

white original, also I believe there are a few other discrepancys....that can be seen.

I am thinking that it could very well be, when coloured, a few leniencys were taken..

Once touched in such a way they are really never the same, what do you think

after comparing both..?

B....

Bernice,

The B&W picture shows a nice frosty mug of beer compared to the color version... the two pictures do not match. Compare the lighting of the mug.

Don

Don, for the same reason I doubt the umbrella man was part of the plot. As you point out it is ridiculous.

The fact that Louis Witt lied during the HSCA investigation makes me think that he was part of the plot.

Don, for the same reason I doubt the umbrella man was part of the plot. As you point out it is ridiculous.

The fact that Louis Witt lied during the HSCA investigation makes me think that he was part of the plot.

A cup or a mug that large would hold a half of gallon or more of liquid. It's almost as big as the hat of the man sitting next to him. The shadow of the mallet's handle is seen on the man's shirt below the shadow of his arm.

Tim, it's also ridiculous to think that a man with an open umbrella would be signaling the shooters. But the photographs show he was there pumping his umbrella up and down at the time of the shots.

Again, is there any record to identify these four people?

Don

In the Croft 3 photo you can see four people in the crowd... three are sitting on the wall and one person standing behind the wall. The man behind the wall is holding up an ok hand signal, the man in front of him is holding a large wooden mallet or a novelty gavel. Would this possibly be a signal for the shooters? Was it meant to show JFK that judgment has been passed on him and his sentence is death? Or both? Although there was construction in the area at the time, I do not know of any job that would require a large wooden hammer unless there was a carnival in the area.

Were any of the four people ever identified?

Don

Crisman + Holt = Hunt

Hunt + Sturgis + Harrelson = 3 tramps

Do the math and you'll find the real answer!!!

The picture Kathleen posted is new to me. The photo does look like Witt... his nose is large and his hair looks like Witt's hair with a few touch ups on the picture.

I know of 4 people that thought it was blood, Coley, Mulkey, Couch and Jean Hill. Although Hill changed her mind, at first she thought it was blood.

I knew Jean Hill personally and she told me that it wasn't blood. I'll explain why I believed her as we go.

What made Hill change her mind? Someone convinced her afterwards that it was Kool-Aid or some red drink. It could have been the Secret Service men she spoke with down at the courthouse that afternoon. How many drinks in 1963 looked like blood? Cherry Kool-Aid is out of the question because it's light red. There is no substitute for the look of blood except fake blood.

So let us re-think what you just said. Jean still claimed there were more than three shots. Jean still maintained that a man fired from the fence. Jean always maintained that someone forced her to go with them to be interviewed and then brow beaten about the number of shots that she had heard. Jean always maintained that there was a conspiracy. And so it is your position that she was scared into not saying that she saw blood ... now do you not see how little sense that makes!

As I said before, for a pool of blood to have gotten as large as the wet spot seen on the walkway, there would have been an enormous amount of blood loss that would have had to take place. The victims clothing would have been noticeable soaked in blood and at least the foot on the wounded side where the blood ran down onto the ground would have been leaving tracks much like someone did at Nicole's Brown Simpson's address in the OJ case.

Were there hoards of people in Dealey Plaza who saw smoke from the GK shooter?

The smoke came through the trees and only hung there for a couple of seconds before dissipating. That is a bit different from a pool of liquid that remained on the sidewalk while half of the plaza paraded passed it.

Were there hoards of people saying there was blood on the back of the limo or in the street behind the limo? No, it was covered up like most everything that happened that day.

I have to question how much thought you actually put into the things you say. Droplets of blood spray on a dark blue limo racing out of Dealey Plaza in your mind is the same as a stationary pool of liquid seen on a light colored sidewalk where people could walk by and observe it for as long as they wished - you must be joking!

It's sad that no independent researcher has ever interviewed Hudson... do you think he was the person that had to clean up the blood since he was the groundskeeper?

If he had to clean any liquid off the sidewalk - his son (William) never mentioned it to me. And Flynn who took the photograph of the park bench just a few feet away didn't mention it either, or take a photo of it.

Bill Miller

I did not say Jean Hill was scared into thinking that it was not blood, someone or something convinced her that it was not blood and I would love to hear the story on what made her change her mind.

And Flynn who took the photograph of the park bench just a few feet away didn't mention it either, or take a photo of it.

Someone else did take a picture of the blood....

"When the two men (Coley and Mulkey) returned to the office they told photographer, Jim Hood, about the blood. He visited the scene and took a photograph of it. The following week, two FBI agents arrived at the office and asked to speak to Coley and Jim Hood. They asked to see the photograph. They took this away plus the negative. The FBI told the two men: “For your benefit, it never happened… Just forget the entire incident; it never happened.”

Why would the FBI take away a photo of the pool of blood? It doesn’t make sense if it was Kool-Aid.

As I said before, for a pool of blood to have gotten as large as the wet spot seen on the walkway, there would have been an enormous amount of blood loss that would have had to take place.

Coley and Mulkey said it was about one pint of blood. A blood donation is one pint.

The victims clothing would have been noticeable soaked in blood and at least the foot on the wounded side where the blood ran down onto the ground would have been leaving tracks much like someone did at Nicole's Brown Simpson's address in the OJ case.

Good question. The couch film only shows the puddle of blood and you cannot see if there were bloody footsteps leading into the parking lot since there was no film of that part of the sidewalk. In 2000, Couch did state... "There was a trail of blood from the spot where the shooting occurred to the entrance of the Texas School Book Depository. I pointed it out to a man with me." Bloody clothing from an injured person can be covered up with a jacket but it will still leave a trail of blood.

Don

A 16 ounce cup of coffee poured out on the sidewalk would create that pattern but if you were to break, smash or drop a bottle of coke it would make a totally different pattern then what you see in the Couch film. Plus, it would leave glass fragments within that area and no witness spoke of stepping on glass when they were on the sidewalk.

So you want to discredit Mulkey because he tasted the blood... how lame is that excuse? Guess you've never heard the saying... "If something smells like ****, tastes like ****, then it's ****!

Coley was threatened and was forced into hiding... whenever a witness is threatened it makes me think they are telling the truth.

Don

Well you see all those people who went up the walkway - right? ....... ask yourself why there were not hoards of witnesses telling of seeing this pool of blood? Flynn took the time to photograph a sack lunch on the bench just a few feet away and yet wouldn't take a photo of a large pool of alleged blood. Why do you think that is??? And it seems to me that if someone stood there and bled that much blood, then there should have been marks of blood from everywhere their foot stepped leading away and yet no mention of it that I have seen.

Bill Miller

Bill,

I know of 4 people that thought it was blood, Coley, Mulkey, Couch and Jean Hill. Although Hill changed her mind, at first she thought it was blood.

"Mrs. HILL - Yes; and I don't think he ever did see me. I Just looked at him and dodged then because I thought his wheel was going to hit me, and I don't think he ever did see me, and I ran across through there and started up the hill. When I looked down on the ground, I mean, as I was running up the hill to catch that man, I looked down and saw some red stuff and I thought, "Oh, they got him, he's bleeding," and this is embarrassing, but it turned out to be Koolade or some sort of red drink."

What made Hill change her mind? Someone convinced her afterwards that it was Kool-Aid or some red drink. It could have been the Secret Service men she spoke with down at the courthouse that afternoon. How many drinks in 1963 looked like blood? Cherry Kool-Aid is out of the question because it's light red. There is no substitute for the look of blood except fake blood.

Were there hoards of people in Dealey Plaza who saw smoke from the GK shooter? Were there hoards of people saying there was blood on the back of the limo or in the street behind the limo? No, it was covered up like most everything that happened that day.

It's sad that no independent researcher has ever interviewed Hudson... do you think he was the person that had to clean up the blood since he was the groundskeeper?

Don

Ok, so someone poured out a full 16 oz. bottle of coke? It does not make sense. If you knock over a bottle of coke not all of the contents will spill out unless you hold it upside down.

Where is the empty coke bottle in the Couch film of the steps??

It's a puddle of blood!!

Don

No one said that a full bottle of Coke was poured out. And to be honest, I could have poured a cup of coffee out on the sidewalk and it made a pattern as large as that wet spot seen in the Couch film, which BTW is on the sidewalk and not the steps. And I really find it hard to swallow that anyone tasted blood for only an idiot would have done something like that and if they were that dumb, then it would explain why no one else supported that puddle as being blood.

Now, seeing how you are in a detective frame of mind regardless of how gullible you may appear, let us say that someone had been shot in the leg as you alleged in a previous response ... how long would you estimate someone needed to stand in one spot to have that much blood get passed the clothing of the pants - socks - and shoes ... in order to form a puddle that large onto the sidewalk? And then you want people top believe that someone who lost that much blood was able to then pass 100's of witnesses and not have anyone seeing his blood soaked clothing. It sounds to me that you put as much time into this one as you did the three men on the steps fiasco.

And what about the bottle? Didn't Sitzman say something about hearing a bottle thrown and being broken during the shooting ... I believe she did. But if I follow your way of thinking ... for a soda to have been poured out onto the ground, then there must be a bottle laying next to the puddle ... now is that what you are implying? I'm not buying that one.

Bill Miller

A 16 ounce cup of coffee poured out on the sidewalk would create that pattern but if you were to break, smash or drop a bottle of coke it would make a totally different pattern then what you see in the Couch film. Plus, it would leave glass fragments within that area and no witness spoke of stepping on glass when they were on the sidewalk.

So you want to discredit Mulkey because he tasted the blood... how lame is that excuse? Guess you've never heard the saying... "If something smells like ****, tastes like ****, then it's ****!

Coley was threatened and was forced into hiding... whenever a witness is threatened it makes me think they are telling the truth.

Don

Ok, so someone poured out a full 16 oz. bottle of coke? It does not make sense. If you knock over a bottle of coke not all of the contents will spill out unless you hold it upside down.

Where is the empty coke bottle in the Couch film of the steps??

It's a puddle of blood!!

Don

No one said that a full bottle of Coke was poured out. And to be honest, I could have poured a cup of coffee out on the sidewalk and it made a pattern as large as that wet spot seen in the Couch film, which BTW is on the sidewalk and not the steps. And I really find it hard to swallow that anyone tasted blood for only an idiot would have done something like that and if they were that dumb, then it would explain why no one else supported that puddle as being blood.

Now, seeing how you are in a detective frame of mind regardless of how gullible you may appear, let us say that someone had been shot in the leg as you alleged in a previous response ... how long would you estimate someone needed to stand in one spot to have that much blood get passed the clothing of the pants - socks - and shoes ... in order to form a puddle that large onto the sidewalk? And then you want people top believe that someone who lost that much blood was able to then pass 100's of witnesses and not have anyone seeing his blood soaked clothing. It sounds to me that you put as much time into this one as you did the three men on the steps fiasco.

And what about the bottle? Didn't Sitzman say something about hearing a bottle thrown and being broken during the shooting ... I believe she did. But if I follow your way of thinking ... for a soda to have been poured out onto the ground, then there must be a bottle laying next to the puddle ... now is that what you are implying? I'm not buying that one.

Bill Miller

A 16 ounce cup of coffee poured out on the sidewalk would create that pattern but if you were to break, smash or drop a bottle of coke it would make a totally different pattern then what you see in the Couch film. Plus, it would leave glass fragments within that area and no witness spoke of stepping on glass when they were on the sidewalk.

So you want to discredit Mulkey because he tasted the blood... how lame is that excuse? Guess you've never heard the saying... "If something smells like ****, tastes like ****, then it's ****!

Coley was threatened and was forced into hiding... whenever a witness is threatened it makes me think they are telling the truth.

Don

Thanks to everyone for the information! Although I'm not familiar with trains or their procedures... Does it make sense to have a porter on a stationary passenger car that is used by the railroad as a mobile office? To me, the porter is wearing a white jacket which tells me he was not maintenance.

Jack: About number 2... I never knew the late Mary Ferrell was the chief source of research for the EXECUTIVE ACTION movie... I watched that movie for the first time when I rented it back in 1993, also rented your BACKYARD PHOTOS movie. Both are interesting to watch!!

Peter: I do not think the shooter ran to hide in the passenger cars. Hiding the weapon in a car trunk is plausible since at least one witness on a level plain saw what looked like a trunk open in the parking lot.

There is more to discuss but first I need capture some photos from films whenever I get more time....

Don

In my opinion, the guy on the steps (Jack Lawrence) limped to cover behind the wall after he was shot in leg from a bullet fragment. This explains the blood puddle behind the wall.

Don, this is just my opinion, but you should consider writing for the tabloids. That puddle seen in the Darnell film looks like someone poured the rest of their hot Coke out on the sidewalk after it had gotten warm. Because if someone was shot in the leg or anywhere else ... do you have any idea as to how badly they would be wounded and how long they would have needed to remain at that location to leak enough blood out onto the ground to make a puddle that large in one spot or have you not considered that? And if someone was leaking blood out to make a puddle that large, then there should have at the very least been droplets of blood seen elsewhere along what ever path they would have taken and there was none reported.

Bill

Bill,

Thanks for the job offer but I don't want to take away your job. My guess is you have no idea of the blood found in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day.

John Simkin started this topic almost 2 years ago:

Coley and Mulkey Blood

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...08&hl=couch

"Coley and Mulkey stood on Houston Street near the entrance of the old county jail. They therefore did not see or hear the shooting, however, when news spread to them they went to Dealey Plaza. While walking down the steps on the grassy knoll, they discovered a pool of blood (Mulkey actually tasted it to make sure it was blood). The two men estimated that there must have been a pint of blood on the steps close to the fence on the grassy knoll."

This is quoting Malcolm Couch in the Clifton (TX) Record, 11/22/2000:

"I started toward the building where I had seen the rifle in the window. Then I saw something very weird. There was a trail of blood from the spot where the shooting occurred to the entrance of the Texas School Book Depository. I pointed it out to a man with me.

"Just then an FBI man stepped out of the building, and in his hand was an object dripping blood. It looked like a piece of hairy flesh. I know I didn't imagine this. The scene is very clear to me."

In 1955 the Coca-Cola parent company broke with its long-standing policy of only utilizing a single-sized container for their product. In addition to the original 6.5 ounce size, the company introduced ten, twelve, sixteen, and twenty-six ounce bottles.

1 US pint = 16 US fluid ounces

Ok, so someone poured out a full 16 oz. bottle of coke? It does not make sense. If you knock over a bottle of coke not all of the contents will spill out unless you hold it upside down.

Where is the empty coke bottle in the Couch film of the steps??

It's a puddle of blood!!

Don

Don, I'm afraid that is incorrect. The passenger cars were not a "train". The cars were used by the railroad as mobile officers and when

not parked in Dallas they were shuttled out to construction or other work sites were an office was temporarily required. However they

were often in Dallas and you can find various numbers of them in different photos daken over a period of months/years. They were also

used as extra office space there and a gas line was run out to them for heating. It is unclear that they were occupied on Nov. 22 and there

is no record that they were entered or searched although police can be seen outside them and even on top of them.

Lots of folks have made an effort to get more detail including contacting former Dallas RR workers but I'm afraid the info above is pretty

much what we know about them at this time.

-- Larry

Thanks Larry,

It looks like a person in a white shirt who is standing at the entrance of one of the passener cars is looking into the parking lot. Some witnesses stated there was a man running towards the train after the shooting. Seems like a good place to hide and change clothes... probably a CIA rental on Nov. 22nd!!

Don