Greg Burnham

I just spoke with Jack on the phone for about 10 minutes or so. He's doing fine. His surgery was a complete success. However, he lost his appetite due to one of the medications he was prescribed and, as a result, he lost a good deal of weight. He's no longer on that drug so his appetite is improving. The temperature in Fort Worth has been 103 to 105 everyday for about 3 weeks, which isn't helping.

Overall--a good report. It's just taking longer to get back up to speed than he would have preferred. Once the heat wave breaks he will be able to get outside more often and be more active.

Phelps is well aware that there are at least two major Judyth Baker threads elsewhere on this forum.

In my opinion, any comments on this "latest edition on a JVB interview" would be better served by appearing on one of those threads.

Agreed.

No.

Thanks for this, David. You provide more food for thought.

Daniel, I've never noticed that before. You are exactly right- Jean Hill is not looking at the limousine, in the midst of the shooting. That's an astute observation, and one that deserves an explanation.

Jean Hill can be seen turning to look at the limo just before the head shot, but only in the image between the sprockets holes of the Z film.

Good catch, Barry. Indeed, we can see Jean turn back towards the president before the headshot in the sprocket hole of Z-310 thru 312.

No recollection, David.

Hi Greg...

Always thought it was one or the other when panning?

Either the background is blurry because the panning and object moving are in sync..

or the object moving is blurry and the background is clear, if the panning pauses just for a few frames..

You probably have a better frame than this... seems there is quite a lot of blur in total... so who knows what the camera was doing at that instant...

David,

If you note the approximate rate that each object pans across the frames from right to left, Hill and Moorman appear to "move" across at a consistent rate during each. They appear to be moving out of frame from 300 to 301 to 302 to 303 to 304 at a consistent clip, IMO. If unaltered, why would that one single frame (303) show them to be so crisp? It was a duration of 1/18th of a second.

"...and just as I yelled, 'Hey,' to him, he started to bring his head up to look at me and just as he did the shot rang out. Mary took the picture and fell on the ground and of course there were more shots."

This isn't consistent with the film or with the official story either.

There is also another example of a blur issue in Frame # 303. Notice how incredibly sharp Hill and Moorman are in that frame. Actually, they are IMPOSSIBLY sharp for that single frame. Since Zapruder is panning to keep the limo in sight they should be consistently blurred because they are stationary. The only way that both the limo and the stationary objects should all be clear is if and when the limo stopped.

Di Euginio is the real BAD GUY here!

Now who is it that needs the thorough explanation of the rules, Ray?

Although I used this clip to demonstrate a different point on a separate subject, it also works well here. That the film clips of the plane entering the building look contrived could be because they were contrived! The techniques used to create illusions have obviously been improved since this clip was made in 1928, but there is an almost spooky similarity. The section of interest is between the 2:50 -- 3:00 minute marker.

Keep up the disinfo OK Raymond.

Would someone please explain the forum rules to this distasteful character.

And please explain them REAL SLOW & REAL SIMPLE, so he might catch a glimmer of understanding!

Carroll is obviously confused. Again.

"That Doug is a fine fellow isn't he?"

Ray,

I did NOT say that!

What you quoted was from Jim DiEugenio's post NOT mine. Please make the correction.

Keep up the disinfo OK Raymond.

Would someone please explain the forum rules to this distasteful character.

And please explain them REAL SLOW & REAL SIMPLE, so he might catch a glimmer of understanding!

Fascinating.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/jul/09/Social-Security-Administration-grave-mistakes-911/

Read related story

‘I’m not dead’: Social Security agency makes grave mistake for thousands

WASHINGTON — A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers to why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said her staff started making inquiries after the errors in the federal Death Master File (DMF) were detected by Scripps Howard News Service. The file is a public record intended to protect families of the deceased from identity theft and other types of fraud.

“While nearly 3,000 individuals were killed on Sept. 11th, the list does not show an increase in numbers from the typical DMF daily average,” Maloney said. “A sampling of those names did not yield any matches in the DMF and confirms their apparent absence.”

She said her staff has contacted the Social Security Administration, the New York State Department of Health and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, only to receive “conflicting answers as to why there is a lack of reporting on this matter.”

So Maloney is asking Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue and the public health commissioners for the state of New York and New York City, jointly, to account for the reporting error.

“Would you explain why individuals killed on 9/11 would be missing from the DMF?” Maloney asked in her letters.

__ Contact reporter Thomas Hargrove at hargrovet@shns.com.

I think my dad packed the same gun.

He was also qualified on a 50mm as a side gunner on a B-17.

KellysCafe: September 6, 1949 Cramer Hill Camden

I think that's a Thomson M1921, Bill. Since you can't see the stock in the picture you linked, do you remember if it (the stock) looked like this?

Can anyone ID this gun.

Is it like a russian short drum gun?

Looks very much like an AUTO-ORDNANCE THOMPSON M1A1. The tip of the barrel looks different though. Possibly an M-2. It's definitely Hemming holding it.

Thank you very much Greg. That seems very much it. Most grateful.

I understand and don't object to the concerns expressed by Tom. I understand the addendum to the title and don't object there either.

I'd just like to add a qualifier.

Recently I have had some conversations with a person familiar with the pre op phoenix ops. This has led to a scrutiny of persons who may or may not have had anything to do with Hemming. I named the topic generically because I thought a look at weaponry a different theater, which persons in early Vietnam SEAL photos carry, and it struck me that a weapon used looked very similar and a person in one photo bore a resemblance to a young Hemming.

I can see now that the weapons are different.

Your most welcome, John.

The Lansdale figure walking past the tramps still looks more like Maxwell Taylor to me. And I still don't understand why Prouty and Krulak, who knew both men, would not comment in any way on that instead of expressing the unqualified certainty that the figure is Lansdale. Taylor and Lansdale both had a stooped shoulder, both had a ring, and the figure seems to have wavy hair that Taylor had and Lansdale did not. I have a suspicion that Prouty and Krulak were deliberately ignoring Taylor in their exchange, but that's just a suspicion. They're all dead and we'll never know.

Supposition is sometimes useful and sometimes it is not, Ron. Prouty was not a big fan of Maxwell Taylor. He did write extensively about how much Taylor and Bobby Kennedy had grown close. But, Prouty was not at all convinced that Taylor was without blemish. He told me so on several occasions and he did not speak very highly of him.

Moreover, Maxwell Taylor's whereabouts at the time of the assassination are known. He was at the Pentagon. Granted there are inconsistencies regarding how McNamara came to know about the assassination, etc., namely he didn't recall Taylor buzzing him with the news. But, are you suggesting that Taylor was not even at the Pentagon at all--and was instead in Dallas?

Oh no, here we go again with Ray C and Saint John Hunt, with Howard Hunt in Dealey Plaza.

Please, spare us this BS Raymond.

It was not the La Fontaines. It was the arrest records and then the corroborating witnesses, about four of them.

OK?

Keep up the disinfo OK Raymond.

People don't age over 30 years either right?

"That Doug's a fine fellow, isn't he?"

On second thought, Mike--

I'm not sure why Hemming told Lee it was a Standard Issue M3a2 sub-machine gun. In my view, that is false. If Gerry was still alive I'd call him on the phone right now and ask him why the smoke screen? He'd then proceed to yell at me for a few minutes, I'd yell back for a few more and then he'd finally get down to the story...riddled with expletives all the way. Sure do miss the guy. He was encyclopedic. Perhaps it is what he said it was and I just don't see it in that photo? Maybe, but doubtful. FWIW

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12954&view=findpost&p=147577

That explains the tip of the barrel, Mike. Thanks--

Can anyone ID this gun.

Is it like a russian short drum gun?

Looks very much like an AUTO-ORDNANCE THOMPSON M1A1. The tip of the barrel looks different though. Possibly an M-2. It's definitely Hemming holding it.

P.S. That's interesting stuff you posted about Krulak changing Hemming's mind (about Lansdale walking past the "hobos" in the photo).

Hi Thomas,

Yeah, it's true. Hemming was not very "forgiving" of wild theories nor wild speculation. He adamantly rejected the ID of Lansdale offered by Prouty despite my friendship with both he (Hemming) and Prouty. However, he would not easily dismiss same when it came from Krulak. It's funny, but I had never had a conversation with Hemming about this subject (Lansdale in DP) for the entire time we were in contact. It first came up in a thread (I believe) on this forum years ago. I wasn't even a member here back then. Someone (who shall remain anonymous) sent me an email about the thread. I called Gerry and gave him the info over the phone. Then I scanned the document and sent it via email. He, somewhat begrudgingly, conceded the point. However, over the phone he was less vitriolic about it. He expressed his deep respect for Krulak and his belief that if it came from Krulak--as a confirmation--it was as good as gold, in his view.

Oh and I forgot about Chauncey Holt also.

Another poseur who was exposed by Ed Tatro.

I mean how many times does this have to blow up for people to get the message?

I guess several times.

If they serve no purpose to the plot then why are they significant in any way?

To me they are even a worse distraction than Braden. Braden at least you can connect with some power centers.

But these guys? Come on.

The research community sometimes makes mistakes. Oliver Stone admitted he made some errors in his film. THat is fine. Pre ARRB that is excusable. But post ARRB? WIth all the new compelling evidence that blows this case to kingdom come? Why bother with this kind of stuff?

Does everyone see what happened to Shane O'Sullivan? To his credit he admitted he was wrong. But he smudged up some good people, like Ed Lopez. Photo ID is one of the trickiest forms of detection that there is. We have seen too many of them lead us astray.

Jimbo,

Do you believe police officer Wes Wise when he explains the "cotton" stuffed into his right ear on 11/22/63 as his way of dealing with an alleged ear ache?

--Thomas

Yea Tom, you don't mean Wes Wise. He's a former radio and TV reporter and anchor and mayor of Dallas who knew Ruby and ran down the Carl Mather connection.

There was a Dallas cop named Wise, motorcycle maybe, but no relation to Wes.

BK

TOM that would be Marvin Wise..........he was with the tramps...b

Thanks BK and Bernice. That's what I get for being too lazy to re-"research" it and get my facts straight before I open my big mouth. I meant the other, younger, blond(?) policeman with something in his right ear which he later claimed was cotton because he had an ear ache. Perhaps Bernice will be kind enough to post a photo of the dude I'm talking about? Sorry for the boo-boo.

--Thomas

Tom--

The first one is kinda cut-off, the second one is not too good a copy, but it's Wise. He's the first cop (far right).

It was not Conein, we know that today.

And unless you believe someone as questionable as Saint John Hunt, which only someone like Carroll would, it was not Hunt either.

The idea that Tracy Barnes would be there defies logic and rules of tradecraft. Its as bad as saying Johannides was at the Ambassador. Which he was not. Desk guys at the top are not in on the operative level.

As per Lansdale, John Newman told me that he was passing through Fort Worth on his way to see relatives in, I think Denton. I do not recall him saying Lansdale stayed at the same hotel JFK was at. But the same problem applies with him as with Barnes. You don't put people who many would recognize out in the open like that.

I for one as so sick and tired of talking about these three tramps, that it gives me a headache.

Haven't we suffered enough with them? I mean, Frenchy, the Houston killer, Hunt, Sturgis, Harrelson and on and on and on.

And for what end? Why are they necessary to anything?

People make mistakes. Especially when they are examining a complex crime like this one. Garrison and Sprague were wrong. As were Weberman and Canfield. I mean, my God an earprint?

They most likely were who the LaFontaines identified them as.

Good riddance.

Maybe their role was to escort the cops(?) out of a particular "situation"? For example, maybe Officer Wise was a spotter? BTW, just what does that Hunt/Holt-lookalike older dude have in that brown paper bag, anyway? A radio perhaps? Hmmm... Regarding Lansdale, I gotta go with "Brute" Krulak. He was a personal friend of my Dad's (in La Jolla, California), and my Dad told me once that he was the most brilliant (and interesting) man he'd ever met, topping Jonas Salk, Jacob Bronowski, etc...

--Thomas

Hey Thomas,

Krulak indeed generated a great deal of respect from everyone who knew him as far as I can tell.

Even Hemming rejected the idea that it was Lansdale, although Hemming didn't know Lansdale himself. But, he initially rejected the idea based on its having violated trade-craft if it was true. It was only after I sent Gerry a copy of the actual letter from Krulak to Prouty (that ID'd Lansdale) did Gerry then contact Krulak's family. According to Hemming, the family was not pleased that the letter had been made public, but that was enough for Hemming, too. He respected Krulak perhaps as much as anyone he'd ever known. Hemming was convinced from that day forward that it was indeed Lansdale based soley on Krulak having said it was so.

Just as a point of clarification for those who might be wondering: Prouty did not betray a confidence, since Krulak never requested confidentiality from Fletch regarding the content of the letter.

That Lansdale was staying at the same hotel as was JFK the night before the assassination is not in question as per John Newman. As I understand it, the records from the hotel bear this out (if I'm not mistaken). That he was in Dealey Plaza the next day is not in question as he was positively identified by two senior DOD officials who knew him very well. One of the very compelling elements of this identification is that the second ID made by General Victor Krulak came in a PRIVATE letter to Colonel Prouty. Krulak was not intending to be quoted nor was he intending to publically identify Lansdale. However, the fact that Krulak was positive that it was indeed Lansdale, cannot be disputed.

Unless you knew Lansdale by sight as well as--and for as long as--these two witnesses did, or unless you believe they are lying or are incompetent, then I believe it is irresponsible to dismiss this evidence as "probably erroneous" or worse.

Neither Prouty nor Krulak speculated on the "why" of his presence beyond the obvious questions raised by it. But, there was never any question as to who it was pictured in the photograph.

I know we don't necessarily agree on that, Jim. However, I do agree with Prouty that the identification of the tramps was not important. They were just background noise.

Moreover, Prouty was very familiar with Hunt. It would have been uncharacteristic of Prouty to fail to make the ID if it was, in fact, Hunt.

To answer your question Ron, yes it can.

It can, indeed. However, the prospect that it may actually have been planted raises other concerns.