Bernice Moore

No Jack, it does not appear to correspond, am hoping Robin will do the comparison, but

from a quick look, I agree........

I have been looking at the width of the wall that faced Elm St....

All I get is another.......?

and what else is new...whenever one gets into the Plaza..

Have a look, does it appear to you, to be not as wide now, than it was in 63 ??.....

Or..?

Thanks B....

**************************

Jack , All.......

The above photo that I posted whereby it was dated Dec.23/63.........IS IN ERROR.......

The photo is from the Secret Service and was taken on Nov.27 th, 1963......

Sean Murphy's page Lancer.. SS photos taken 11/27/63.........page 1.

Sean posted

Sean Murphy Mon Oct-13-08 05:15 PM

Member since Mar 25th 2007

770 posts

#76293, "RE: Where was Gordon?"

In response to Reply # 0

FWIW:

The stills below are taken from the Secret Service film of 11/27/63.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...mp;topic_page=1

Enlargement by Robin at La on page 2..

http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...mp;topic_page=2

Thanks to Sean for making this photo available....

I apologize for the confusion.......it had been sent to me with the error of the date within....

I further checked , this evening....and it lead to the Lancer thread...

If you check the links that lead to the Lancer Forum, you will see the correct date..from the Secret Service posted by Sean..

November 27/63.....

Thanks B......

**********************

Corrected information......

post # 88.....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry156820

The photo below was Taken November 27th, 1963.....B........

deleted

While awaiting that one, Jack.......

I have another...This is you ? at the fence is that correct...

How tall was the fence, and if so would you recall a date...??

also looking at the ground level..

It appears well, short......?? I realize you are over 6" but ??

Many thanks....

P.S ....That width ????

B...

Here is the comparison I had in mind. What do you think?

Jack

PS...excuse the typo...I meant COMPLETELY, not COMPLETED.

*********************

Yes it does appear to be taller & fuller..........The question will be, do the Pyracantha Bushes loose their

leaves.....in the colder weather....is that a possibility ??

I am aware the fence was 5ft tall, and approx a few inches shorter at the front...

But in seeing the two of you,.. right up against at the fence in the photo, brought to mind, how much taller a man

would then be if, say he was behind such and say standing on a bumper of a car.....he would have

had no problem then whatsoever in seeing, over the wall......as some say it would have been for instance, Myers..

within his studies .....

It just came to mind..

Excuse typos, Jack I am infamous for such.....no problemo, ever...

Thanks

B..

While awaiting that one, Jack.......

I have another...This is you ? at the fence is that correct...

How tall was the fence, and if so would you recall a date...??

also looking at the ground level..

It appears well, short......?? I realize you are over 6" but ??

Many thanks....

P.S ....That width ????

B...

No Jack, it does not appear to correspond, am hoping Robin will do the comparison, but

from a quick look, I agree........

I have been looking at the width of the wall that faced Elm St....

All I get is another.......?

and what else is new...whenever one gets into the Plaza..

Have a look, does it appear to you, to be not as wide now, than it was in 63 ??.....

Or..?

Thanks B....

**************************

Jack , All.......

The above photo that I posted whereby it was dated Dec.23/63.........IS IN ERROR.......

The photo is from the Secret Service and was taken on Nov.27 th, 1963......

Sean Murphy's page Lancer.. SS photos taken 11/27/63.........page 1.

Sean posted

Sean Murphy Mon Oct-13-08 05:15 PM

Member since Mar 25th 2007

770 posts

#76293, "RE: Where was Gordon?"

In response to Reply # 0

FWIW:

The stills below are taken from the Secret Service film of 11/27/63.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...mp;topic_page=1

Enlargement by Robin at La on page 2..

http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...mp;topic_page=2

Thanks to Sean for making this photo available....

I apologize for the confusion.......it had been sent to me with the error of the date within....

I further checked , this evening....and it lead to the Lancer thread...

If you check the links that lead to the Lancer Forum, you will see the correct date..from the Secret Service posted by Sean..

November 27/63.....

Thanks B......

Raymond :

All I have is, Dallas News, 1964..Jim Ewell.....

I have no idea whose comments ,have been added on the left of the

first article..?

B....

Hi Bill :

No you certainly are not wasting your time......imo......

This information went out far and wide, and I can tell you

through such, there have been many pre-orders as a result,

and the feed back mainly was, they cannot wait to get their

"paws" on it......

Please, never let that thought of ceasing cross your mind.....

.. now or ever....

I guess the many in general, are clutzes, and most appear to not realize,

the time, work and effort to supply information for the many, who do

appear to so take others efforts for granted.....

Kudos, and yes it is very pleasant on occasion when some

remember their manners, and say a wee thanks, and realise that it does not hurt....

Some do, many never....it would appear.....

Carry on, carrying on......We do appreciate all.....

Best B...

Raymond & Duke:

Here are a couple later newspaper reports...That may be of

some help...

Quoting whereby Nick MacDonald does state

it was Brewer who informed him of where LHO was situated....

within theTheatre.

Quote:

"There was this guy, I think he was a shoe salesman,

and he told us the suspect was sitting at the back of the lower floor by himself.

I peeped through the curtain and spotted Oswald.."

B........

When looking at this image we need to make allowances for the change in ground level at the wall.

Lee Forman Photo:

Simulated Sitzman view.

Hi Robin....

Question,

What would the ground level have to do, with placing the couple in the wrong

position at the wall,in Lee's recreation......?

The young man at the left , is standing, at the corner...

They are beyond that to the right, and the bench is seen closer to the wall than is seen in new rendiction.....

Though I do realize there is a difference on the position of the photograhper in taking said photos...

But ..when comparing the Darnell to his......? To me it does appear that they have been placed in the

wrong postion within....

Ta.......B

Lee Forman mentioned to me about Charles Roberts making the statement below.

"A Negro snatched up his child and dashed off; a motorcycle cop jumped the curb, drew his gun and chased him."

I think that most of us assumed he was refering to the Chisms. ?

Could it be possible that he was actually refering to the Running Man bolting from the top step, grabbing his wife and child, and heading for the Carpark area.

****************

That would be too late as far as I know..to have seen either the Chisms or anyone run up the steps.......I believe he was on the first bus with Robert (?) MacNeill, another I believe of the W/H reporters....the first bus had not turned the corner onto Houston from Main.........when the shots

had sounded, though it would have been close to the Main & Houston corner at that time.....as far as I know he continued on to Parkland, but not positive.....MacNeill I recall did get out, and ended up at the TSBD, where he asked a young man in short sleeves where a phone was, at the doorway, he does not know to this day if it was LHO....he caught a ride then to Parkland, if memory is kicking in..

Though I know what MacNeil say nows, the films and photos, have proven them to be in error...though Roberts may have seen another man pick up another child,in the Houston St. area...That could have been.....

Charles Roberts BTW went on to write a small pocket book, "The Truth About The Assassination" in 67, trashing the critics , they were all nuts of course.....and praising the W/C for getting it right..that information is within such, and me thinks he was using perhaps some of what he had heard or read to improve such ???..the book is similar to other Gov funded trash of the time...IMO.....

B.......

Thanks Bernice:

Yes i think you are right , the first time i see the press Bus 1 is in Bond (5) that appears to be too late in the Timeline.

Here is another Murray i found.

The quality is not the best, is was scanned from a poor quality photo.

Look to the right, the young man, in the Murray...with the Jacket with the white shoulder inserts, H.S jacket similar to those that the two young

men wore who were standing inside the first, alcove and then ran up the knoll hill to the top of the fence, where

the Ruby lookalike appears...just a note,could be the tallest one....??

I have some Jim Murray's, but all are appreciated, back then we did not carry the babes papoose style like to day, in the carriers...

we wore out arms out, and ended up having muscles,

Here are two for you,I have compiled, showing the motorcade, and they are marked, on Houston, as they had come around the corner.....

For now.....

B...

Lee Forman mentioned to me about Charles Roberts making the statement below.

"A Negro snatched up his child and dashed off; a motorcycle cop jumped the curb, drew his gun and chased him."

I think that most of us assumed he was refering to the Chisms. ?

Could it be possible that he was actually refering to the Running Man bolting from the top step, grabbing his wife and child, and heading for the Carpark area.

****************

That would be too late as far as I know..to have seen either the Chisms or anyone run up the steps.......I believe he was on the first bus with Robert (?) MacNeill, another I believe of the W/H reporters....the first bus had not turned the corner onto Houston from Main.........when the shots

had sounded, though it would have been close to the Main & Houston corner at that time.....as far as I know he continued on to Parkland, but not positive.....MacNeill I recall did get out, and ended up at the TSBD, where he asked a young man in short sleeves where a phone was, at the doorway, he does not know to this day if it was LHO....he caught a ride then to Parkland, if memory is kicking in..

Though I know what MacNeil say nows, the films and photos, have proven them to be in error...though Roberts may have seen another man pick up another child,in the Houston St. area...That could have been.....

Charles Roberts BTW went on to write a small pocket book, "The Truth About The Assassination" in 67, trashing the critics , they were all nuts of course.....and praising the W/C for getting it right..that information is within such, and me thinks he was using perhaps some of what he had heard or read to improve such ???..the book is similar to other Gov funded trash of the time...IMO.....

B.......

Always a bit more new, Robin......at times.....

Here are two more Darnell frames I have been studying..?

In the first I do not see the man...at the wall.....It would appear

he has not arrived there as yet, and I cannot find her there either....??

I found a photo that was cropped and enlarged of the lunch bags the

Detectives are examining....I have nought about, the line.

FWTAW....

B....

All.......

Below shows clips of the films during and immediately after ....it is 8 minutes ...duration..

Robin.......Check out, right after the Wiegman Film, as the motorcade has turned the Elm St. corner....

Also as it shows the crowds coming from Main across the park and up the steps...

One Never knows...

The Critical Minutes...also includes Darnell Film

Below separate is..

The Darnell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD6kqg3zCBw

Does it appear the man is or has just arrived, for a view from the wall or perhaps it is the

movement of the camera man.....??

Thanks....

B........

Looking at the start of the animated, gif does any one else see a man in a long light jacket appear to embrace the woman or the baby ? They both seem to move towards each other.

Moving on, in the 1st photo, I find it helpful to presume that the 'face' of the woman that appears to be looking to the left of the photo is probably someone else stood just behind her. To me she becomes much less contorted and seems to be glancing towards 'no feet' man over her right shoulder.

Regarding the issue of 'no feet', he's not the only person in the images whose limbs are affected by the motion of the film.

The man in the hat looking down seems to lose his fingers and the woman walking from left to right with a child appears to lose her right foot. It suggest to me that elements of the images are just 'bleeding' into each other.

*******************

Hi Mark.:

Good eye....She also seems to turn toward the man in the rain coat ? Which would mean she is facing him if so.....

another woman's face on the left or whatever in the background , could very well be..

There are many "body parts" that appear to go missing within some of the photos..honest...

More than likely as you say, could be "bleeding" , of "body parts" into each other , say...groan.

Really though, more than likely.....As well cameras and film were not as today,in 63.

Many thanks for your contribution....

B.....

More

Bernice...in that frame her upper body is not twisted. But when I

enhance it, then it does appear twisted. It is really an oddity I

do not understand.

After looking for a long time, I decided that the white cap of

the kid contributes to the illusion by obscuring her right shoulder.

Also, is the darnellman wearing WHITE SHOES? Otherwise

again I see no feet.

Jack

She is a contortionist......The longer I look at any I have found her within, the less clearer she

is, but then they are not very clear frames, and yet some people within are and others not.

Just a thought, but could it be ?as the people moved, the film showed them blurred, I do not

know about film cameras..

Below is the footedman....within a few of the other frames, I cannot find her.....?? Though she may

be in front of whomever.

Here is the original the first frame Darnell that Robin posted on page 1......The no feet man.....

Then the one much smaller I found within a folder showing he has feet, and a small gif of them.

B.......

Gents...

The photos, Don & Robin, some are the same as seen in Groden's phamplet,

though his are much clearer.....in the book they are all in black and white..

and poor copies...and some too dark, others too light...

In the "Cover-Up" acknowledgments they give thanks to Robert Groden as well as many

other researchers , for their contributions..information and photographs...

P.S......Lee :

Good one above....There was and is simply too much information given on too many hits...

as they say where there is smoke..

Don here is what information I found on the sidewalk hit....There are a couple of photos that I will

re-scan from the book to show the hit clearly.....hopefully they will scan somewhat better..

For now, all take care....

B....

"Mrs. Donald Baker saw a bullet strike the pavement near the Stemmons Freeway sign:

Mr.Liebeler: You say you saw something hit the street after you heard the first shot: is that right?

Mrs. Baker: "Yes, ...I saw the bullet hit on down this way. I guess, right at the sign angling out."

Mr.Liebeler: And you think that it was approximately near the first sign?

Mrs. Baker: As I can remember (V11H509).

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker.htm

Royce G. Skelton: Saw a bullet strike the pavement:

" ......I saw bullet, or I guess it was a bullet ......I take for granted it was...hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it...away from the building." V1H238.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/skelton.htm

Motorcycle Policeman James Chaney told a reporter that the first shot missed. (Houston "Chronicle", 11, 24, 63.)

Mary Woodward wrote in a newspaper article that the first shot missed.( Dallas "Morning News" 11. 23.63).

On September 29, 1964, Eugene P.Aldredge, 9304 Lenel, Dallas, Texas. telephonically advised that he disagreed with the President's Commission report that Oswald did not have help in the assassination.

Aldredge said he saw a television program shortly after the assassination, believed to be on Channel Four, in which a mark on the sidewalk was pointed out..

Approximately three months ago, he stated he viewed such mark, which he is sure was caused by a bullet, and that this mark is approximately 6 inches long. He described the location of this mark as being in the middle of the sidewalk on the North side of Elm Street, which side is nearest the TSBD. He stated there is a lamp post. near the sidewalk, which is about even with the West end of the TSBD and that the above mark is approximately eight feet east of the lamp post on the sidewalk. He stated that as reporter for the "Dallas Morning News" Carl Freund, has also stated this is a bullet mark.

When asked as to why he had waited until this time to furnish the foregoing information, he stated he felt that such an important point would be covered in the President’s Commission report and did not want to become involved by furnishing the information at this time, but felt that such information, if overlooked should be made available.. Gemberling report pp. 66-68.

Mr. Aldredge told Dallas radio talk show host Lou Staples that five days after the making his report to the FBI he went to inspect the bullet mark again and found that some type of filler substance had been used to fill the indentation in the pavement. The Lou Staples Show, KRLD, Dallas. This bullet scar on the Elm Street sidewalk can still be seen today, ( 1976) It is not mentioned in the Warren Report.

From “Cover-Up”……..J. Gary Shaw & Larry Ray Harris.76/96

In its report on the mark, the FBI admitted to locating it and described it as being approximately 4 inches long, 1/2 inch wide, and "dug out." And why did the FBI dismiss the significance of this mark? Because, explained the Bureau, it could not have been made by a shot from the window from which Oswald allegedly fired.

Mike Griffin.....

********************************************

With permission.......

EXTRA BULLETS AND MISSED SHOTS IN DEALEY PLAZA

Michael T. Griffith

1996

@All Rights Reserved

Revised on 3/4/98

With the discovery that the single-bullet theory (SBT) is very probably a physical impossibility, it is perhaps appropriate to review the evidence of extra bullets and misses in Dealey Plaza. Since it now seems clear that the SBT is impossible, we can be very confident that more than one gunman fired at President Kennedy. We can also be virtually certain that, contrary to the lone-gunman theory, more than three bullets were fired during the shooting. This being the case, researchers need to take another look at the accounts of extra bullets striking in Dealey Plaza during the shooting, and to reconsider the implications of the subsequent finding of additional bullets and weapons in the area.

Extra Bullets and Weapons

* Among the files released by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was an FBI evidence envelope (FBI Field Office Dallas 89-43-1A-122). Although the envelope was empty, the cover indicated it had contained a 7.65 mm rifle shell that had been found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting. The envelope is dated 2 December 1963, so the shell was found sometime between 11/22/63 and 12/2/63. Nothing was known about the discovery of this shell until the FBI evidence envelope was released along with other assassination-related files.

* Other documents released by the ARRB discuss a Johnson semi-automatic 30.06 rifle that was apparently found in Dealey Plaza soon after the shooting. The documents strongly link this rifle to two men who have long been suspected of being involved in the assassination plot, Loran Hall and Jerry Patrick Hemming. The files also reveal that the FBI took a strong interest in the history and ownership of this rifle within hours of the shooting. A man named Richard Hathcock, who lived in California at the time, had kept the rifle in his office for a while. The day after the assassination, an FBI agent questioned him about the weapon. Among other things, the agent wanted to know if Hathcock had an employee named Roy Payne, who apparently knew a great deal about the rifle. In one of the released files, we read that Hathcock said the following:

It's my opinion that the reason he [the FBI agent] wanted to see Mr. Payne was because Payne's fingerprints undoubtedly were all over that rifle from his having handled it many times. It's also my opinion that unless that particular rifle had been found [near the scene of the crime] or in some way involved in this whole thing [the assassination], that the FBI would have no interest in it. (HSCA 180-10107-10443)

This rifle had quite a history. It was used in CIA-connected anti-Castro raids in Cuba. Roy Payne said the weapon could "put a hole in a dime at 500 yards" (HSCA 180-10107-10440). Loran Hall and an unidentified Hispanic man took the weapon from Payne about a week before the assassination. Hall's associate, Jerry Hemming, is known to have been in Dallas on the day of the shooting, and Hall himself told Hathcock five days prior to the assassination that he had to catch a flight to Dallas (HSCA 180-10107-10440).

* In 1975 a maintenance man named Morgan, while working on the roof of the County Records Building in Dealey Plaza, found a 30.06 shell casing lying under a lip of roofing tar at the base of the roof's parapet on the side facing the plaza, according to his son, Dean Morgan. The shell casing is dated 1953 and marks on it indicate it was made at the Twin Cities Arsenal. One side of the casing has been pitted by exposure to the weather, suggesting that it was exposed on the roof for some time. The casing, which is still in Morgan's possession, has an odd crimp around its neck (Marrs 317; Roberts 80-81).

Extra Misses

The term "extra misses" implies that one miss has already been documented. This miss is the bullet which struck the south Main Street curb in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. It landed about 25 feet from James Tague, who was standing next to the triple underpass. The bullet made a visible scar in the curb, and the mark was immediately recognized by those who saw it as a fresh bullet mark. (The mark might have been made by a sizeable fragment from a bullet that struck nearby, but it was probably caused by a bullet.)

Warren Commission (WC) supporters strain to explain this mark. Most now deny it was made by a bullet. Instead, they say, it was caused by a fragment. But the closest bullet they can produce from which this fragment could have come is the missile that struck the President in the head at frame 312 in the Zapruder film. However, the mark on the curb was over 200 feet from the limousine's position at Z312. In addition, a fragment from the head shot would have just finished plowing through a human skull, and, to make matters worse, would have had to somehow fly over the limo's support bar and windshield just to clear the car.

Another theory has been advanced by Gerald Posner in his book CASE CLOSED. Posner opines that the sixth-floor gunman fired at around Z160, that this missile struck a branch of the intervening oak tree, that the lead core separated from the bullet's jacket as a result of striking the tree branch, and that this lead fragment traveled over 400 feet and struck the curb! Even many WC supporters reject this forced, unlikely theory. The WC stated that the sixth-floor gunman would have had a clear view of the limousine until Z166 (see also CE 889).

Now, let us consider some of the accounts of extra misses striking in Dealey Plaza during the shooting:

* Dallas policeman J. W. Foster, who was positioned on top of the triple underpass, saw a bullet strike the grass on the south side of Elm Street near a manhole cover, about 350 feet from the TSBD. He reported this to a superior officer and was instructed to guard the area (Shaw and Harris 72-75; Marrs 315).

Journalists and bystanders were kept at a distance from the spot where the bullet landed. An unidentified blond-haired man in a suit was photographed bending down, reaching out his left hand toward the dug-out point on the ground as if to pick up something, standing back up, apparently holding a small object in his hand, and then putting his hand in his pocket (Shaw and Harris 73-74). The hole made by the bullet was even photographed, and the picture appeared in the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM on 11/23/63.

In his WC testimony, Officer Foster denied a bullet was recovered from near the manhole cover, though he did not explain what the man in the suit picked up and put into his pocket. Foster did, however, say that a bullet "had hit the turf there at that location [near the manhole cover]."

Contemporary press accounts reported that a bullet was retrieved from the dug-out hole in the grass near the manhole cover. For example, when the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM published a photo of the hole in the grass, it included the following caption:

One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street. . . .

The next day the DALLAS TIMES HERALD, in referring to the hole in the grass, reported:

Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window . . . to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards.

Newsman Richard Dudman said the following about this miss and the recovered bullet in the 12/21/63 issue of the NEW REPUBLIC:

On the day the President was shot I happened to learn of a possible fifth [bullet]. A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass.

Richard Trask, dismissing all evidence to the contrary, argues that the blond-haired man did not pick up a bullet from the hole in the grass (Trask 497-498, 542-543). Trask rests his case almost totally on the fact that the two of the photographers who took pictures of the event, Jim Murray and Bill Allen, later denied that a bullet was found. But neither Murray nor Allen could say positively that a bullet was NOT found; rather, they simply did not BELIEVE that a bullet had been found. Nor did either of them explain exactly what it was that the unidentified man picked up and put in his pocket. Trask concedes that the photographic record of the event does not refute the accounts of a bullet being recovered from the hole in the grass. He also acknowledges that in the photos the left hand of the unidentified man in the suit is "cupped" after he stands up, which would certainly suggest he was holding something.

Murray said he accepted "the later speculation" that the hole and accompanying mound in the grass were made by "brain matter from Kennedy's skull." Are we to believe that the unidentified man in the suit picked up brain matter and put it in his pocket? If the hole was made by brain matter, why did the Dallas police maintain a guard over the hole for the next several hours? Why did not a single police or FBI report mention the finding of brain matter at this location? And what about the credible contemporary accounts that a bullet was recovered from the hole in the grass?

Allen said he didn't believe a bullet was found because neither Walthers, Foster, nor the blond-haired man specifically mentioned having just picked up a bullet after the man stood up. But this was surely a rather weak reason for concluding the man didn't pick up a bullet. Furthermore, as mentioned, when newsman Richard Dudman entered the area at the side of Elm Street where the President had been shot, a police inspector informed him that they had "found another bullet in the grass." In point of fact, the discovery of the bullet in the grass near the manhole cover was photographed and widely reported in the press. It was, however, quickly dismissed and then ignored by federal investigators because they were already committed to a scenario of only three shots fired by a lone gunman from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.

In the photos taken of this event, i.e., the finding and removal of the bullet, one can see Officer Foster and a civilian-clothed Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers standing over the spot where the bullet landed, along with the unidentified man in the suit. It has been suggested that the man was a federal agent of some kind. Given the man's dress and appearance, this is not an unreasonable suggestion. Dallas police chief Jesse Curry believed the man was an FBI agent, and some researchers have tentatively identified the man as FBI Agent Robert Barrett.

As mentioned, the identity of the blond-haired man is unknown. The recovered bullet was never entered into evidence, and its present whereabouts are not known.

* Officer Foster also reported that a bullet struck the concrete part of the abovementioned manhole cover. It is not known if this was the same missile that made the dug-out hole in the grass a few feet from the manhole cover. The bullet might have skipped off the manhole cover and then imbedded itself in the grass. Or, the mark on the concrete could have been made by a separate bullet, and thus would represent another miss fired from the same approximate location. The sewer cover and the hole in the turf were about 3-5 feet apart, and the latter was farther down the side of Elm Street (that is, it was slightly farther away from the TSBD than was the sewer cover).

About two and a half hours after the shooting, Dealey Plaza witness John Martin came across the mark on the manhole cover. He immediately identified it as a bullet mark. He then told a policeman, "you better get your boss down here to check this thing out, because that will show where the bullet came from" (Trask 573).

Researchers have noted that the photo of the mark indicates it did NOT come from the TSBD. The mark can be seen on the twelfth photo page in the second set of photographs in Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden's book HIGH TREASON. One can readily see that the angle of the mark does not line up with the Book Depository, but that it does line up with the County Records Building. It might be worth recalling that a 30.06 rifle shell casing was later found on the roof of the County Records Building.

* Just after President Kennedy's limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD, five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of the limousine. Witnesses saw this bullet kick up concrete toward the car (Weisberg 187-189; cf. Posner 324; Moore 198) (Posner attempts to explain this miss with his bullet-limb-collision theory.)

* Within a day or two of the assassination, Dallas resident Eugene Aldredge saw a dug-out, four-inch-long bullet mark in the middle of the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street, which is the side nearest the TSBD. Aldredge did not tell the FBI about the mark until shortly after the release of the WARREN COMMISSION REPORT because he assumed, logically enough, that the mark had surely been noticed by law enforcement officials and would be discussed in full in the Commission's report. When he realized that the mark apparently had been "overlooked," he immediately contacted the FBI and told them about it (Weisberg 383-390). Aldredge related to the FBI that Carl Freund, a reporter for the DALLAS MORNING NEWS, had also identified the mark as a bullet mark.

Less than a week after Aldredge informed the FBI of the mark's existence and location, he took a friend to see it. They found the mark, but saw that it had been altered--it had been filled in. Said Aldredge,

. . . we went to the site and found the mark, [which was] formerly about 1/4 inch deep, had been filled in with what appeared to be a mixture of concrete and asbestos. . . .

A crude attempt had been made to make the altered mark appear to be weather-worn to match the surrounding concrete.

In its report on the mark, the FBI admitted to locating it and described it as being approximately 4 inches long, 1/2 inch wide, and "dug out." And why did the FBI dismiss the significance of this mark? Because, explained the Bureau, it could not have been made by a shot from the window from which Oswald allegedly fired.

---------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. He is the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient religious texts. His articles on the assassination have appeared in DALLAS '63, in DATELINE: DALLAS, in THE ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES, and in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO. He is also the author of the book COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK AT THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (Grand Prairie, Texas: JFK-Lancer Productions and Publications, 1996).

Bibliography

Groden, Robert and Harrison Edward Livingstone, HIGH TREASON, Berkley Books Edition, New York: Berkley Book, 1990.

Marrs, Jim, CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1989.

Moore, Jim, CONSPIRACY OF ONE, Ft. Worth: The Summit Group, 1991.

Posner, Gerald, CASE CLOSED, New York: Random House, 1993.

Roberts, Craig, KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, Typhoon Press, 1994.

Shaw, J. Gary and Larry Harris, COVER-UP, Second Edition, Austin: Thomas Publications, 1992.

Summers, Anthony and Robbyn, "The Ghosts of November," VANITY FAIR, December 1994, pp. 86-139.

Trask, Richard, PICTURES OF THE PAIN: PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, Danvers, Massachusetts: Yeoman Press, 1994.

Weisberg, Harold, NEVER AGAIN: THE GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION, New York: Carroll and Graf/Richard Gallen, 1995.

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id35.htm

***************************

You will note below within the "Freud _Aldridge" FBI reprt how the information has been confused with the Tague shot..

Hi Bernice.

I'll try to explain my comment.

Lets say i am looking to confirm the presence of an assassination witness who say's that he or she was in a "certain area of Dealey Plaza" on the day of the assassination.

After doing all the research, reading everything i could find on the subject, going over every image i could find covering my special research topic.

After looking through all the images i could find taken that day, and finding no sign of the person i am looking for, in the area where they said they were standing at the time the motorcade went past.

Then i would form a pre-conceived idea that the person was not in the area were they said they were on the day of the assassination.

Then at a later date an image turns up showing that the person was indeed in that area just as they said they were.

Or, another eye witness comes forward to corroborate the persons story, saying that he or she was indeed there at the time of the assassination, even though they were not captured in any of the photo or film images taken on the day.

If that were to happen, i would then drop my pre-concieved idea that the person was spinning a yarn to get his or her 15-minutes of fame.

and whole hartedly exept there story as correct and truthfull in every aspect.

You see bernice i am basically a synich at heart, wrong or right, that's the way i work.

And i'm getting too old to change my ways now.

This has trasgrest from the main theme of this thread, but i hope it answers your question.

Thank you Robin,

That is much clearer.......

I think the theme of the thread needed clarification somewhat.....

To quote Jack ""just at random to anyone letting assumptions

become thought to be facts."" which I thought was well put....

So you are a ""synich at heart"".......I am a Doubting Thomasina...

Though I do give the said witnesses the benefit of the doubt,

as so much of the information was changed and destroyed, as well you know...

I also try make an effort to post some of that information I have researched, along with those doubts.

Though I shall admit if a late comer, and or the story changes drastically, along the way, and or grows out of

proportions, etc...without verification.....then I do not accept such readily, on anyones say so....If shown that

whomever is found out to be and has lied, then the gong sounds....

As Dr. Fetzer says "Do not believe anything in this, Not even

me, do your own research " and that I do believe....

We may be close to being on the same page.....

Appreciated....

Now in the second frame you have posted, above, in which the stripes are shown on the sides of her "pedal pushers" slacks,

and are very clear.......I think it can be seen somewhat in your original posted photo......I also notice the same two woman with

small children are again, in the same area...as Jack has pointed out....previously.....

For now,

Take care.......B.....

Hi Jack

There are many variables:

Were the Darnell man and woman a couple. ?

There is no way of knowing, they may be complete strangers, they may be brother and sister, who knows, i certainly don't.

When tracking down this 40-year old mystery we all make assumptions every day.

Some leads pan out, some don't.

I'm a fence sitter jack, i have been for about 5-years on the forums.

Hell, am willing to give up my pre- conceived idea's at the drop of a hat, if i am presented with evidence that prove my original idea is

incorrect.

My moto is, leave your EGO at the door, be willing to admit when you have made a mistake, and then move on.

Robin.

*********************

Hi Robin:

Thanks for the Willis # 5, I do see the fence line to the left running down from the direction of the overpass, and to the right, the division of it, behind the

BDMN, whatever.....will spent more time with it.....ta...

....I did wonder if the man had perhaps a jacket or some such tied around his waist as the weather had warmed up, but ??

As for what is in his hand, could be many things...?? No idea......

""I'm a fence sitter jack, i have been for about 5-years on the forums.

Hell, am willing to give up my pre- conceived idea's at the drop of a hat, if i am presented with evidence that prove my original idea is

incorrect.""

I think most of the times, the majority do fence sit, and there is nothing wrong in doing so..if that is what one chooses...

But I cannot quite understand your next comment, .......hey bear with me, it is Monday..

Isn't that like putting the cart before the horse.....??

In general, anyone, say having a pre-conceived idea, before researching and studying the evidence, documentation etc,

that is available....beforehand...

Though I do realize that there is always hopefully, after availing oneself of such to perhaps present

information, that does and or did not compy within said information..which can bring about new findings...

In otherwards, why should anyone throw out a "thinkie" as I call them, followed by, and there are always some,who do jump

on the band wagon immediately and say Tally Ho, good find or some such, and buy into whatever........without having availed

themseles of studies..

But then the originator of the thought may hopefully ( with fingers crossed ) be expecting , others to come along ,present the

information and prove the thinkie in error........But if not,

then that could and has at times, been accessed by others as well, as say newbies, who then take it as written in stone, and thereby confusing

the, what is known, all the more.....

I think that imo does not make sense and is bass ackwards......and I cannot see it.......But then as I just said it is Monday....

Whatever way one chooses to participate, is welcome, whether simply a reader, a now and again contributor, or a drop in the hat comment..

if it brings to the surface a group effort, it does take a village, then imo that is more and than worth the effort....and again many thanks for the sharing of your scans..

Now then I have one for all....going by the cart before the horse....

Say I had a pre-conceived idea that there was no black couple on the bench during the assassination, now prove to me there was....and that is an impossible task....it imo is the complete reverse of what it should be....

Should it not have been,........ Was there a black couple on the bench during the assassination..??...I for one, have never been able to prove a negative....

This has been a very good thread, and again I thank all......

Just some thoughts......

P.S.........I thought it was something like, "Check your ego at the door, and do not p........in the potted palm on your way out......

For now.....

B......

This work also appears in the Shaw & Harris "Cover Up " it all appears very familiar....except the

colourized photos....theirs are in black and white....

I will compare to-day when I get my hands on it...any date on Groden's booklet?? Any credits ??

Names related to the photos?? or such..

The hit on the North side-walk, is also within the book, and further information on whom reported it

a witness and a reporter, that, I do know I have within my info that I have typed out..and the same old

story I do believe, as seen on the curb hit, in the Tague area, someone tried to fill it in...but what else

was new....

I will get to it....You will come across the signature page, one day when you are not looking for it, happens all

the time with such things....of course.....

Thanks again, that is very clear and very large....

Will get back to you.....

B......

Thanks Robin for the Murray..appreciated.....

If that is her in such, I do not see

the man who could be with her in Darnell...??

That is a great scan...I do have the book, and the photos are high quality.....

I just have never been able to get to it as well as many others to

scan what I would like to...I guess I am going to have to ask the hubby to

give me a hand and.... dig out more of the photo books, to get more copies

of photos...

........

About the man, I do not know, that is the why of the ???s....could be either,

As he crosses the road, I did notice his sweater could be loose fitting, as it appears

perhaps the wind is blowing up against it or could be...

What I was more interested in was what could be perhaps both her arms one on each side

of the child, if so....that only makes it appear more awkward......??

For now,

B....

Bernice: The Shaw & Harris research is something that I’ve never heard of… can you point me in the direction of where I can find a book or documents on their research?

Robin: The photo from Groden’s book was taken in the 70’s or later. No need to believe that it was taken right after the assassination.

FYI, the 2nd floor window CRB office photograph that I posted shows the Probate Court No. 2.

Don

Don.

I didn'y mention any time frame for the image.

All the caption say's is that is was taken AFTER the assassination.

Looking at the freeway sighns across ELM st, it is obvious that it wasn't taken in 1963 those sighns weren't there then.

*********************

Don :

I wish I did have their findings,and reseach, all I have of the Shaw & Harris work is from a 1976 as mentioned,

I believe, in a book of theirs

named, " Cover Up" .....I am quite sure that is the name..it is a larger sized soft cover...

I looked further into this, a little....

All I found is the one of the right was marked Dillard, showing the DPD...officer..and the one of the right Murray....??

and I cannot tell you right now ,where that information has come from, I will search further....

and shall dig out the book tomorrow....

Robin :

Correct the across the road signs were not there in 1963.....

Anyone going to Dallas, could you possibly have a look at the

cement apron on the right hand corner....and see if per-chance the mark is still there...??

Long shot, but..one never knows.....

and thank you.....

Jack :

If you read this, coud you give us an approximate date that the signs went up....

across the road......and

Many thanks....

B.......

Robin, Jack..all...??

Wait till you get a load of this illusion of the lady...in the middle..from Darnell...the one

shown on the right... Is that her right arm seen in both as well as her left, ??

is she facing him..in the right one, is that her right arm tucked under the child...??

....Input please.....

From two frames of the Darnell film a comparison of two men.......??

The crop is from the full Cancellare, taken afterwards...he is on the left...middle of the street..

......approaching the steps.....

A comparison......

B

Very interesting topic Robin!

Bernice: Where did you get the cropped picture of the lady and baby with her back to the camera? The full photo may show running man nearby.

Attached is a better close-up of the Willis photo captured from the Groden video.

Don

Don :

If it is the one I believe you are referring to, it is in Robin's post # 13........and was taken after in front of the TSBD....

Thanks for the Groden's close up of the Willis, BDGM..

B......

Hey Jack :

I found his feet, for all........ Thank goodness.......

B......

Jack :

I have made a couple of notes on your work......just rough..

..To me, it appears her bottom half looks as if she is facing to the right, so does go along with the direction of her foot..

But it appears that the upper part of her body is facing to the left.....and I know that is

impossible, I am going to have a further look within the Darnell frames, and there is something

about her head ?? I do not know....

thank you..

B........