Bernice Moore

From Jack......

B..

Per studies...backing...suddenly appears...

Harper Fragment Information

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=3

B.....

Dear Bernice;

Thank you very much for the cache of information available at Mary Ferrell. "Twenty five feet south" looks to be the first recorded location of the fragment and I think it fits accurately with what I'm trying to put across.

I do want to take sharp exception in regards to your graphic that uses the frame number 312. There is no white spot in 312. As a matter of fact, I have thought that if this thing is a piece of paper, or Moorman's polaroid tab we would see the corner of in in 312. But we don't. No white spot until 313. No white spot until bullet impact. I have never seen a version of Zapruder that shows any white spot (or even hint of it) at 312.

As I've said in my article; examine 327, 328, 329, 330. The reflection is in the trunk lid. Because something is flying over the trunk.

"... a shot took off the right side of his head..." "His ear flew off." Jim Newman. There are numerous examples where eyewitnesses note things flying through the air; inclucing Ruby Henderson "saw what she" 'thought was a piece of paper fly out of the car'.

Thank you again for your input; your thoughts ideas and knowledge are greatly appreciated.

Frank

**********

Hi Frank:

That is correct, there is no white whatever in Zap frame 312..as per others and Dr.David Mantik's studies..

I believe that is in the book.....Assassination Studies ...

If you look more closely perhaps you will see that it is not there....and suddenly appears..

There were a few witnesses that mention such as they thought they saw like a white confetti fly up...

I do think this was the brain matter...along with parts of the skull....imo..

and yes I agree with you there us definetely something seen ,

flying up as well as to the back....over the the trunk..of the limo..

B.....

Here you go Jack........Willis 6....

B.....

Per studies...backing...suddenly appears...

Harper Fragment Information

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=3

B.....

Hi Lee:

Hope all are well....nice to have an exchange with you..

Aw the scrambled Wily Wiegman, one of my favorites, been around that block many times, it is a fascinating film

and will drive you to distraction......As to what you may and may not see according to ones

view........as it runs from the corner of Elm to the underpass....and

so much is so distorted as he ran...but not quite all..

But always imo worth another look...

These below are what Chris Davison did for us, on another F, I do believe some time back ? when it was being

discussed...one more time.... much better than my own....and ....again..many thanks.....

..Again fascinating, and I do wish this particular photo, film ? which may have been taken would have

come to light.....Never know it may have, or it may yet....

Thanks....

Take care....no more hanging from building walls...

B......

No Duke not everyone in Dealey has been identified, I do wish...

That is David Wiegman in the fedora filming.....in Cancellare..

He was in the Press car 1."the reel car"

the first with photographers aboard..A yellow 1964 Chev.Impala

convertible.

He worked for NBC--a TV cameraman..and was attached to the W.H

every day for 8 years........he was 37 yrs old.at the time..

He hopped from the car near the corner of Elm & Houston , setting his

camera on,and hung around his neck began filming immediately..as he

ran......

the corner, the front of the TSBD

the doorway,

running, on down to the knoll, filming as he went, the pedestal ,

pergola area, the underpass, as the XP 100 disappeared under...

I wish he had momentarliy stopped running, took some film and then

continued, but he did not, as a result much of his film, was useless as it

is distorted..

though there are some good frames....

He then ran and hopped into one of the camera convertibles and onto

Parkland....

Here are a couple of his frames, TSB doorway and also the Limo

disappearing under the overpass.....

B........

Chris :

I believe what you are seeing as the wall, could bethe turned up sun

visors on the XP 100....

B

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Morley won!

( Many links within )

Somewhat miraculously, Morley won (found here, with link to the judgment) his appeal of a lower court sanction of a CIA end-run around a Freedom of Information Act request with respect to the CIA’s records on George Joannides (Morley writes about the case here, good general summary of the case here, and a long Morley article on Joannides and the newer scientific evidence on the assassination here). The Court found that the CIA technically complied with the Freedom of Information Act, but ignored the JFK Act (which was ironically enacted because the FOIA was inadequate to force documents out of the CIA!). The CIA has been attempting to weasel out of its JFK Act disclosure obligations, and, at least temporarily, until the appeal, has been put in its place. The CIA’s intransigence is telling in the light of all the publicity given to the recent voluntary disclosure by the CIA of its ‘family jewels’. When it comes to material of real interest, the CIA is much less generous with information.

The records on Joannides are a live issue as Posada Carriles is still a political problem in the United States. It is likely that Joannides handled both Posada Carriles and Bosch (Joannides’ CIA job was to destabilize Cuba – something the CIA is still at work on – and Posada Carriles was deeply involved in destabilizing Cuba), and the information the CIA is trying to hide is probably still embarrassing. Of course, the records may be doubly embarrassing depending on the involvement of Joannides in the Kennedy assassination.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2007/12/morley-won.html

B........

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 22, 2007 Decided December 7, 2007

No. 06-5382

JEFFERSON MORLEY,

APPELLANT

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 03cv02545).......

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common...12/06-5382a.pdf

B........

From Jack......

B....

Main Street......

B..

Miles:

Can you please state the source, that the man on the top right on the steps, in your photo,

you have marked, below....is older...in the Bowers subject thread, thanks...

I do not see plaid....I see a red toned coloured jacket, whatever....the photo is too poor to analyse..

imo....for such details.....and BTW..if you think that plaid jackets, back then, came in one colour, red,

then that is in error.

Why are you diverting this thread back to the Bowers, Hudson, steps scenario..?...there is

a long thread on such, which you could have easily gone back to....

What you are doing is called hi-jacking a thread....there is always a reason, and it does get tiresome......

and I for one do not appreciate such...when overdone repeatedly..

B......

Many thanks Chris;

Yes, the umbrella is, as Jack White has stated in his research

all these years.....and now clearly, imo....

And DCM is signaling with his hand raised..

You are very talented with the gifs and photos....

always a big help...and appreciated..

Robin:

I do hope you will soon load a new site...

Best to you both...B

As for Mr. Mallet, it looks to me like something behind his arm that is distorted because of the camera movement. Could be part of the wall, or someone's head.

JWK

Something further in the background.....

This is how it appears before it was colourized....

which does distort photos....

B....

Fellas......

Ron you may be interested in these.....

FWTW......here are two Gifs.....

Showing, the umbrella being turned, perhaps a spinning action, and the

other showing it possibly being raised and lowered, prehaps at the same time..

Whatever.......

B..

Charles - Marcel is from Belgium. I think his English is first rate, especially considering it is not his first language. I also see nothing wrong with creating a word to communicate an idea personally.

Lee,

Thank you!

The verb "Helicoptering" isn't my invention.

The whole article was written by Frank Caramelli, I used the same verb as Frank!

That's all.

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

Marcel :

How nice to see you,....been quite awhile...

The article presented on your site, was extremely well done, and the result of that has been

almost a complete meeting of the minds, that in itself says a lot..

As for the word Helicoptering, there are it seems new words being included

in the Websters Dictionary, each and every year as time progresses, so who knows ??

and as we all do and have at times slain

the English language, who is to tell whom, what words to and not to speak.....that shall

be the day.....imo.....

I do believe some take themselves too seriously.....Good Lord, if so, I do not know of one

member here that has not slain such in the past....let alone along with many "spullin mistooks"...

As for a new possible theory re the assn research, well you should at times read some that have

been presented here in the past......

Thanks again, always a pleasure.....carry on....

Best B......

Alan & Duncan.....

Just keeping in mind that Sam also mentioned two sets of footprints leaving in different directions...

See Post 231

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...225#entry120445

B.....

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....

Cliff:

McCloy-Rankin document.....

B...

Maybe Bernice or James will post the image of the writing on back of the

photo. If not, I will look up or scan a copy.

Jack

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

For you, I will post it........

B......

Something still stinks.

........

Much the same as Zapruder.

Arm twisting!!!

chris

I totally agree Chris.

My personal favourite is Hargis who apparently ran to the wall so he could get a better view of the overpass & while he was doing so scanned the TSBD where he thought the shots came from.

Regarding RSM's movement,

to me it looks like he's been influenced by the other man's reaction, so without thinking(safety first) he too runs the same way then, most likely, as he has time to think & comes beside Hudson(maybe) pauses. You see him look back towards the limo, so that's obviously more interesting to him than fleeing.

It is possible he was just a freindly young man & was concerned for Hudsons safety too & Emmett's lack of reaction may of produced the fellow to point out to the old guy just what was occuring.

As for Hudson's white shirt, it looks brown to me in Nix, whatever the true colour of it, it's obviously not as "white" as his bright cap & pants which are seen clearly.

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

Aw yes, and add to that Zapruder who says he got off the pedestal, and walked straight back to the office, hollaring out all the way "They killed him"....whose first FBI report stated as well as in the WC 3 times, the shots came from behind him, to his right......

and then there is Dear Marilyn, who at first recall was that the shot came from behind her, who says to her Doc that she was left standing on the pedestal all alone, and Mr Z was gone.......then descending from said pedestal, ran down the knoll ( in high heels no less, not falling ) to the other

side of Elm and talked to two gentlemen she thought perhaps were FBI, then back across said street to talk to another, then walked back to the office , scared, as they were following her, who never mentioned two black people sitting on the bench until she was interviewed by Josiah a few years later, but who then not only mentioned at first that they threw down both their bottles ( plural) breaking them, and so loudly that the noise was louder than any of the shots, but then who some time later, oops, reversed her story, sorry, that it was only one coke bottle.....

But in the meantime she may have been Peggy Burney who worked for Zapruder in the office, who stated to her first cousin Vivian Castleberry who worked for the newspaper,who wrote her story up, which ended up on the editing room floor, to Peggy's story becoming a short brief mention on a back page a couple of days later...in said paper.......Who stated that it was, she, Peggy who was with Zapruder, and holding his camera supplies whatever......while seeing the President killed..

and of course there are the Hester's who stated they were on both the south side and the north side of Elm together, at the same time, while watching the President be murdered.....and then there is Ike Altgens who filmed from the other side of Elm, facing towards the pedestal area.....who also mentioned people and DPD officers, around, behind the wall, near the pedestal area, the same as Hudson did......though he did not mention any police, but that the people up in that area also, had cameras and were taking pictures.....but then Ike of course, later lost his memory, and forgot his comments...which though is on tape...for posterity's sake..........

But pay no attention to me Allan....just pondering a wee bit.....please just ignore....your and Chris' comments got me carried away there for a second.... ...

What I really came for was to post this crop for you, from Muchmore where I believe you can see both Hudson and RSM......ta....

B..

Alan :

I see Ken has not replied, he may be busy or away....so here you go.....

B......

Wounds to the Left of JFK's Head?

Copyright © Russell Kent, April 15 1996

When I first became interested in the JFK assassination, I thought that I would be able to fully understand at least one aspect of the case - the medical evidence. I now realise how naive that thought really was. There can't be many parts of the case that are more confusing, contentious or crucial.

Initially I wanted to illustrate how confusing the medical evidence can be and how easy it is to paint different versions of what really happened - this article presents the evidence for wounds to the left of JFK's head. However, while writing this article, I have to say that it might support some startling conclusions.

Most of the available evidence points to wounding in the right rear (occipito-parietal) of the head:

The Zapruder film shows wounding in the right

Most of the reports from the Parkland Memorial Hospital doctors mention wounding in the right rear (1).

Most of the eye-witnesses report wounding in the right rear (2).

The major wounds disclosed in the autopsy photographs and x-rays were in the right of the skull.

So where does the evidence for wounds in the left come from?

What's the Evidence?

Remarkably, the evidence comes form several doctors, a priest, a Secret Service agent and JFK's press secretary.

Dr. Jenkins

Dr. Marion T Jenkins was Professor and Chairman of Anaesthetics. His natural position in the trauma room would be at the head of the patient monitoring and administering anaesthetics or, as with JFK, oxygen. He would have had a good chance to study the head wound carefully. Bearing this in mind, part of Jenkins' testimony to the Warren Commission is extraordinary:

"Dr. JENKINS. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.

Mr. SPECTER. The autopsy report disclose no such development, Dr Jenkins.

Dr. JENKINS. Well, I was feeling for - I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." (3)

Notice that Specter, very carefully, does not say that there was no wound in the left temporal area, rather he says that the autopsy report doesn't disclose such a wound. We know that the autopsy report failed to disclose many things which were apparent - the atrophied adrenal glands, for example (4) Was a wound in the left side of the head omitted too?

Two pages after this remarkable testimony, Jenkins asks to go o ff the record for a discussion with Specter. One page later, the questioning continues:

"Mr. SPECTER: Aside from that opinion [that one bullet must have traversed the President's pleura], have any of your other opinions about the nature of his wounds or the sources of the wounds been changed in any way?

Dr. JENKINS. No; one other. I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating).

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the left temporal area?

Dr. JENKINS. Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating), but you have answered that for me. This was my only other question about it." (5)

Jenkins was obviously bothered by his recollection of a left wound and he is very specific about its location. It is particularly suspicious that Specter seems to have "answered that" after an off the record discussion.

Dr. McClelland

Dr. Robert N McClelland attended JFK in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He testified to the Warren Commission and they reproduced his admission note for JFK written at 16:45 22/11/63 regarding the treatment the President received. McClelland wrote, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" (6).

At this time he was Assistant Professor of Surgery, he would not be expected to mistake the site of a wound in any patient. But JFK was not just any patient, he was the President. I suggest that McClelland would have written a very carefully considered admission note for this patient.

In a short admission note, this divergence from the "official" line is easily spotted. Yet Specter did not ask McClelland to clarify this statement, he directed McClelland away from re-reading his report by asking him to check his signature. Specter then asked whether McClelland would stand by his report before bringing questioning to a speedy halt (7).

In an interview with Gerald Posner, Jenkins claims that McClellands's impression of a wound to the left temple is mistaken and stems from a short exchange between the pair when McClelland entered Trauma Room 1. Jenkins claims that McClelland asked where JFK was hit. Jenkins claims that he was searching for a temporal pulse at this time and that McClelland assumed that Jenkins was pointing out a wound. As we can see previously from Jenkins' own testimony, however, it is quite likely that Jenkins was indeed pointing to an area he thought was wounded (8).

Dr. Giesecke

Dr. Adolf H Giesecke, an anaesthetist, would also have been at JFK's head - the best place to get a good look at the head wounds. Once again, he too mentions damage to the left of JFK's head when giving testimony to the Warren Commission:

"Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed to me that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing.

Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the right-hand side of the head?

Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my memory of it." (9)

Why didn't Specter pursue this? With Jenkins he was keen to have the doctor change his recollections or to add a note of doubt ("The autopsy report disclose no such development . . ."), but with Giesecke he allows it to pass without comment. Perhaps Specter was worried that getting Giesecke to think carefully about the site of the exit wound he saw would lead to a discussion of a frontal entrance wound.

Dr. Stewart

Dr. David Stewart was in attendance in Parkland Memorial Hospital when the President and Governor Connally were brought in for emergency treatment. He spent most of his time with Governor Connally. He was interviewed on KNEW television by John Dolan in 1967.

"Dolan said he was particularly concerned with the statement about the shot that killed the President coming from the front'. Stewart said, " Yes, sir. This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President's head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right backside of the head and it was felt by all of the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front". (10)

Father Huber

Father Oscar L Huber was one of the priests that gave the last rites to the already dead JFK (11). Part of the ceremony included tracing a cross on the President's forehead using holy oil. Obviously, Father Huber would have been in an excellent position to look at JFK's head wounds. Father Huber was quoted in the press the weekend that the President died saying that he had seen a terrible wound over the President's left eye (12).

Malcolm Kilduff

In 1963, Malcolm Kilduff was JFK's Press Secretary. In a 1991 interview with Harrison Livingtsone, Kilduff gives this remarkable response:

"Livingstone: As you know, the face was not damaged at all. No witness saw any damage to the head past the midline of the skull, forward of the right ear.

Kilduff: Forward of the right ear? No! Forward of the left ear, they did. I did. The bullet came in on the right side and exited the left side." (13)

SSA William Greer

Secret Service Agent William Greer drove the Presidential limousine through Dallas on November 22nd 1963 and must have got a look at JFK's head when they arrived at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

Greer described to author David Lifton how JFK's head "looked like a hard-boiled egg with the top chopped off" (14). This would mean damage to the left as well as the right.

Dr. Boswell

Dr. J Thornton Boswell, one of the Bethesda Naval Hospital autopsists, described much damage to the left of JFK's skull and brain (15):

Explaining a 10cm area marked on the left of the skull diagram, Boswell said, "This was a piece of 10 centimetre bone that was fractured off the skull and was attached to the under surface of the skull." (16)

On the front of the autopsy face sheet prepared by Boswell there is a small dot at left eye labelled "0.4cm" (17).

On the back of the autopsy face sheet prepared by Boswell an arrow at the presumed wound of entry points to the front and left (18).

On Boswell's drawing of JFK's skull there is a 3cm rectangle at the site of the left eye with a ragged margin seemingly indicating a fracture or missing bone (19).

Dr. Humes

Dr. James J Humes, the lead autopsist at JFK's autopsy, described massive wounds in the left of JFK's head and brain (20):

In the scalp, Humes described two enormous tears "c = From the left margin of the main defect across the midline antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8cm." and "d = From same starting point as c 10cm posterio-laterally"(21).

In the skull, Humes described "complete fracture lines" meaning that the skull bone was broken right through (22):

". . . multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound in the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm." (23). The word "radiate" implies damage to the left of the skull. This is supported by the phrase, "vary greatly in length and direction".

In the brain, Humes described a "1.5cm tear through the left cerebral peduncle" deep in the brain (24).

Summary

The evidence for wounding in the left of JFK's head comes from the following sources:

Four Parkland doctors (two who would have been at JFK's head) - admittedly, one was hearsay

Two autopsy surgeons

A priest

A Secret Service Agent

JFK's press secretary.

Conclusion

I recently had the chance to walk around Dealey Plaza several times, slowly and thoughtfully. I have heard it said that an assassin could have hit JFK with a rock thrown from anywhere in the plaza, but had previously dismissed this as flippant. Having walked round there myself, it does not seem to me that a shot from just about anywhere would be difficult - including a shot from JFK's left, from the other grassy knoll.

On the other hand, Dr. Kemp Clark (the only Parkland doctor we can trust to have had a good look at JFK's head) did not describe the extent of damage noted at the autopsy. David Lifton has more than raised the mere possibility that JFK's body could have been tampered with prior to the autopsy in Washington DC.

Notes

(1) Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, Commission Exhibit 392, cited hereafter in format CE 392.

(2) Robert Groden, "The Killing of a President", p86 - 88.

(3) Testimony of Dr. Marion T Jenkins, WC 6H48 (page 48 of the sixth volume Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits).

(4) Harrison Livingstone, "High Treason 2", New York, Carroll & Graf, 1992 p179

(5) Testimony of Dr. Marion T Jenkins, WC 6H51.

(6) Dr. McClelland's Parkland Memorial Hospital Admission Note , CE 392.

(7) Testimony of Dr. Robert N McClelland, WC 6H35.

(8) Gerald Posner, "Case Closed"

(9) Testimony of Dr. Adolf H Giesecke, WC 6H74

(10) Harold Weisberg, "Post Mortem", self published, 1975 p60 -61

(11) William Manchester, "The Death of a President", p258

(12) Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, November 24 1963

(13) Harrison Livingstone, "High Treason 2", New York, Carroll & Graf, 1992 p447

(14) David Lifton, "Best Evidence", New York, Carroll & Graf, 1988 p448

(15) Autopsy Face Sheet completed by Dr. J Thornton Boswell (CE 397) and discussion in "Best Evidence" chapter 18

(16) Testimony of Dr. J Thornton Boswell to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, HSCA 7 p253 (page 253 of the seventh volume of hearings)

(17) CE 397 (WC 17E45)

(18) Sylvia Meagher, "Accessories After The Fact", Vintage Booke Edition, June 1992 p161

(19) CE 397 (WC 17E46)

(20) Autopsy Report, Kennedy, John F., CE 387 & Supplementary Report, CE 391

(21) CE 387

(22) Ibid

(23) Ibid

(24) CE 391

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Ian Griggs for generous access to his copy of the Warren Commission 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits.

http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/JFK%20Wounds.htm

B........

Manchester writes (p.267) "The throat wound--which was then assumed to be an entry wound, because there was no time to turn him over--was small, and it exuded blood but slowly."

So, in order to narrow down the time at which the throat wound was sustained (assuming Ashton is right about the piercing needle/dart), then it is necessary to determine whether the shirt collar and tie were bloodstained (stains on other parts of JFK's shirt notwithstanding). I point out here that I don't know, but I would assume/hope Ashton, Pat or other experts would know.

In the absence of bloodstains on the relevant parts of the collar and tie, it could be reasonably assumed that the throat wound was sustained after JFK's clothes had been removed-- "it exuded blood but slowly". Looking again at the photo of JFK which Ashton provided in post #100 and in particular its location vis-a-vis the collar and tie (despite the fact that it shows the wound after Dr. Perry's incisions), it seems most likely to me that blood from the wound would have stained those items of clothing.

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

Mark:.....

Here are some photos for you....

Also Dr.Burkley arrived five minutes after the President ..in his own words....and no he never mentions a frontal or

neck wound...

It had to disappear....from what I have read...it had to be a particle from the rear, not a frontal shot...

that would have meant a conspiracy......of course.......He wrote this up on the 23rd....

B.....

Thanks for the input Robin & Bernice.

Winborn's quote shows exactly how confusing it is.

If what he said was accurate he was neither talking about Haygood or Hargis, it is very possible he just simply mixed them up in his mind.

If the only source of a cop riding halfway up the incline & then abandoning his bike comes from the Terminal Annex employees then, well let's just say(with all the best will in the world to those gentlemen), it doesn't mean it really occured.

If they all said one cop fell over after an attempted curb jump & another rid up the incline, then we might have a problem, the bottom line at this time though is, they are most likely talking about Haygood but we cannot be sure.

Bernice,

I just want to put a permenant link here to that enlightening "Darnell" frame.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...arnellmaybe.jpg

Did Chris post more frames than this & is it from Darnell?

If your reading this Chris & you feel like sharing more please do, I don't have it on tape anymore & haven't seen it for years.

Great capture.

Also, thanks for the Cabluck, nice spot.

That's Haygood though, not Hargis(he's already left the scene), same for Willis7 & as you said, those two snapped at virtually the same moment(Bond5 too shows Haygood at same spot).

It looks like Haygood ran for the actual corner there but, you can see him in Bond7, several feet south of the corner, climbing up the wall.

The other two bike cops I'm looking for signs of, were further back in the motorcade.

Scaggs & Bond7 show one of them beside a bus, that bus came after the one Cabluck was riding in.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...gman/Scaggs.jpg

I can't recall if Bond10 shows Haygood or that area(I know #9 doesn't) but if it does, it might show slightly more than what we see in this pan of the knoll in the Bell film, which if you check, shows the "Haygood area" in deep shadow.

No sign of a bike halfway up the incline there anyway.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/Belldcm.png

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

Chris many thanks for the film clips......

Thanks Robin for all the information..posted......

Hi Alan:

The only other frame that Chris posted at the time was this below...the bottom photo....he said they were from the Couch film......

as well as the one that you have posted to, photobucket..... but check with Chris, to now make that a positive.........

and yes it is Haygood...thanks..

.....not Hargis..corrected..

There are two others here that are from the Wiegman, one said to be possibly Hargis ( marked by Robin, I think ) and in the other Haygood..

What I have posted is all I have found for now, that may be of help..

B.....