Bernice Moore

Possibly Officer Haygood running up the knoll seen in Cabluck....

and a closer view seen in Willis......

B..

The photo I had posted I believe was marked with the names by Chris....

Below are a few more that I have gathered, when into the

studies of such..

...The motorcyists seen in the three attached frames is said to be Haygood.

The H.& Hargis photo is marked in a Couch frame.

I believe one of the others was marked by Alan H..The single pointing possibly

to Hargis was a Wiegman frame captured

and marked by Robin... the others I have no idea now.

They may help in trying to locate, who was who, and where the DPD Motorcylists were..?

B.....

Motorcycles......

B.....

Mr.Bevilaqua :

Requesting that you Show your proof, Source and Documentation.....

for all accustations made.....

It does not work the other way around........

It is your reputation that is at stake here....None others......

Thank you...

B.....

Jack let's try it again....on page 5..

..B

This thread is wandering all over the place in a manner unresponsive to

Ashton's initial proposition:

THE NECKTIE WAS IN THE PATH OF ANY BULLET FROM THE FRONT.

All messages which do not address that proposition are off-topic in my

opinion.

I am still looking for the slide I showed the HSCA in 1978 illustrating

this same thing, and will send it to Ashton when I find it, and he

may post it as a comparison to his illustration.

There is NO POSSIBILITY that a frontal bullet pierced the collar.

There is a very slight possibility that a glass sliver penetrated the

collar causing a "slit" in the fabric...but very slight.

I suggest that all responses to Ashton stick to the proposition that

a bullet did not penetrate the necktie.

Jack

*********

From Jack.....

B...

Well at least we know and can prove that the PS is a lie.

The rest suggests a rather exaggerated role for this forum to say the least.

I just received this e-mail from Jack and I thought his friends here might be interested in reading it ... I am posting this with his permission .

Duane...Thanks for all your help.

Yesterday about this time, our nephew Mark Cannon was killed

in Afghanistan in Bush's war. Partly responsible are those

on the forum who fight exposure of the official 911 story. The irony

is that Mark was a compassionate Navy medic who was there to save

lives. Thanks.

Jack

PS...I am now totally blocked from posting on the forum.

It would appear that man's inhumanity to man is very much alive and well on this forum .... The lack of concern for Jack's dead nephew is unbelievable .

I received a second e-mail from Jack BEFORE this post reply was written about him , so please don't accuse him of lying again ...

I know for a fact that Jack is telling the truth about not being able to post here because the EXACT same thing happened to my account when Evan Burton raised my warning level to 30 % and put me on moderation a few nights ago .... Apparently when one is on moderation on this forum there occurs some type of glitch which causes an immediate log out after posting , the necessity to log back in again and then the post lost ... The night this happened to my account ( which is the reason this entire debacle with Jack started to begin with ) I was not only knocked off the site and logged out but when I attempted to log back in , I was denied access four times and then temporarily locked out .... So considering I have had first hand experience with this particular problem, I can say with certainty that Jack is not lying about no longer being able to post here .

I believe that Peter mentioned all of this nonsense as being a tempest in a teacup and I couldn't agree with him more .

I'm not sure at this point why Jack still wants to be a member of this forum and have the privilege of posting here , but he does ... And for that reason alone I feel very sorry for him and for what is taking place here .

Here is Jack's second e-mail to me explaining the technical problems he is having at the moment when attempting to post here .

"They always say I am not logged in. I logged in to

post a message about my nephew's death. I clicked on

NEW TOPIC, and immediately I was no longer logged in,

and got a message that I was not authorized to post.

(maybe it is MY computer, like they claim!?)

It happened twice last week, and I lost a message

I had written, because I was logged out automatically

before I could post the message. The second time I

was logged in, sent the message, and it NEVER APPEARED...

and I had been logged out again. It is sorta like

what happened to you. I suspect foul play."

I hope this clears up what is happening with Jack's account and stops any more accusations of him lying .

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

Thank you Duane....

Andy "

Quote : Well at least we know and can prove that the PS is a lie.

The rest suggests a rather exaggerated role for this forum to say the least.

Duane:

Quote : It would appear that man's inhumanity to man is very much alive and well on this forum .... The lack of concern for Jack's dead nephew is unbelievable .

Yes, unbelieveable and incomprehensible. I was also under the impression, that this Forum is regarded as most important by the Administration.....

" Exaggerated role for this forum to say the least " it could easily be.....

No Forum is the be all and end all of importance...it is after all a Forum...such can fail and begin again, as has happened.

...It is the membership, the people and their knowledge that they posess that is...

If this F were not to exist tomorrow, or was shut down for whatever reason.....

They would pick up and find another eventually.........This has happened in the

past, and it will in the future, as time goes on....that is a proven...

I would mention here to the administration imo.......to not be taking it's members so for granted with any cavalier attitude and or condescension as

some have

shown, they may be cutting their noses off to spite their faces, it is the membership that makes a forum, not the other way around...

They can stop any forum dead in the water by deserting the ship, at anytime..and once the best have gone, they do not return....

This is one of the main reasons some of the best authors, and researchers of the past, stopped visting any of the forums, and still do not...

the hard difficult times they received within such...

Duane :

There is a glitch.........Yesterday in one of your posts on the Consp thread you mentioned at that time, about your problems logging in etc, and

you mentioned, that you could no longer log in as invisible....for some reason...

You were assured by I believe the mod, that had nothing to do with anything, words to that effect.....and I then mentioned that I could not either and that

it did not and does not make any difference to me....

But that does prove a point, there is a glitch....as I asked for an explanation of the why I could not.......and none has been forthcoming..and the thread locked.......so, I take it there is a glitch....???

Quote: Duane :

""I'm not sure at this point why Jack still wants to be a member of this forum and have the privilege of posting here , but he does ... ""

I imagine at times Jack perhaps has had that very thought...as well as many others.....

Jack has never given up the fight for over 40 years and he will go on fighting, till the day comes when we will not have access to his knowledge....

Some may not agree with him at all times, or any of the time, everyone has that right.......but his studies and all he has brought forth all these many years

cannot be denied, except by the intellectually impaired.....and or the provacateurs which do exist....

Also perhaps he also would like the opportunity to defend himself, now there is a scathingly brilliant

idea....... in this court that has emerged, I believe he should be entitled....

I only have one question, and that is, has the administration taken the time to check the Hoax Forum, from where you copied

the information posted by the mod of the consp threads.

Where he posted what he did and the related information, concerning the other two members as well....

.....That in so many words came down to.......it is, and was an ongoing Jack Attack, and bragging

about such, and on and on....or have they all been deleted by now to save their sorry you know whats...?

I believe you as I have seen them for myself in past years..as well as others who have...

..Has anyone perhaps contacted you for your information ??

Jack our condolences for your families loss......

Best B & G........

You must wonder when it is all going to end,

and when we can come back home. We have

to stay at it. We must not be fatigued.

--John F. Kennedy, November, 1963

I stand .....

Isn't curtailing like cutting your nose off to spite your face, in such a situation..

I took it that this F, wanted the best, it has had some of those, but how many are still active,

as Jack is......?? IMO not very many....

With someone as knowledgable and who has been within the research world since the beginning...

and is still more than willing to share, and who has had the stalwartness

that Jack has had to persevere....where many have never......and will not..

After all, as I have read on this F, many times in the past.....

Freedom of Speech Rules.....or does it ??

B........

Halo fellow members......

I do believe it could be called the AAM desease......the "all about me's''...and of course one upmanship as another member has already mentioned....

and in other cases, hmmmmmm who knows...??

These problems also go back many years between some.......and they carry on.

.......Nothing new in the research F worlds in otherwards.....as many are well aware.....but also as a member has mention, there are those out there that have set their sites on Jack White, and in the bringing of him down, and in one case.

Not mentioning any names, of course, that would be bad press....but whose presence is here, went back bragging of such a few years back onto another F.......after leaving one...perhaps he did not think others were watching both ??... Don't know, didn't care, but he proved his point of what

exactly he was up to...and it continues...

If a moderator cannot do his or her job without becoming personally entangled in the situation, on a particular thread, then get out of the kitchen...imo..he or she should know the when to step out.......and or sign in as not being the moderator on that particular thread...and take no actions as such..

A problem mentioned by a member, in an earlier post in this thread, is that he could not log in as invisible, I no longer can either, if I wish to.....

Is that a problem with settings or does it mean something I am not aware of...

Like never mind, Big Brother, is Father Funckle perhaps watching.....?? Just asking.....curious, though it does not mean much one way or tother to moi..I will come and go as I do....Unless I have stepped on anyones toes to warrant such..if so, I would like the reasoning..

Thanks Brothers and Sisters, now all carry on with the meeting, and Praise be, please continue........

B......

nobody seems to consider the actions of anyone else who didn't apparently have any such constraints, and managed ... to work around them quite admirably ... to the extent that not even today, much less back then, nobody considers anyone in the building other than Oswald to be a possible perpetrator.

Assuming we have eliminated Oswald, Truly, Frazier and Norman/Jarman/Williams as possible perpetrators, that would seem to leave Jack Daugherty as the one male TSBD employee who might fit the bill as someone who could have assisted the perpetrators. Daugherty was on the sixth floor shortly before the shooting, I think he testified, and was on the fifth floor when he heard the shots.

OK Duke, bring on your theory about Jack Daugherty. After forty years it must be ready for Prime Time.

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

One strange statement from Jack Dougherty ,

as well as Linnie Mae Randle & Wesley Buell Frazier's firsts....compare......

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.

RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.

On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.

on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd

Date dictated 11/23/63

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

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:

I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.

Wesley Frazier

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963

/s/Mary Rattan

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

Frazier WC

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

Frazier..Shaw Trial

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb3.htm

Linnie Mae Randle WC..testimony

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

B...

But the problem is that I believe Oswald told his interrogators that he had gone upstairs to get a Coke, thereby justifying his presence on the second floor. He was not speaking generically since his drink of choice (Dr. Pepper if VB is to be believed) was on the FIRST floor where LHO claimed he had bben eating lunch. And that was VB's point: why would LHO go to the second floor to get a Coke if his only drink was a Dr. Pepper? But I think Greg Parker demonstrated that he did indeed also drink Cokes.

********

Hi Tim:

Trouble is we don't know what LHO told anyone..positively.....all we have are the Fritz notes...

and the said sos...

Below is Bakers and Fritiz's note that mentions said coke........FWTAW.....

B....

Moorman, nor Nix were at the right angle to the sun for the light to pass through the smoke and illuminate it like it did from the angle Wiegman's and Zapruder's camera had.

If you have any data to support this claim of yours above, then please post it or direct me to something that does.

You weren't just guessing because Nix & Moorman don't show the still alleged smoke in Wiegman were you?

If so, then why can't I state that since Nix & Moorman show no smoke, that means there was none there & what we see in the trees in Wiegman is just an illusion?

FWIW, I don't see those swirls in Zapruder yet. I still need to look at it closer though, not had time yet.

[note] Just in case you want to pick nats out of what I'm saying, I'll make it clear for you.

I haven't made my mind up about the cluster in Wiegman.

If it's smoke or not or where it originated from if it is, I don't know yet.

I can use my imagination, don't get confused if you see me talking about two different explainations, some people call it being reasonable. I am doing my best to remain neutral, for Holland's sake more than anything.

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

Alan :

In the Nix frame I posted....have a look at this boxed in yellow on the left...Smoke ?? and if so it would be drifting and dissipating

in the wind ...??

Sam said...

" Right under these trees, right at that exact spot , about ten or fifteen feet from this corner, the corner of the fence here,

back this way, right under this clump of trees, right under this tree this, particular tree ......It's that exact spot there.....

That's where it was.....just like somebody had thrown a firecracker...... and left a little puff of smoke there: it was just laying

there....... It was a white smoke: it wasn't black smoke or like a black powder. It was like a puff of a cigarette, but it was about

nine feet off the ground......... It would be just about in line with, or maybe just a little bit higher than that fence, but by the time it

got out underneath the tree, well it would be about eight or nine feet...( the ground slopes off sharply in front of the fence)..

Taped interview......Nov. 20, 1966...." SSID."..p.158..

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

Miles :

""An FBI report ( CE 3133 ) states that the alleged assassination rifle was fired both in direct sunlight and in full shade, at the

Commission's request, to determine whether any flame was visible. No flame was seen, but " a small amount of white smoke

was visible......""....AATF...Meagher..p..19..

Now this would not have been at the fence, but it does show that white smoke appeared from, the rifle said

to be the alleged assassins ..for one..

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

One other witness that is usually forgotten was Frank Reilly, he testified that the shots seemed to " come out of those trees....

on the north side of Elm Street, at the corner up there ...where all those trees are....at that park where all the shrubs is up there...

up the slope...""....( 6 H 230)..

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

Dawn:

The information related by the Doctors of Parkland that were called and testified, is within, the WC....and some do and did state the fact that they felt the throat wound was an entrance ......of course we also have to keep in mind, that many important questions

were not asked......deliberately, therefore their information, has been lost ...if not interviewed before the powers that be got ahold of some. that is.

It is just that in the WC etc etc, Liebeler along with the Specters

input, in the final analysis, do not in any way relate to those facts, being within such.....

it is buried along with so much.....not included in the final summation in otherwards..

They only related to what they deemed pointed to a lone assassin.

.......But it is there within..for anyone who has a willing spirit to do the search...

B.........

Fence…..

Sam Holland : “ The President’s car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a firecracker and he slumped over and I looked over towards the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come out from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke that I saw ……the puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees (20H163).

Four and a half months later: to Asst.Counsel Stern: “There was a shot a report ….and a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees “.(6H244)...when pressed….

Sam: “ I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either. (6H244)….

Interview Nov.30, 1966..” Right under those trees, right at that exact spot, about ten or fifteen feet from this corner, the corner of the fence here, back this way, right under this clump of trees, right under this tree, particular tree. It’s that exact post, right there….snip…..of was about nine feet off the ground …...It would be just about in line with, or maybe just a little bit higher than that fence, but by the time it got out underneath the tree, well, it would be about eight or nine feet . It would be just about in line with, or maybe just a little bit higher than that fence, (the ground slopes off sharply….in front of the fence)…

Holland was not the only witness to see a puff of smoke..

Richard Dodd: who stood next to him on the overpass…...” The shot……the smoke came from behind the hedge on the north side of the Plaza”….Taped interview Mark Lane……Mar.31/66.

.

Austin Miller: affidavit Nov.22/63…” I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the railroad tracks.” ( 24H217)…

James Simmons…….. March, 64…FBI Interview “ fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the TSBD “..

Walter Winborn & Thomas Murphy ......to an independent investigator......they had observed smoke in the trees along the knoll……( Taped interview , of Winborn May 5, 66…and Murphy ..May 6/66.by Stewart Galanor , cited in Lane, page 40..

Lee Bowers: “At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light, or as far as I am concerned something that I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what this was, I could not state at that time and at the time I could not identify it….other than there was some unusual occurrence .. a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.”….Interview Mark Lane Mar.31/66.”.RTJ 66…page 32.)..

.

Bowers WC ..6H287) “ They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other …..and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew. They were facing and looking towards Main and Houston…and following the caravan as it came down.”……Bowers noted some “commotion” near the stockade fence 6H288….

The occurrence …”flash of light or smoke or something..” was observed also by others...who reported it to law-enforcement on the scene…Dep. Sheriffs L.C.Smith, Seymour Weitzman, A.D.McCurley and J.I.Oxford .all spoke of witnesses. who called his attention to the stockade fence…….Smith stated as he ran towards the knoll….” I heard a woman unknown to me say the President was shot in the head and the shots came from the fence on the north side of Elm Street…”…19H516.

Deputy Sherrif Weitzman “ As he came to the fence at the top of the grassy slope, some bystander mentioned that the firecracker or shot had come from the other side of the fence, and he requested a bystander to bend over and he used the bystander’s back as a step and vaulted over the fence”…Archives, CD 5…..

D.S.SEYMOUR WEITZMAN

Mr. BALL - Didn't you, when you went over to the railroad yard, talk to some yardman?

Mr. WEITZMAN - I asked a yardman if he had seen or heard anything during the passing of the President. He said he thought he saw somebody throw something through a bush and that's when I went back over the fence and that's when I found the portion of the skull. I thought it was a firecracker portion; that's what we first were looking for. This was before we knew the President was dead.

Mr. BALL - Did the yardman tell you where he thought the noise came from?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; he pointed out the wall section where there was a bunch of shrubbery and I believe that's to the right where I went over the wall where the steampipe was; that would be going north back toward the jail.

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

Deputy.Sherrif….McCurley “ I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area.”… 19H514

Deputy .Sherrif……Oxford…” “We jumped the picket fence which was along Elm Street and ran over into the railroad yards. When we got there, there was a man who told us that he had seen smoke up in the corner of the fence ..” 19H530.

Could possibly have been Sam Holland, Dodd or Simmons…

Dodd, Holland and Simmons were so positive a shot had come from the corner of the fence, that as soon as the

Limo had disappeared under the underpass…...beneath them; they then ran to their left

Over the underpass and around into the parking lot…When they arrived near the corner of the fence.

Deputy.Sherrif . Seymour Weiztman joined them at about that time....

Sam Holland: “.snip…….And well you know it had been raining that morning and behind the station wagon ( Light tan Olds 61..Holland’s map…near the corner of the fence) , from one end of the bumper to the other, I expect you could have counted four or five hundred footprints down there. And on the bumper, oh about . And on the bumper, oh about twelve or eighteen inches apart, it looked like someone had raked their shoes off: there were muddy spots up there, like someone had been standing up there”..taped interview, Nov. 30, 1966..

Dodd recalled “.”there were tracks and cigarette butts laying where someone had been standing on the bumper looking over the fence.” Taped interview, Mark Lane ..Mar.24/66

James Simmons.” On Mar.38/66 told Mark Lane that he saw “ foot prints in the mud around the fence, and there were footprints on the wooden two-by-four railing on the fence.”…also…..” Simmons noted mud footprints on a car bumper there, as if someone had stood up there looking over the fence..(“ Rush to Judgment”: Lane page 34 ).

Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman : 7H107: “ numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going in different directions.”…Holland also gave a similar description to the (WC..6H245-246).

Later Holland had stated that the marks were men’s footprints and that he was puzzled by their narrow grouping, “ That was a mystery to me, that they didn’t extend further than from one end of the bumper to the other. That’s as far as they would go. It looked like a lion pacing a cage”..

Holland gave a possible explanation, “Just to the west of the station wagon, there were two set of footprints that left…….I noticed these two footprints leaving : now they could have stepped out between the second and third cars on the gravel or they could’ve got in the trunk compartment of this car and pulled the lid down, which would have been very, very easy. ( Taped interview, Nov30,66)..The trunk compartments of the cars were not searched, someone could have returned later and driven the car out of the parking lot.

The shooter or other man could then have been the SS Agent whose Id was shown to DPD Patrolman Joe Marshall Smith, after a woman rushed up to him and said they were shooting the President from the bushes,( 7H535) he had rushed from Elm & Houston , entered the parking lot, and confronted the SSA behind the stockade fence ..or…if a shooter…or spotter…..if not in a trunk, or mingled with the crowds, ….or made his escape to the northeast….

J.C.Price : The possibility arises that Price saw such a person escaping, ..He was on the roof of the Terminal Annex Building across from the knoll on the Plaza….In and affidavit Nov.22/63 …..” I saw one man run towards the passenger cars on the railroad siding after the volley of shots. This man had a white dress shirt, no tie, and khaki colored pants

Information from J.C Price, who was watching the motorcade from the roof of the Terminal Annex Building across Dealey Plaza from the knoll...Affidavit Nov.22/63…..

“I saw one man run towards the passenger cars on the railroad siding after the volley of shots…..his man had a white dress shirt, no tie, and khaki colored trousers…….

His hair appeared to be long and dark and his agility could be about 25 years of age. He

had something in his hand, I couldn’t be sure but it may have been a head piece”……19H492…

…

.Sometime later Price spoke with Mark Lane and told him that the man “ was carrying something in his right hand “ that “ could have been a gun”…..Mar.27/66..taped interview……… ”..He was bareheaded

… which gave me the suspicion that he was doing the shooting but I could be mistaken”..ibid…

Emmett Hudson: Affidavit Nov.22/63…” the shots that I heard definitely came from behind and above me”..19H481.

Nov.26.63 FBI …”Hudson said the shots sounded as if they were fired over his head and from some position to the left of where he was standing. In other wards, the shots sounded as if they were fired by someone at a position, which was behind him, which was above him, and which was to his left .Archives CD 5..

In the Moorman Polaroid .” Behind him , above him, and to his left “ is the corner of the stockade fence. .which also coincide with other witness statements..

Mary Moorman, Nov.22/63.”I was fifteen feet from the car, and evidently I was in the line of fire.” WFAATV….video tape...at the time Mary took her photo , the President was between her and the corner of the fence……so Mary also must have had a line of sight to the shooter….Along the fence line in Mary’s photo there are two anomalies , to the west of the corner two shapes….By comparing a photo taken after you can see the more elongated one is in actuality a railroad signal tower….in the background of the yard……But there is also a round shape approx 14 feet down from the corner of the fence, nothing in the background lines up with this shape.

Sam Holland was asked and taken to the assassination site, and asked to stand in the position where he found the footprints….and also saw the smoke … when a photo was taken of him behind the fence in that exact spot, his head appeared in the exact position defined by the shape in the Moorman photo….Holland had seen a particularly clear copy of the Moorman …….he studied the photo and …..

“” Well, now you have something here………I didn’t see this man before ( about twenty seconds pass, then Holland continues )…Well, do you know , I think that you’re looking right down at the barrel of that gun right now!.’’

.(taped interview Nov.30/66).Thompson....

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority on this the 22nd day of

November A.D. 1963, personally appeared Julia Ann Mercer, Address 5200

Belmont, No. 208, Dallas, Age 23, Employed: Automat Distributors, 1720

Canton, Dallas.

Deposes and says:

On November 22, 1963, I was driving a rented White Valient automobile

west on Elm Street and was proceeding to the overpass in a westerly

direction and at a point about 45 or 50 feet east of the overhead signs

of the right entrance road to the overpass, there was a truck parked

on the right hand side of the road. The truck looked like it had 1 or

2 wheels up on the curb. The hood of the truck was open. On the driver's

side of the truck, there were printed letters in black, oval shaped,

which said "Air Conditioning". This was a pickup truck and along the

back side of the truck were what appeared to be tool boxes. The truck

was a green Ford with a Texas license. I remember seeing the word "Ford"

at the back of the truck.

A man was sitting under the wheel of the car and slouched over the wheel.

This man had on a green jacket, was a white male and about his 40's and

was heavy set. I did not see him too clearly. Another man was at the

back of the truck and reached over the tailgate and took out from the

truck what appeared to be a gun case. This case was about 8" wide at its

widest spot and tapered down to a width of about 4" or 5". It was brown

in color. It had a handle and was about 3 1/2 to 4 feet long. The man who

took this out of the truck then proceeded to walk away from the truck and

he reached down to free it. He then proceeded to walk across the grass and

up the grassy hill which forms part of the overpass. This is the last I saw

of this man.

I had been delayed because the truck which I described was blocking

my passage and I had to await until the lane to my left cleared so I could

go by the truck.

During the time that I was at this point and observed the above incident

there were 3 policeman standing talking near a motorcycle on the bridge

just west of me.

The man who took what appeared to be the gun case out of the truck was a

white male, who appeared to be in his late 20's or early 30's and he was

wearing a grey jacket, brown pants and plaid shirt as best as I can

remember. I remember he had on some kind of a hat that looked like a

wool stocking hat with a tassell in the middle of it. I believe that

I can identify this man if I see him again.

The man who remained in the truck had light brown hair and I believe

I could identify him also if I were to see him again.

(signed by) Julia Ann Mercer.

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd of November A.D. 1963

(signed by) Rosemary Allen

Notary Public, Dallas, Texas

<Quote off>-----------------------------------------------------

From “Six Seconds In Dallas”..Josiah Thompson.……

W.C.

Mark Lanes “ Rush to Judgment”…..

Photo below...from Shaws " Cover-Up"

Also photo showing the investigation by the BBN of acoustics in 1978..for the HSCA....

B.......

Our source was the same. Groden's "Assassination Films".

Our black blob was the same too, only mine is clearer & you can see now that it's nothing.

No?

I remember taking a long look at Rick's quite a few times but I was never able to make my mind up about what I was seeing.

Now I have.

Maybe someone can find Rick's anyway, just for comparison.

Your animation didn't look as sharp as Rick's. And while I do not know what it is I am seeing in Rick's - it is a solid object just over the fence that is not there in later film pans of the same fence line. I believe it to be something, but what other choices can there be???

Bill

No, my frames are not as sharp but they are a lot clearer.

I found no reason to do anything with the frames I captured other than to lighten them a little.

Rick most likely had a different capture program & may of tried to "enhance" his frames before making his GIF. I don't really know.

One version of Rick's from '05.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3825.gif

My animation is clearer & it's zoomed into the fence. I've concluded it's not a hat but the shape of the wheel arch on the white vehicle in the background.

So IMO "if you want to know where "Hatman" was positioned", don't look at Nix because "it" is not seen it that film.

Next!

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

Alan.

Here are a couple ,one a close up, by Rick, I believe if not ??..The other moves quicker than the one you posted..

...However have a look...The information re Sam Holland and Mary Moorman, are from "SSID"....Thompson.

B

From Jack...

B...

Jack the photos are not uploading......B

911 was an unprecedented and most extraordinary event.

19 arabs used an unknown technology that turned steel to dust.

I wonder why they have not used this technology to destroy

all of our cities. Perhaps we should surrender before they

destroy all of our cities like they did the WTC. I wonder

why they have not yet attacked other cities.

Jack

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s143/Be...piretodust1.jpg

Deleted........

This whole thing is totally baffling to me. If I read this right, Bill was supposed to produce researchers to support what he is saying Bowers said. He gives the name of Gary Mack, and Debra Conway. He is then asked for more. He gives the names of Harris and Lane, but they are not good enough because:

.

He was supposed to call them and report what they said(but)

He wouldn't have been believed if he had, unless it was recorded.

Now,he does not need to call them, because we already know what they'll say,because any researcher who needs Bill " to read evidence for them, evidence that they already have to hand I add, needs looking at for many reasons."

And since the names cames from Gary, and not from Bill, we now need a few more names(??)

Are you arguing over the number of names or the evidence???

sev·er·al /ˈsɛvərəl, ˈsɛvrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sev-er-uhl, sev-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.

Now if Miles uses Dale Myers (which is fine by the way), how come that doesn't count as just one??? And is Miles not doing research because he constantly quotes him???Miles just read something and presented it. That's fine. That's what you are supposed to do,put it up for discussion. and find out what else is there. But then Bill has research and and throws out a few names, and he has to produce more, because Gary gave him those?

And what about Jack White? He is ever present and available, where does he fit in?

IMO, the objectivity of this thread (if it ever had one) is lost on attempts to one-up one another.

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

Hi Kathy:

Perhaps there is a solution here...

The members reading and who are still interested in this particular ongoing scenario......are being asked, to in effect, accept, what Dale Myers has posted on his web site, in reference to a transcript that he has obtained of said interview by Mark Lane of Lee Bowers, back in I take it around 66...or so....without

showing said transcript...or documentation......Sorry that is simply not acceptable....

Now Miles has posted one page, of which he now states he has been going through reams of obscure documents, which I take it to mean he must have access to...said interview transcripts....if not all, just what do you have access to Miles, how much of the interviews..?

Is this mana being provided by Mr Myers, and if so, why is it not being provided to the research world in general......and if not why not ??

.....No one can possibly think, and this goes for any who have passed along their said input into this, Bill, Gary, Debra and whomever, that any serious researcher is going to take what Mr.Myers has posted on his site, or anyone else has stated as written in stone, without seeing that documentation for themselves...or having the opportunity to do so..

..That is not how research is done...and that is what has and will in the future continue to cause

many a harsh difference within any study on any forum, the information has to be presented upfront, honestly and openly.....for all...

When it is not, well, the peoples are much more intelligent than some apparently are giving them credit for....

They will not buy until they see the merchandise and examine it for themselves, or whomever wishes to

obtain it and see to it that it is posted, for all.....researched and examined as well as proven to be the real McCoy..

Too much in the past has come down the pike as being real, and has then turned out to have been an altered document or a newly re-created one.

Miles are you prepared to post the transcript, the pages of the interview between Lane and Bowers, and if not why not..?.....Seeing that you have posted

the one now, it has shown that you do apparently have access, according to your posted information..

Is Dale Myers willing to sell a copy of this portion of the transcript.....and if he does not have that right, where is it obtainable and who from.??

What is the address....and the price ....and if it is not available, then why not.?.

I think it is time to put up......or.........

B.........

Hi Jim:

There may be something of value to add to your studies, found within the information below..

ITEMS IN THE LEE HARVEY OSWALD FILE REGARDING ALLEGATIONS..

...Harker....

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=667977

There is an extensive source of files...these are just from two..

I typed in Rockefeller + Belin + letter 75 + Harker article

Oswald's passive aggressive makeup......etc

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10

B.....

B...

B...

B....

Jack...

B..

Jack.......

B..

Did Jack shift all or any of the figure images, through inadvertence or happenstance?

Duncan, how do you see this, please; not that it is highly important?

Jack wouldn't move or alter anything, i'd bank my life on that. Can you upload Jack's b/w version and your version both scaled to the same size for comparison with no lines drawn through anywhere on each image. Thanks.

Duncan

Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless.

What an asinine accusation for a "photographer" to make. All darkroom photographers try to achieve

an OPTIMAL image with silver-based images. To achieve this they BRACKET exposures and print negs

using test strips, DODGING, and BURNING-IN, as well as various paper CONTRASTS. According to

Lamson, he says these customary darkroom steps are "alterations", as if there is only ONE TRUE

INTERPRETATION. Nonsense!

I BRACKETED the copy negative of the Groden slide (which was extremely dense) at half-stop

intervals from f4.5 to f32 at 4x magnification. This produced three negatives in the "acceptable" range.

The middle one of this group had the best tonal range, so ALL PRINTS of badgeman were made from

this single negative. As with any negative this was a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas

of the negative. In this ONE negative, the very bright smoke and wall lost detail as did the very

dark areas, like the trees and badgeman clothes. However the very dark exposures showed very

clearly that the SMOKE HAD SHAPE AND TEXTURE, and thus was an OBJECT, not an artifact.

My final print was done from the best exposure WITHOUT DODGING OR BURNING-IN.

Lamson is unfamiliar with the work of famed American photographer Ansel Adams, whose test

prints marked with darkroom instructions for dodging and burning in are legendary, and which

are often included in museum exhibits along with finished prints, which are quite different. I guess

Lamson would say that Adams ALTERED all of his photos.

Jack

Sigh, why post things that are untrue Jack? What is asinine is your attempt to deny you altered the Moorman. You cannot deny that you altered the Moorman because the results are available for all to see. Simply check the edge of the wall for proof of this alteration. Your attempts to 'optimize" the image created completely new detail edges that did not exist in the original. That sir is a fact. No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that what you did was an alteration of the original.

You did not make "a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas". You created new "middle tones' that did not exist. In the process you threw away the detail in the original middle and highlight tones, creating new detail edge lines that did not exist in the original. And why do you think there SHOULD be detail in that small area of the Moorman original polaroid. Have you tested the camera/lens/film combination to see if it capable of that level of resolving power?

As for Adams, your once again get it very wrong. And yes, Adams did alter his prints from the original rendering found in his negatives. I'm sure even he would admit it. BTW, my sister in law is the grand daughter of Edward Weston. Edward Weston was a friend and fellow photographer to Adams. I have spoken at length with Cole Weston, Edwards son, before he died a while ago. Cole printed many his fathers negs, and I a blessed to own a few of those prints. During our converstaions we often spoke of the darkroom alteration process. Cole, like his father, like Adam, Like me and ...like you all ALTERED images in the darkroom.

And please don't attempt to lecture me on darkroom processes. I spent first part of my photography career diong high end b/w and color printing. I would venture I have made over a 100,000 b/w prints. Your experience in your home darkroom pales in comparison.

......

Jack.......

B.....