Bernice Moore
-
Posts
3,556 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bernice Moore
-
-
Jack.....
B......
-
Butch Burroughs time LHO entered the Texas Theatre..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcpg4mNEWf4
Two Places At Once?
Lee Harvey Oswald walked into the Texas Theater, after paying, just after the beginning of a 1:00 movie. Theater concession attendant Butch Burroughs saw Oswald enter the theater at this time. The "historical" Oswald supposedly entered the theater without paying at around 1:35. Burroughs stated that he remembered hearing someone enter at this time, but he didn't see that person. Since no one passed his concession stand, that person had to have gone to the balcony section of the theater, Burroughs asserted.
If the police were going to converge on Texas Theater and any suspect, it made sense to create a scenario where they were drawn there by a suspicious fleeting-like person. If Oswald had gotten to the Theater under perfectly normal circumstances(taken a bus and paid like everyone else, and in a calm manner), then the convergence of a massive fleet of Dallas police cars on the theater would certainly have aroused suspicions of inside knowledge.
Even if a description or picture of Oswald had been shown to the police and public immediately after the assassination, the conspirators could not count on his being detained in a conventional manner, getting noticed and reported by some citizen. Time was of the essence in catching him before he escaped the patsy net. It leads me to wonder just how obvious the 1:35 "Oswald" made himself look to shoe-store manager Johnny Brewer as a suspicious, fleeing man in light of the circumstances in the immediate neighborhood. Brewer was the one who got the ball rolling as far as notifiying the police(see below).
According to further Burroughs testimony, the "1:00-1:05" Oswald came back to the concession stand to buy popcorn at 1:15, then returned to the theater and sat next to a pregnant woman. Another witness in the theater that day was Jack Davis, who saw a man enter the theater and sit right next to him just after the opening credits of the 1:00 movie. Davis thought this action a bit peculiar since there were only about 20 people in the 900-seat theater.
After sitting next to Davis for a few minutes, the man got up and moved across the aisle to sit next to another person. Shortly after this, the man got up and entered the lobby, returning to the center section of the theater a little afterwards. When the house lights came on about 20 minutes later, Davis went to the lobby to inquire about it and saw policemen rush in the front door and into the theater. The man they brought out was the man who had sat next to him, according to Davis. That man was Lee Harvey Oswald. The recollections of Burroughs and Davis rip the official version of the "roominghouse to Texas Theater" Oswald trip to shreds.
If another man had entered the theater at around 1:35, then where did this man go? The later-arriving Texas Theater "Oswald" was spotted by shoe-store attendant Brewer when the suspect slipped into the store's foyer as a police car sped by. Brewer had heard on the radio of the assassination and a policeman being murdered just shortly before in the Oak Cliff neighborhood just several blocks away. He watched the man enter the Texas Theater without paying and immediately notified ticket clerk Julia Postal. Postal called the police.
When Brewer entered the theater he asked Burroughs if he had seen someone enter. Burroughs said he had heard someone enter but had not seen him. This corroboration of Burroughs non-sighting of the 1:35 "Oswald" is ignored by the official version of events, and for obvious reasons. Someone entering the ground level of the theater had to pass right by the concession stand and Burroughs: Oswald was arrested on the ground level, not in the balcony.
Throwing further suspicion on the arrest episode at the theater was the testimony of Bernard Haire, who had a hobby shop just two doors away. Haire, unaware of the assassination, was startled by the appearance of so many police cars in front of the theater at once and went outside to see a man being brought out under arrest. Haire proceeded to walk through his store and back into the alley, where there were more police cars.
Just as he got to the theater a door opened and police bought out another man who appeared to have been in a struggle and under arrest. This was a young white man dressed in a pull-over shirt and slacks. The man was put in a police car that quickly left the scene. Haire said he was shocked when he learned the real Oswald had been brought out front.
If we are to trust or at least give some credence to Haire's account, why hasn't this lead been further pursued? Everything here seems to point to two "Oswalds" entering the theater, the first one in an apparent attempt to establish some sort of contact and the second to provide an excuse for police convergence on the scene. It smells of an obvious trap. And it also raises a lot of suspicions about the Dallas Police Department.
Haire's account adds credibility to the accounts of Burroughs and Davis, but only Brewer has become cemented in the official version's historical lineup of major witnesses because he did not witness the "1:00-1:05" Oswald. And being so close to the assassination epicenter it is easy to see why Haire, Davis and Burroughs didn't press their stories further for fear for their lives.
http://scribblguy.50megs.com/intrigue.htm
Also see Jim Marrs book : "Crossfire....page 354....
Bernard J. Haire owned Bernie's Hobby House, located two doors east of the Texas Theatre. Marrs interviewed Haire in the summer of 1987, and the following was revealed in that interview:
Haire went outside the front of his place of business and saw the
street filled with police cars and saw a crowd gathered at the Texas Theatre. He hadn't heard of the President's assassination yet. He could not see what was happening in front of the theatre but, according to Marrs, Haire is seen in at least one photograph taken at the time Oswald was taken out of the theatre by police.
Haire walked back into his store, and went into the back alley, which he said was also filled with police cars. Haire told Marrs that when he was opposite the rear door of the theatre, police brought out a young white man, dressed in a pullover shirt and slacks and appeared to be flushed as if having been in a struggle. Haire told Marrs that he was under the impression the young man was under arrest, as police put him in a police car and drove off.
Marrs goes on to say that Haire, for over two decades, thought he witnessed the arrest of Oswald in the rear of the theatre, and was shocked to find out that Oswald had been handcuffed and brought out the front door of the theatre. Haire told Marrs, "I don't know who I saw arrested." (Marrs, page 354)"
Bill Cheslock
B.......
-
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Alton Markland, July 13, 2007
By Alton F. Markland "AFM" (Davie Co., NC) - See all my reviews
This book presents credible and compelling evidence the fatal head shot suffered by
President Kennedy was fired by a Secret Service agent sitting in front of the president.
The evidence the author presents is this: (1) a radiation oncologist of established repute,
Dr. David Mantik, concluded that JFK's X-rays demonstrated that the head shot was fired
from in front of JFK into his right front temple; (2) Dr. Mantik further concluded the
head shot could not have fired from either the Texas School Book Depository or the
grassy knoll; (4) Dr. Mantik's conclusions are backed up by ballistic experts; (5)
forensics expert Dr. Charles Wilber concluded that the head wound "suggested a high
velocity hand gun fired at close range;" (5) only Secret Service agents in Dallas were
both seated in front of JFK at close range and had hand guns; (6) Secret Service Agent
Clint Hill testified that the head shot sounded like someone had shot a "revolver into a
hard object"; (7) several eyewitnesses testified that they smelled gunpowder at street
level where JFK had been killed moments after his killing (and the odor of gunpowder
doesn't travel very fast); and (8) eyewitness Austin Miller later testified that he thought
that the shots fired at JFK had come from "right there in the car,' referring to JFK's limo
It all adds up: the Secret Service fired the head shot at JFK. Then, if you view the
"medium frames" version of the DVD that Dan Robertson discusses in the book, particularly
frames 302-313, you see the Secret Service agent Robertson identifies as William Greer
Aim with a gun-like object in his left hand and you see JFK's head exploding at frame
313. If you want to know what really happened to JFK, you need to read the book.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
The Zapruder Film: Still The Best Eyewitness, July 10, 2007
By E. Pitcher - See all my reviews
After the damage done by Cooper, Robertson's book finally moves the Greer ball a little further down the field. (Palamara's excellent work calls Greer "The Most Important Agent".) Despite Greer's contradictory testimony, and the stabilized version of the film clearly illustrating action and reaction between Greer and JFK at frames 310-313 (Rent it yourself: http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Image_of_an_A...=336139273_0_0), the assassination research community is hell bent on disproving Robertson's conclusion. Perhaps it has been shamed into this stance by Cooper, or perhaps too many reputations depend upon the head shot coming from "the grassy knoll". Nonetheless, Robertson's reasonable request for readers to view the film and study Greer is a welcome challenge to a new generation of researchers. When you watch the stabilized version of the film, look for Greer to remove his left hand from the steering wheel as he turns toward JFK a second time. Greer was placed in control of JFK from Love Field to Bethesda. The question that begs to be asked is "By whom?"
Comments (3) | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
Lots of good information, sincere intent...wrong conclusion, June 25, 2007
By Vince Palamara "SECRET SERVICE/JFK/STEELERS/M... (South Park/Bethel Park, PA) - See all my reviews
I commend Dan Robertson for a well written and researched book. There is a lot of good information on the Secret Service and their role, innocent and otherwise, on 11/22/63 during the JFK assassination, as well as before and after (Robertson makes good use of my material, as well as doing some original research, too). There is no doubt: Robertson's intent was sincere; he's no loony but a successful, intelligent lawyer. That said, the ultimate conclusion of the book, that Secret Service driver William R. Greer shot JFK, is simply not supported by any credible evidence (and the allegation is hardly a new---and unknown---one: Fred Newcomb, Perry Adams, Lars Hansen, and William Milton Cooper, among others, espoused this decades ago, and many 'common folk' are much aware of this fringe theory). Still, this book is a worthwhile addition to the collection (and for anyone interested in the Secret Service and JFK).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-...customerReviews
B.........
-
Jack.........
B...
-
Hi Fellas:
You may be interested in this quote below, from John Ritchson......
""According to the Helson and Barnes Empirical study of Gunpowder Residue Patterns, all firearm discharges produce upwards to 20% or more of gunpowder residue in the form of partially burned and unburned gunpowder particles which will be deposited on various parts of the shooter's body, mostly on the hands and face of the shooter.
This gunpowder residue can be easily lifted from the shooter by covering the affected area with hot wax that when cooled will lift the now embedded gunpowder from the shooter's body and can be physically examined, identified and quantified by microscopic examination as well as chemically tested to determine type and composition of the gunpowder, and can be forensically matched to the weapon establishing a forensic connection to the shooter.
Since such gunpowder residue is physically embedded in the skin of the shooter it cannot be easily removed by any other means including washing the effected area with with anything short of certain solvents and even then, all it requires is a single grain left behind to establish such a forensic connection.
Such a test is SOP in gunshot cases and the technology was well in place in 1963 and would have been extreamly critical with respect to Lee Oswald since he worked in a book depository which contains nitrates present as part of the paper making process. Therefore, Lee would have been covered with such nitrates which minus the above aformentioned examination would have yielded a false positive with respect to his having recently discharged a weapon.
Having fired multible shots from two different weapons as is alledged, Lee would have been literally covered with actual gunpowder embedded in his skin.
That no such test was performed or if performed proved negative is evidenced by the fact that no such report has ever been made public, and I'm fairly certain that if such a test was in fact performed and proved positive it would most certainly have been paraded to the public a long time ago.
This missing report was the first indication to me that Lee Oswald was not the lone nut assassin that he was made out to be and is what started me on the road to investigating all of the evidence against him, upon which I determined that Lee Harvey Oswald was most probably innocent of the murder of Jack Kennedy and was in fact set-up as the proverbial patsy to cover-up the real conspiracy. ""
B........
-
Here you go Jack.......
I have added two Couch-Darnells, one I have darkened showing a man on
the left hand side of the photo..the other as seen in the film frame....
B......
-
I see no one has rescaled the Arnold image yet so to see if the modifications helped explain the all too short legs in the illustration Duncan created. Below is Arnold seen over the wall ... is his legs long enough to be on the ground in this view looking over the wall???
Bill Miller
People who have not been to the knoll tend to misjudge the height of the
concrete wall and where the ground level is. I have asked Bernice to
post the Miller image here which plainly shows the ground level and the
five foot metal fence post.
Jack
*********************
Just came on, Jack, and your email flew in....talk about snail air mail....
B..
-
ACCIDENTALLY POSTED TO THE WRONG THREAD AT FIRST TO THE HOFFMAN THREAD.
I THOUGHT I WAS STILL IN THE GORDON ARNOLD/BLACKDOGMAN THREAD.
I HAVE MOVED THE TEXT HERE WHERE IT WAS INTENDED. My wife was on the phone
behind me and I had forgotten that I had changed threads. Sorry for the confusion.
.......................
Sadly, this has evolved into one of the most ridiculous threads ever witnessed.
Let's start over at the very beginning of the Gordon Arnold story. Now admittedly
Mr. Arnold was not the brightest bulb in the lamp...but neither was he a dishonest dummy.
Just an ordinary guy...not particularly articulate, but not out to deceive anyone. He did
not seek notoriety nor profit.
In the 1960s (remember the 60s, when the assassination happened?) Arnold had
recently returned to Dallas from a stretch in the Army, married his girlfriend and
settled down. Long past was the day he was home on leave in November '63
and witnessed the murder of the president on Elm Street. One day in the mid 1970s
he received a jury summons, which set in motion events he had not foreseen.
Waiting in the jury venire room to be called he joined a group of men in idle talk.
Howard Upchurch, an early day Dallas JFK researcher was in the group, and the
conversation eventually turned to the assassination. After listening a while, Arnold
joined in, saying, "I WAS THERE THAT DAY"...and proceeded to tell his well known
story, which I won't repeat, since what he told the jury members is the same story
that has been repeated often.
Upchurch was incredulous at first. He could not believe that a witness like Arnold
could have gone undiscovered for so long. He sought to confirm Arnold's story.
At that time I was giving slide presentations, and a group of researchers, including
Upchurch, met sometimes on Saturdays to look at photos and discuss the case.
One particular Saturday, Howard told us about Arnold, and wanted to see ALL of
my slides showing the knoll area. For a couple of hours the several of us (4 or 5)
looked in vain to locate any confirmation of a soldier on the knoll. The consensus
was that Arnold must have been confused about his location, since he was not in
in any photos. But we recommended that Howard call Earl Golz with the information
and have him check it out. We all respected the meticulous research Earl did for
all of his JFK stories. Several months later Earl's story appeared in the DMN. Earl
had checked all the information and Arnold's army history, and everything checked
out ok. Except the photos.
Earl's story was met with a big yawn by the research community. There was a
near unanimous HE'S NOT IN THE PHOTOS, SO HE WAS NOT THERE attitude.
So Arnold pretty much faded away. Until...
...in 1982 Gary Mack discovered the Badgeman image in Moorman, and I did the
photo enhancement work on it, including finding apparent images of two other
men on each side of the badgeman. I phoned Gary and said the THE ONE ON
THE LEFT APPEARS TO BE IN ARMY UNIFORM, COULD IT BE GORDON ARNOLD?
Gary agreed, and began a series of interviews with Arnold in which Gordon went
into as much detail as he could remember, without having been informed of the
Moorman research. Gary did not want to lead him into any "false memories", so
asked general questions, like WHAT WERE YOU WEARING?
When Gordon replied that he had on his khaki uniform and CLOTH CAP...Gary
got excited and asked for details...and Gordon explained it had a pointed top
and a gold medallion on the left side. That is what is seen in Moorman most
clearly.
SO, ABOUT FIVE YEARS AFTER ARNOLD FIRST TOLD HIS STORY TO UPCHURCH,
ARNOLD'S STORY SEEMED CONFIRMED!
He retold the story several times over the years, often with MINOR variations.
He told it to Nigel Turner without ever having seen the enhanced Moorman
image. His astonishment, recorded on film, would have been impossible to
fake.
It must be remembered that many of his retellings of his story were 20 or
more years after it happened. He should not be required to tell VERBATIM
the story over and over again IN EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS. He seemed
a man of limited verbal skills and not a public speaker, and his appearance
in TMWKK was TWENTY FIVE YEARS AFTERWARD. His brief notoriety was
unwelcome, and he did not profit (Nigel paid $100 to every interviewee).
But his story was always basically consistent. No ordinary person can
retell the same story in exactly the same words a quarter century later!
I am one who worries that even his death at an early age was perhaps
convenient for someone.
I also worry that parts of his story do not make sense to me: the mound of
dirt; the "not knowing the president was in the parade"; not choosing a better
location to film from; leaving the scene without reporting his film being
taken, etc. But he was a simple and naive man, trying to tell what happened
to him. We may never fully understand what happened.
I was not there. I believe he was...and we should try to understand what
his story means.
Jack
***********************
Thanks Jack for all the information you have posted on Gordon Arnold.....
Quote: ""I was not there. I believe he was...and we should try to understand what
his story means.""
As with so many of the other witnesses that were present that day, and whose
statements and information that some have tried to manipulate for one reason or another for
many years.....
All should try to work with their information not against it, it just may uncover
some of what has not been, always a possibility...
B....
-
Yes here it is and there are others.......and more changes of course, and all
the way down the line......and guess who typed them all.....
Thanks B.....
<Quote on>----------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
DATE 11/28/63
JULIA ANN MERCER, Residence 5200 Belmont, Apartment 208,
Dallas, Texas, who is employed at the Automat Distributors, 1720 Canton
Street, Dallas, was shown a group of photographs which included a
photograph of JACK RUBY. MERCER could not identify any of the photo-
graphs as being identical with the person she had observed slouched over
the wheel of a green Ford pickup truck parked about 10:50 AM at a point
near the place where President KENNEDY was assassinated on November 22,
1963.
She then was shown a photograph of RUBY, and she advised the
person in the truck had a rather large round face similar to RUBY's, but
she could not identify him as the person.
She then was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, and she
stated that OSWALD was of the same general build, size and age as the
person who took a long package from this truck, but she also could not
identify him as being the one who took the package from the truck.
on 11/27/63 at Dallas, Texas File#: DL 89-43
by Special Agents HENRY J. OLIVER and
LOUIS M. KELLY; mam Date dictated: 11/28/63
<Quote off>---------------------------------------
-
Peter:
I think you may mean Julia Ann Mercer...
A truck marked Air Conditioning...with two wheels up on the curb, and the
hood up........was stopped on the right hand side of Elm,
going toward the Underpass..from Houston.....She saw a man driving,
whom she said resembled Jack Ruby, a younger man got out
of said truck....carrying a brown rifle case.....and proceeded to
climb the knoll to the fence area......I think she said he had longish hair,
and a jacket...There were three policemen
in the area...at the time.....
She later told Garrison that her statement had been changed and that
she had Id the man driving as Jack Ruby on the Sat..Nov.23/63..and that
the signature on said statement was not hers....
Below is the Sheriffs statement....
B......
Yes, my memory lapse...gun case - not gun 'bag' - but still suspicous and significant. Also her original report was of NO words on truck and photos support this. Police and later FBI said she said Air Conditoning [she denies it], and then they said no Air Conditioning companies had such trucks....the usual.
&%%%%%%%%%%
Peter:
That is the Sheriff's statement that she gave on Nov.22.63........and it does say Air Conditioning, on the truck..
in that, statement.
B.....
For example, see p. 262 Mellon's A Farewell to Justice:
"By Monday the, the Sheriff's office had inserted the words 'Air Conditioning' onto the side of the truck, even as Mercer insisted that no identifying words were written on the vehicle she had seen. Soon the FBI would claim that no air conditioning companies in Dallas had a green pickup."
This kind of stuff one or twice one might attribute to police sloppiness...but in the 'investigations' and 'reports' such slight-'o-hand tricks on witness statements happened more than one can count stars on a clear night.
Peter:
Does Mellon, note a citation..? If yours is handy, mine is not..thanks.
I will check Meagher and Weisberg they are at arms length.
I believe there are two other official statement documents, attributed to her, and all are different...no surprise....they typed them out.
She saw what she saw, so they had to messy it up all the way down the line.....so as to present another witness, who made up fairy tales.
it was dangerous, to those in charge...
What she did see is probably closer to what she related to Garrison...
B....
-
From Stoughton & the SS re-enactment Nov. 27th.63..
B...
-
Peter:
I think you may mean Julia Ann Mercer...
A truck marked Air Conditioning...with two wheels up on the curb, and the
hood up........was stopped on the right hand side of Elm,
going toward the Underpass..from Houston.....She saw a man driving,
whom she said resembled Jack Ruby, a younger man got out
of said truck....carrying a brown rifle case.....and proceeded to
climb the knoll to the fence area......I think she said he had longish hair,
and a jacket...There were three policemen
in the area...at the time.....
She later told Garrison that her statement had been changed and that
she had Id the man driving as Jack Ruby on the Sat..Nov.23/63..and that
the signature on said statement was not hers....
Below is the Sheriffs statement....
B......
Yes, my memory lapse...gun case - not gun 'bag' - but still suspicous and significant. Also her original report was of NO words on truck and photos support this. Police and later FBI said she said Air Conditoning [she denies it], and then they said no Air Conditioning companies had such trucks....the usual.
&%%%%%%%%%%
Peter:
That is the Sheriff's statement that she gave on Nov.22.63........and it does say Air Conditioning, on the truck..
in that, statement.
B.....
-
Quote:
Even if all was perfectly flat - Moorman's uphill view combined with the distance the fence and Arnold are from the wall.
I would like you to mark on this image exactly where Arnold was standing. ?
Exactly how far back from the wall was he standing, ?
Robin...I just made what may be an interesting discovery analyzing this photo.
THIS AREA IN THIS 1963 VIEW IS UNLIKE WHAT IT WAS IN LATER YEARS!
1. I found that in this view, looking directly between the wall and fence, the
top of the wall IS AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE FENCE. We know the wall
has not been changed, so it appears that the wooden fence may have been
changed. To see this clearly, draw a rectangle from the corner of the fence
to the corner of the wall. THEY CORRESPOND. But we know that today they
are not the same.
2. Unlike today when the area by the fence is all flat, it appears that in 1963,
THE AREA BESIDE THE FENCE SLOPES DOWNHILL GRADUALLY, unlike today
when it is fairly flat and drops off at a given point. This is clearly seen by
drastically lightening the RGB chroma scales. I had lightened this area
looking for a mound of dirt when I noticed the gradual slope.
3. Unlike today when all the fence palings are 5 feet tall, it appears that in
1963, the fence boards were TALLER at the corner than higher up the knoll.
When you lighten the chroma, you will see a cop by the corner, and HIS
SHOULDERS ARE BELOW THE TOP OF THE FENCE. We know that lamposts
were moved and signs removed soon after the assassination to confound
researchers...so why not change the knoll area also?
These observations tend to make modern reconstructions of Arnold's
location inconclusive. The terrain seems to be unlike 1963. Check it out.
Jack
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Jack
On Friday I posted this information below, in this thread....Certainly they are inconclusive, I do not think
anyone but Robin paid attention to such....
Back some years ago, there were heavy rains in Dallas,
causing at that time parts of the knoll, hills,to slide down, whatever, and reconstruction work was
needed, in the area of the steps....and..the hills.. I posted info on such and parts of the fence history
area in that long thread on such some time ago..
The steps and the knoll were all repaired, but also changed
forever, the perspectives of how all had been in 1963.
......Any photos, such as the new one showing the men at
the top of the steps taken years later, or any others....Are not constructive imo
to what some are after...in their research..nor of the lay of the land re the fence area also, as that
has also been repaired and work done.....
......As all has been changed for years now...as have others areas of Dealey Plaza..
.If anyone needs to check this information
out for themselves please go ahead and do so......contact
the Dallas Works Dept..they may still have those records, or if not....
Dallas History and or I believe..Jerry Dealey...
can relate the information to you....also....
B......
-
From Jack.....
B......
-
Found this one online, allegedly taken by Lt. Day for comparison purposes, prior to handing off the rifle to the FBI.
I'm sorry that I started this thread with a faulty comparison, but it is proving most interesting. Gary Mack sent me an e-mail saying that Vincent Drain was contacted by Earl Golz when Gary Shaw first found the second document. He says that Drain ADMITTED writing the document, but claimed he'd written two different documents while waiting for the test results, one claiming the bag matched and one claiming it didn't. He told Golz that he thought he destroyed the one found in the Archives, after the results came in.
I think there's a problem with this excuse. Cadigan tested the bag on the 23rd. The results were furnished on the 23rd. Drain's report on the evidence was prepared on the 26th. Bernice, or Jack, what is the date on the bottom of this report? At the top it says 11-30 but that could be the date it was typed up. What is the date at the bottom? If it was written up after the 23rd it proves Drain to be inaccurate in his recollection to Golz, and possibly a xxxx.
Does anyone have the Golz article? Drain's exact words could be helpful.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I have enlarged the doc.....says 30th, 63.....
Have a look.....
B
-
Peter:
I think you may mean Julia Ann Mercer...
A truck marked Air Conditioning...with two wheels up on the curb, and the
hood up........was stopped on the right hand side of Elm,
going toward the Underpass..from Houston.....She saw a man driving,
whom she said resembled Jack Ruby, a younger man got out
of said truck....carrying a brown rifle case.....and proceeded to
climb the knoll to the fence area......I think she said he had longish hair,
and a jacket...There were three policemen
in the area...at the time.....
She later told Garrison that her statement had been changed and that
she had Id the man driving as Jack Ruby on the Sat..Nov.23/63..and that
the signature on said statement was not hers....
Below is the Sheriffs statement....
B......
-
An FBI Document 89-43 dated Nov.29/63......released in 1968......stated that the found rifle bag
material was the Same, as the paper wrapping used by the TSBD.......
However as seen below......an FBI Document same number 89-43....also dated Nov.29/63....and found in
the N/As....in 1980..states the exact opposite......
-
Has anyone studied some of the aftermath photo's to get an idea of the perspective of the slope ? There appear to be a couple with people just behind the wall and alongside it that might be useful to try and guage how much of a slope there is and where the wall comes to on the figures.....
David,
The only photo I know of which might be used for comparison
I believe the photographer's name is William Allen.
Perhaps someone has a better copy.
chris
***************
Hi Robin: Chris & Dave....
Here are a few studies of the lay of the land, on Nov.22.1963........
Robin:
Yes, re the knoll........
Back some years ago, there were heavy rains in Dallas,
causing at that time parts of the knoll, hills,to slide down, whatever, and reconstruction work was
needed, in the area of the steps....and..the hills.. I posted info on such and parts of the fence history
area in that long thread on such some time ago..
The steps and the knoll were all repaired, but also changed
forever, the perspectives of how all had been in 1963.
......Any photos, such as the new one showing the men at
the top of the steps taken years later, or any others....Are not constructive imo
to what some are after...in their research..nor of the lay of the land re the fence area also, as that
has also been repaired and work done.....
......As all has been changed for years now...as have others areas of Dealey Plaza..
.If anyone needs to check this information
out for themselves please go ahead and do so......contact
the Dallas Works Dept..they may still have those records, or if not....
Dallas History and or I believe..Jerry Dealey...
can relate the information to you....also....
B......
B......
-
Bernice is about to post a comparison here which reveals why
the midget Arnold floats in the air.
Thanks Bernice!
Jack
B......
-
Hi Jack:
Here you go.....
B...
-
Jack : Denis:
Here are a few photos ..Marguerite Oswald & Sam Holland and with Mark Lane...
B.....
-
One see's him clearly walking away toward overpass with jacket and radio under. A man named Hicks came forward and said he was that man [he was not!].
I think the crewcut man you are referring to was indeed Hicks. The question was whether he was in radio communication with the assassins as he or someone alleged. It is unclear what was in his back pocket.
If Hicks himself alleged that he was a radio man that day, he quit alleging it by the time he got to New Orleans and was interviewed by Garrison. It was never clear to me to whom he was supposed to have alleged this.
Would James or someone please post the photo of the 'Hicks' or whoever he was walking away with huge brick that looks like radio in his back pocket. I have, but can't locate on my computer at moment. If put all next to one another the radio bulges have the same sizes and features. Would be great if someone could put all three in one image.
Peter,
Is this the image you refer to?
James
Yes, James, that's the one...have you a good close-up of him and the 'brick' he's packing? I also love this photo as you can clearly see everyone running to the TSBD.....
Ha!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Peter:
I have lightened the single crop of Jim Hicks....
B.......
-
Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman, and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993......
Also the enlargment of the photos.....
Best B.......
Thanks, Kathy, tho' this doesn't appear to be Ed's actual line of sight if his map in Eye Witness is accurate. Is there likewise a plat showing where this photo was taken from (i.e., the place where Ed was standing)?
******************
If there was, I surely would have scanned it...
B...
-
Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman,
and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993......
Also the enlargment of the photos.....
Best B.......
Joan Mellen's Taking Aim broadcast on WBAI
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
***************************************
"It's like camping out," replied DeBadts..........
B......