Robert Prudhomme

We've done ALL of the research that needs to be done on the assassination at JFKAssassinationForum.com and any further research is a TOTAL waste of time. Oswald did it; embrace it, live with it.

I used to belong to that forum but I found that they are intolerant of any opinion other than Oswald was guilty. Posters were allowed to attack me and NOTHING was done about it, so I quit. That forum can go to hell.

Amen.

I think that this does put Oswald outside as the "prayer man". He said that he went outside to see what all the excitement was (not to watch the parade). This would mean, in my opinion, that he just stepped outside to see why there was so much moving about, running, etc., then back in the building and on to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a coke. and, it my remembrance as well that Officer Baker wrote that LHO had a coke in his hand and that part was later marked out.

Hello Mr. Adams

I have heard before, as you stated, that Oswald said he went outside to see what the excitement was all about following the shots, but I have never been able to find the source of this. Do you know when and to whom he was supposed to have said this?

More specifically, did Oswald actually refer to the excitement as being the commotion following the assassination? He may have been referring to the crowd outside the TSBD seeing JFK coming down Houston St. and the resulting elevation in excitement.

What a pity Oswald never lived to stand trial.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSQzJXWFmIlCC5XRurymAl8269voSnsLUPsAJJLT4sXniHmMa3Nw

If nothing else, Mr. Von Pein has taken our attention away from the man on the stairs.

In this forum thread, once again, we're treated to people using their vivid imaginations to stamp a specific identity on a fuzzy and very indistinct human being seen in a low-quality film/photo.

How in the world can anyone positively say WHO "prayer man" is here? It's impossible.

But when I look at these toggling frames from Mal Couch's film, the thing I'm most fascinated by (other than Officer Baker running for the TSBD entrance) is the man in the foreground (wearing the hat). He appears to be tilting his head upward to look at the upper floors of the Depository.

Hmmmm....I wonder why he'd be doing that? Any ideas?

Speaking of imagination, Dave, how can you say for sure the man is looking up? It was popular in those days to wear cowboy hats tilted to the back of the head, a la Chuck Connors.

He could very well have been watching Baker run into the TSBD.

Quote:

"Mack also says that no one who worked at the TSBD saw Oswald on the steps, or said they did, and the man is too short to be the 5' 9" Oswald, and that by the time the frame is filmed Oswald is on or waiting for the bus, which doesn't make any sense if Baker runs into Oswald on the second floor about a minute later. I think Gary will alter that statement after reflection."

How many TSBD employees were still on the steps when this person would have stepped out the door? How many of them would have been looking behind them, instead of down the street towards where the shots were heard?

Also, how does one establish the height of the person in the photo at under 5'9"?

I think that this does put Oswald outside as the "prayer man". He said that he went outside to see what all the excitement was (not to watch the parade). This would mean, in my opinion, that he just stepped outside to see why there was so much moving about, running, etc., then back in the building and on to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a coke. and, it my remembrance as well that Officer Baker wrote that LHO had a coke in his hand and that part was later marked out.

"Curiouser and curiouser......"

Quote

That is, if he did buy a Coke. That is something else that never seems to be clear.

There is no question that he bought a coke. Page 154 of the Warren Report describes Mrs Reid meeting him seconds after the Truly/Baker encounter. Mrs Reid gave an affidavit that day, and testified before the WC, that he was carrying

a bottle of coke.

THe only question is whether he had already bought the coke when Baker encountered him.

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

Interesting. I did not know that Mrs. Reid testified to seeing a Coke in Oswald's hand, seconds after the encounter with Baker.

Didn't Baker originally note a Coke in Oswald's hand in his statement, only to cross it out? I've always thought this to be an odd thing and it is stranger yet with your revelation about Mrs. Reid's testimony and affidavit.

So Is Prudenhomme an alias?

It's "Prudhomme", actually. It is an Anglicized version of the French "Prud'Homme". It literally translates from Old French to mean a cautious or prudent man. My ancestors sat as arbitrators and mediators over trade disputes and the like.

And yes, it is my real name.

Yea, I couldn't make up a name like Kelly, which translates to something like instigating radical rascal, or something like that.

LOL

Credit Gerda Dunckel

Enjoy the thread - Link Below

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6724.0.html

Thanks, Duncan, marvelous gif by Gerda.

And what do you know, here's Roy Truly:

Watch the gif closely and you see Baker actually push him out of the way.

Hello Sean

If Baker pushes Truly out of the way on his way into the TSBD, at what point do him and Truly get together? Does Baker backtrack and come back outside to meet him or does Truly follow him in?

What is fascinating me here is the split second timing that could be involved if that is Oswald in the doorway, within inches of Baker as he rushes by. In the time it would take Baker and Truly to come together, formulate a quick plan, try the elevators, discover they don't work and begin ascending the stairs to the second floor, would Oswald have time to enter the building, go directly to the stairs, climb to the second floor and buy a Coke? That is, if he did buy a Coke. That is something else that never seems to be clear.

Remember, Oswald was a skinny 24 year old. At that age, I used to take stairs three at a time, just for fun.

So Is Prudenhomme an alias?

It's "Prudhomme", actually. It is an Anglicized version of the French "Prud'Homme". It literally translates from Old French to mean a cautious or prudent man. My ancestors sat as arbitrators and mediators over trade disputes and the like.

And yes, it is my real name.

From William Kelly:

"If they have discussed this issue over there, the direct links to the subject should be made, so we don't have to duplicate the research, but i couldn't find it on the board on the link previously presented."

I was on that forum for several years, and do not recall seeing this topic discussed there. This is not saying it was not discussed there, I just don't recall seeing it.

P.S. I believe this is important research you are doing and, if a name cannot be given to that figure (other than Oswald), this may be the most important research to be done in the last 50 years. Please forgive me if you believe I was attacking your work in some way.

John Simkin's new zero tolerance policy approach is for members to attack the research and not the researcher.

I respectfully request that the moderators take action by implementing the alleged zero tolerance policy against this member.

Duncan MacRae

I agree with Duncan IN PRINCIPLE, and I for one have always valued Duncan's input,

especially on matters photographic, but in fairness to Mr. Prudhomme

he was just reporting something that happened on another forum.

He does not abuse people the way Jim Di Eugenio used to do.

Yea, I neither take credit for being the first to call attention to this photo frame or think any forum rules were broken, as ridicule and sarcasm are valid forms of critique, if used correctly. I didn't even recognize it as a backhand slap at Duncan and his forum.

If they have discussed this issue over there, the direct links to the subject should be made, so we don't have to duplicate the research, but i couldn't find it on the board on the link previously presented.

If this is Oswald, and Baker has yet to enter the TSBD, then Oswald must have gone up the front stairs or taken the front elevator to the second floor in order to greet Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom before he purchased the coke.

And if Duncan and those on his forum are familiar with the photo evidence, perhaps they can tell us about the other photos and films that precede and follow this one or if there are any other photos or films that include this person.

And as for Mr. Hocking's quote of Williams' actions, Williams couldn't have taken the warehouse elevator to the fourth floor immediately after the third shot because it was on the fifth floor. He must have taken the front elevator, that didn't go to the sixth floor but only went to the fourth floor, which is where he said he went.

BK

Bill,

Otis Williams claimed he climbed the stairs that were next to the warehouse elevator(s). I agree with you that he could not have taken either elevator since they were both stuck on the 5th floor at that time. The important part of his quote for the current topic is that he went inside immediately after hearing the 3rd shot. If true, that means he could not have been the figure on the front steps.

From the testimony of the group on the stairs and the photographic and film evidence, I am of the opinion that "prayer man" is not any of the 14 individuals that testified they were on the steps at that time. All of the employees also testified that there were no strangers in the TSBD that day. This leads me to believe "prayer man" is an employee of the TSBD who is not included in anyone of the 14 individuals testimony.

A mystery that merits further attention.

And another good topic as the 50th approaches.

Excellent work, Mr. Hocking. I really like the process of elimination you used to narrow down and eliminate the possibilities.

I took it as sarcasm.

I think Mr. Kelly will, too, once he reads it again.

"Finally, this man has been discussed many many times at http://www.jfkassass.../board,2.0.html and many enhancements have been made there and are still available for viewing."

Translation = We've done ALL of the research that needs to be done on the assassination at JFKAssassinationForum.com and any further research is a TOTAL waste of time. Oswald did it; embrace it, live with it.

Robert, please link to a more specific discussion and enhancements of this photo - which Gary Mack says is from the Darnell Film, which I too would like to see in motion in full, if it is available.

After four decades on this case I too was surprised to see the photo, but Prudhomme's translation is garbled, as if he's done all the research that needs to be done on the assassination, then it can be all wrapped up and we can move on to more important issues.

If any further research is a waste of time, and Prudhomme has all the answers, including Oswald did it, something he has embraced and lives with, then I'd like to know how Oswald managed to be on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD when the shooting happened, where he got the bullets, who handed him the guns over the counter at the post office, where the strap on the rifle came from, why he had a scope that he couldn't use, who moved the boxes around in the window after the sniper had left the scene, how the rifle got to New Orleans and back to Texas, who closed Oswald's New Orleans PO box a week after he had left town, who intentionally impersonated Oswald in Mexico City and elsewhere,... and I have some more, but the answers to those questions will tell me if you know anything or are just a pompus......

Mr. Kelly

Please take a moment, read my post again, and attempt to see the sarcasm in my writing.

P.S. I was banned from Mr. MacRae's forum for repeatedly referring to the permanent band of LN'ers residing there as "paid disinformation agents".

"Finally, this man has been discussed many many times at http://www.jfkassass.../board,2.0.html and many enhancements have been made there and are still available for viewing."

Translation = We've done ALL of the research that needs to be done on the assassination at JFKAssassinationForum.com and any further research is a TOTAL waste of time. Oswald did it; embrace it, live with it.

I tried to view the Youtube video but it claimed it was not currently available.

Considering the little evidence available to us, and how adulterated most of that evidence is, is it little wonder that so many have "fits" at the prospect of conducting research in this case?

Hello Gary

I look forward to the release of your book and will be purchasing a copy of it.

While browsing through a book store a few months back, I decided to pick up something that (I thought) had nothing to do with my JFK research. I picked up a book entitled The Mob and Me, about the exploits of wiseguys in the Federal Witness Protection Program, told by one of the creators of the program, John Partington. The book was easy reading, filled with lots of insight into the lives of its characters.

One detail in particular stood out, however. Partington had not only led the protection details of some famous mobsters, but of E. Howard Hunt, during Watergate. On page 216, he relates: "A couple of my marshals tried to pry information from the taciturn Hunt. There was plenty of gossip that he knew who was behind the slaying of John F. Kennedy. He never directly made any accusations but obliquely referenced the CIA and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Badly damaged by the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the CIA in turn blamed JFK for a lack of guts in rejecting a Cuban invasion to oust Castro. Hunt made no bones about the fact that he felt JFK was too faint of heart in pulling the punches on the mission and said JFK probably got what he deserved."

The book then relates that after Hunt's death his son wrote an article describing a deathbed confession in which Hunt blamed the killing on the CIA and Johnson.

Now, here's where it gets weird. News of Hunt's deathbed confession came out in 2007. Partington's book came out in 2010. So, it seems possible he added the bit about Hunt in after hearing the news about the deathbed confession.

EXCEPT...Partington died in 2006. He couldn't possibly have heard the news of the confession prior to his death. So, was this just added in by the writer tasked with finishing his book?

I don't know. The book is attributed to Partington WITH former Rhode Island Attorney General Arlene Violet. It seems hard to believe Ms. Violet would make up Hunt's "obliquely referencing" the CIA and Johnson if this wasn't mentioned in her source materials...which, in turn, suggests Partington said Hunt blamed Johnson and the CIA BEFORE word of Hunt's deathbed confession reached the public.

I suppose, then, that the next step is to track down Violet, and find out if her source materials, created BEFORE Hunt's deathbed confession, support this analysis. Correct?

Mr. Speer

Very interesting. Good work.

Mr. Purvis

Just in case our old Expert is unaware, the 6.5 mm M91 long rifle was produced in the millions, all of them with progressive twist rifling. The bulk of the manufacturing of the M91 was done prior to 1918.

On the other hand, total production of the 7.35 mm M38 short rifle, PLUS the carbine versions of the M38, totalled 260,000, with the M38 short rifle production being only about 100,000 of those rifles.

The progressive twist rifling was abandoned with the introduction of the 7.35 mm M38 short rifle, which was made with a 1:10 standard twist. Supposedly, when the 7.35 mm M38 was abandoned in 1940 and replaced with the 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle, it was intended that the M91/38 would continue with the standard twist, although there is no evidence of any change from the 1:10 rate of twist.

The 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle was only made in the year 1940, with a handful being made at Terni in the early months of 1941. The M91/38 short rifle was REPLACED by the M91/41 long rifle in 1941.

It is, therefore, utter nonsense to say that barrels could be salvaged from M91/41 long rifles to make cut down barrels for the M91/38 short rifle, as production of the M91/38 short rifle had ceased BEFORE production of the M91/41 long rifle had begun. Even if production of the two rifles had been at the same time, there would have been no stocks of M91/41 barrels to cut down as they would all be going into production of new M91/41's. And what fool would make a new long rifle barrel just so he could cut it down to make a short rifle barrel? Wouldn't it be simpler just to make a new short rifle barrel?

An undeniable fact is that the 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle was produced in the space of one year in numbers approaching the one million mark. While the 7.35 mm M38 short rifle barrels were made from worn out, recycled, bored out 6.5 mm M91 long rifles, thus eliminating the 6.5 mm progressive twist rifling and re-rifling with standard twist rifling, there could have been no re-boring of the cut down 6.5 mm M91 long rifle barrels to make 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifle barrels for the simple fact the two rifles were the same calibre.

The question remains, where did they find close to a million barrels in 1940 to make 6.5 mm M91/38 short rifles with standard twist rifling?

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence."

At 12:30 P.M., Nov. 22, 1963, JFK was supposedly struck in the back of the head with a bullet fired from six stories up in the Texas School Book Depository, at a range of approximately 88 yards. The bullet was fired from a 6.5x52 mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle and was a full metal jacket bullet with an extraordinarily thick jacket about 1 mm thick, typical of 6.5 mm Carcano bullets.

What happened to that 6.5 mm Carcano bullet is so unusual, experts to this day can neither recreate it or explain it. As I pointed out in a previous thread, the walls of the 6.5 mm Carcano and the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer FMJ bullets are so thick, they were used for head shots to elephants as the strong bullets resisted deformation and breakup while travelling through the thick elephant skull bones.

So, what happened? Why didn't the 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet stay together, travel through JFK's head and exit his face, as one would expect this bullet to do?

Mr. Craig Lamson has tried to suggest that, out of four 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges (made by the Western Cartridge Co., USA) in Oswald's possession that day, one bullet had its nose drilled or scored deeply enough, prior to being fired, to make it into a fragmenting hollow point bullet. As luck would have it, according to Mr. Lamson, this just happened to be the bullet that made contact with JFK's head with such explosive results.

While it is highly unlikely that Oswald would only doctor the nose of one out of four bullets in this fashion, there is something else drastically wrong with this theory. It is something that has bothered me for years and it is now time to share with you what I believe actually occurred.

Below are links to two Warren Commission evidence photos, that of CE 567 and CE 569. According to investigators, these were the only two bullet fragments of any size or note found in the limousine.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/Photo_naraevid_CE567-1_zps089fc93d.jpg

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/Photo_naraevid_CE569-2_zps7a247a7c.jpg

CE 567 is presumably the nose sction of the 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet that struck the rear of JFK's head, while CE 569 is the jacket base of the same bullet. Both were supposedly found in the front of the limousine, following the assassination. Noticeably absent are the lead and bullet jacket from that section of the bullet between CE 567 and CE 569.

Though badly deformed and split, the nose of the bullet (CE 567) was still in one piece. This fact alone tells me that the bullet that struck JFK in the head was not modified into being a fragmenting bullet in the normal fashion by drilling or slicing into the copper jacket of the nose until the lead core is exposed. If it had been altered in such a fashion, it would never have been found in one piece, as portrayed by CE 567, but would have been in many pieces; all quite small.

So, if the bullet that struck JFK's head was a fragmenting bullet (and I see no other possibility) and CE 567 precludes the alteration of its nose to make it a fragmenting bullet, how did it fragment? I'm delighted that you asked.

Pictured below is a rare 6.5 mm Carcano cartridge manufactured for the Italian military called a "multi-shot" cartridge. While I do not believe this type of round, which actually contained lead shot within a hollow jacket, was the type that struck JFK, I believe the method used to cause the jacket of this bullet to come apart was also used to facilitate the breaking up of the round that struck JFK's head. Little seems to be known about the multi-shot cartridge, and one can only assume it to be a response to complaints from Italian soldiers about the 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet's inability to seriously wound the people shot by it. Instead of making the "through and through" wound typical of 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullets, this thing would have made a horrendous wound typical of a shotgun wound, only worse. Not only would there be a spreading pattern of lead shot travelling through the victim, there would also be irregularly shaped bits of bullet jacket tearing things up, as well. It could only be worse if the nose of this "bullet" was capable of penetrating skull bone prior to the separation of the jacket. Note that records do not show that the Western Cartridge Company ever manufactured a 6.5 mm Carcano cartridge with a bullet resembling the multi-shot round.

Figure 5: Bottom is the “multi shot” round showing the cuts made on the projectile to facilitate it coming apart

The one funny looking projectile (with cuts on the side of the projectile) turned out to be a “multi shot” round. According to the Carcano website, the projectile actually is hollow and contains lead shot and it is not uncommon to run across these in surplus ammo.

Looking at the above photo, we can see that the "cuts" or scoring in the jacket wall do not begin until a point that is roughly 25% of the distance from the nose, leaving the nose intact. Although not visible, we can assume the scoring ends at about the point where the bullet enters the neck of the cartridge. I make this assumption for two reasons. 1) Scoring anything beyond what we see scored would be pointless, as the bullet jacket has been weakened more than enough (about 50% of the length of the jacket) to facilitate breaking up of the bullet 2) Scoring the bullet right to the base may weaken the jacket severely and deform it to the point it will not fly true to the target.

Looking again at CE 567 and CE 569, we have to ask the question; would a 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet, deeply scored on four sides in the fashion of the "multi-shot" round, be capable of penetrating JFK's skull and coming apart inside the skull? With the location of the scores, would it leave the nose of such a bullet in one piece, as seen in CE 567, and the jacket base in another piece, as seen in CE 569, yet cause the total disintegration of everything between the nose and the base?

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence."

(Tom Purvis)

Indeed. Might I point out that I have seen hollow point bullets that have travelled through the brains of deer that were more intact than the full metal jacket bullet that travelled through the brain of JFK?

As far as I can see, Tom has been removed completely from the forum, but Jim is still showing as an active member.

Mr. MacRae

I'm sorry but, the "best evidence" distinctly points to Mr. DiEugenio being removed from this forum. Please read the following document from Mr. Simkin:

"Tom Scully and Jim DiEugenio were not removed from this Forum for any individual breach of Forum rules. My decision was based on what I considered a long-term campaign into bullying members into not posting on this forum.

It is a decision I will not revoke. I have received several emails from members who have thanked me for making this decision, admitting that in the past they have been intimidated from posting. As I explained earlier, this is my last effort at attempting to promote the idea of a reasoned debate on the JFK assassination."

While there may be some "evidence" pointing towards Mr. DiEugenio returning to this forum, we have to always remember that some types of evidence are unreliable, especially eyewitness evidence.

Mr. Trejo

Someone once worked out the actual capital outlay required to operate Oswald's one-man FPCC chapter in New Orleans. This involved the cost of printing handbills and hiring people to hand them out on the street. It worked out to be a sizeable amount of cash, far beyond what Oswald would have had access to at the time.

I read the article years ago, and have been unable to locate it since. Would this be within the realm of your knowledge?

Thank you in advance.

Mr. Von Pein

Accepting the "best evidence" as you do, what do you have to say about what Drs. Humes and Boswell had to say about the back of head fragment brought in to the autopsists that completed the bullet entrance wound to the back of JFK's head in the close vicinity of the external occipital protruberance [sic]? Surely, you cannot just ignore these learned gentlemen, can you?

Where do you think you're going with your arguments about the entry wound, Robert? As far as I can see, it appears you're merely going around in circles. Because regardless of the exact (to-the-inch) location of the entry wound, the autopsy doctors (all of them!) have always said that there was only ONE wound of entry in JFK's head -- and it was in the rear of the head....not the front of the head, not the temple.

Ergo, only one bullet hit JFK in the head--and it came from behind the President. Why would you choose to ignore this fundamental foundational fact?

You seem to think the autopsy doctors did, in fact, see an entry wound low in the President's head (very near the EOP), right? And since the autopsy report, which was signed by all three of those doctors who performed the President's autopsy at Bethesda, verifies the fact that there was only ONE wound of entry in JFK's head, then I ask again: where do you think you can go with this information?

How can you advance the theory of a multi-gun conspiracy via this information which says--clear as day--that President Kennedy had only one bullet hole of entry in his cranium?

Even if you wish to perpetually argue about the exact square inch on Kennedy's head where the wound was situated, at the end of this day (like all other days that preceded it) you're still going to end up facing an autopsy report and three autopsy surgeons who proved the following fact at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of November 22, 1963....

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings."

-- Dr. James Humes; JAMA interview; October 1991

MORE --- JFK Archives: DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Re: The Head Wounds)

Mr. Von Pein

Once again, you have artfully dodged the question put to you.

The cowlick is at the top of the back of the head, while the external occipital protruberance, as shown by the diagram below, is at the bottom of the back of the head. Even a first year medical student assisting in an autopsy would have difficulty confusing the two, but you would seriously have us consider the possibility Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck, all experts in their fields, were so grossly incompetent they gave the location of the entrance wound as the EOP instead of the cowlick. Utter nonsense.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/imagesCARPHHG5_zps54665f67.jpg

Speaking of nonsense, there are also degrees to which we tolerate nonsense. For the sake of argument, we have been discussing the location of the rear entrance wound and ignoring the fact there is a great deal of evidence showing JFK was struck in the head by two shots. I believe JFK was struck in the head almost simultaneously by two bullets; the first one in the rear of the head at the EOP and the second one in the right temple.

As pointed out by Mr. Gallup, Drs. Humes and Boswell gave testimony about a skull fragment arriving to the autopsy just after midnight, long after your sacred photos were taken. The fragment had half of a bullet hole to it and completed the other half of the bullet entrance hole at the EOP. As the fragment was a good deal larger than the half of a bullet hole it contained, we have evidence of an exit wound at the back of JFK's head in the vicinity of the EOP; corroborating early eyewitness reports from Parkland and Bethesda.

Why do the "official" autopsy photos show the back of JFK's head to be intact?

Robert,

I accept the best evidence (the photos and X-rays). Obviously, you do not.

What more needs to be said?

Mr. Von Pein

Accepting the "best evidence" as you do, what do you have to say about what Drs. Humes and Boswell had to say about the back of head fragment brought in to the autopsists that completed the bullet entrance wound to the back of JFK's head in the close vicinity of the external occipital protruberance? Surely, you cannot just ignore these learned gentlemen, can you?

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/imagesCARPHHG5_zps54665f67.jpg