Ron Ecker

Wim, I didn't read that whole thing, but I did do a page search using the word "twin." Nothing turned up. As I recall the story, when it was pointed that Files was in Chicago on 11/22/63, Files said that he had a twin brother there, previously unknown to anyone. Could the twin brother be interviewed? No, unfortunately, because Files said he had murdered him. I may have the story wrong, so perhaps you can elucidate. Ron

Oops. Message deleted.

On no one hearing a shot from the south knoll area, the shot(s) could have been fired using a silenced rifle. I think it's a safe bet, with so many earwitnesses hearing only three shots, that silencers were used that day. On the newsman in the parking lot, Gary Mack has stated, “WRR radio reporter Bob Jett was near the south pergola and said in an oral history that the shots came from the Elm-Houston area. . . . He was on the small side street behind the wall east of the south pergola. He didn't mention seeing anyone in the area.” Ron

Jack, So your conclusion is what? The Wiegman film has been tampered with to remove Zapruder and Sitzman? For what purpose? There was a reference earlier to a black box there on the pedestal instead of Zapruder and Sitzman. But if you look at the Moorman photo posted earlier by Tim, there are Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. There is no black box apparent. Or is it the Moorman photo that was tampered with, and Zapruder and Sitzman were put there where there really was no one, and the Wiegman film hasn't been tampered with? Wouldn't it be easier to arrange someone to film the assassination, such as Zapruder and Sitzman, instead of doing it with a black box? There is no sense or logic behind all this perceived alteration that I can discern. I think it is more likely that there are mundane reasons why Zapruder and Sitzman may not be seen in certain images. For example, if you look at frames from the Bell film, at about the same time when this Wiegman frame was taken, you can see that Sitzman is heading into the shelter, while Zapruder has walked several feet away as if to head back to his office. So in the Wiegman frame, Sitzman could already be in the shelter out of view, and Zapruder is out of frame, having walked away to the right. A boringly simple explanation for what we don't see. Ron

Jack, Here's my interpretation of the blurred Wiegman frame. Because of the poor quality of the image, all the people are blurred and very dark (except for some light clothing that shows up on the right). Look at the two or three dark figures standing in the middle of the frame. You can see them because of the grass behind them. If you were to put them in that dark area that is directly above the pedestal, you wouldn't be able to see them. It's matching darkness, all you would see is darkness. It's the same with Zapruder and Sitzman: that's where they're still standing. Ron

Jack, How long after the shooting was this frame taken? It would obviously be after the shooting, but it's so blurred I can't make out who any of the people are. What is the thing by the street on the left? A motorcycle? Ron

Now you see 'em, now you don't. Zapruder and Sitzman may have been in on the plot, knowingly, unknowingly, whatever, but what would be the purpose of their act of appearing and disappearing? They can be seen on the pedestal in Moorman, for example. They can be seen in one of the films when they have just gotten down from the pedestal. But it's claimed they aren't seen in the frame posted above from whichever film it is. What would be the purpose of altering films or photos to make them here one moment and gone the next? There would have to be some rhyme or reason, wouldn't there, given the time and expense that would have to go into all this odd manipulation? Perhaps it was done just to make people waste time like this years later. It just dawned on me.

Tosh, I for one wish I could help with that south knoll photo, in terms of analyzing the spot where you were. But I know nothing about photography, photoanalysis, the necessary software, etc. I wish someone would do it. Ron

Tim, In enlarging that photo above that has the caption under it, I can see more clearly than ever how the gunman image is light and shadow. You can actually see the outer edge of the shelter wall against the darkness. Two of the spots, the "head" and "left arm," are on the wall. The third spot, the "right arm" resting on the "cartop," is light from the parking lot beyond the edge of the shelter wall. And all three spots have the same bright consistency, that of light, not of body parts. Doesn't it look that way to you? Ron

The autopsy photos and x-rays are another matter. That's a complete mess. At least one autopsy photo, showing the back of JFK's head intact, is obviously faked. I'm referring to the films and photos from Dealey Plaza when I say that alteration of that material, even if it were feasible, didn't accomplish anything, so what would be the point?

I don't believe there was any message being sent in the assassination. Like many other researchers, I believe that the intent was, first, to get rid of JFK and, second, to blame it on Castro, thus prompting an invasion of Cuba. So it was done military-ambush style the way Castro agents would have to do it. If JFK simply died of poisoned food, for example, how could that be blamed on Castro? So it was done ambush style with multiple shooters. Blaming it on one gunman was not in the plan, it was supposed to look like an ambush, so they fired as often as needed. Oswald was still to be a patsy, but only as one shooter among several, and the one they would use the trace the hit team back to Castro. But when something went wrong and Oswald was arrested before he could be taken out of the country, supposedly on his way to Cuba, and eliminated, they basically panicked and blamed the whole thing on him, promptly having him shot. And LBJ subsequently showed little interest in Cuba, turning his attention instead to the Vietnam problem.

Tim, Who was it who said "Simplify, simplify"? If you go back to the photo that you referred me to, the one that shows the woman in red, and you look at the light and shadow on the shelter wall to her left (our right), to me that basically says it all. That to me looks exactly like the kind of light and shadow, in exactly that spot, that produced the gunman image. Why is it more complicated than that? As for this alteration business, even assuming that the conspirators somehow were able to gather up all these films and photos and alter them, what was the point? Allegedly people's shoes change color etc. in Zapruder. What's the point? How do any of the alterations claimed by the alterationists help to establish the lone nut theory and frame Lee Harvey Oswald? They don't as far as I know. It makes no sense to me that all this alteration was done to accomplish absolutely nothing. But that's just my humble opinion. Ron

My topic: Mitchell Livingston WerBell III

I’m Ron Ecker in Florida. I received my BA in English at the University of Florida in 1964, and spent two years as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Peru. I earned a Masters in Library Science degree at Florida State University, and spent almost 20 years as a librarian with the state of Florida. During those years I also wrote books, and took early retirement in 2000 to become a full-time writer. My books include the Dictionary of Science and Creationism, And Adam Knew Eve: A Dictionary of Sex in the Bible, The Evolutionary Tales: Rhyme and Reason on Creation/Evolution, and the vampire novel (writing as William Pridgen) Night of the Dragon’s Blood. My complete modern-English translation of The Canterbury Tales has been a widely adopted text in college and university literature courses. My website includes Ecker’s JFK Webpage, which is a page of links to articles I’ve written on the JFK assassination, as well as links to other JFK websites and materials.

I’ve always wondered how, if Sullivan was assassinated, the conspirators could arrange for an apparently innocent teenager to shoot him accidentally while out hunting. I’ve come across an interesting description of how it was done in chapter 16 of Richard E. Sprague’s online book The Taking of America. (This Sprague was a consultant to the HSCA, not the Richard A. Sprague who briefly headed it.) Since Sprague cites no sources for this account of Sullivan’s death, it can’t be accepted as truth and Sprague should at least explain to the reader where it came from. But that said, it does provide a scenario as to how it might have been done. (The PCG referred to is what Sprague calls the Power Control Group). “William Sullivan was eliminated by a clever, but simple technique. The PCG agents who killed him knew about his hunting haunts in New England. They also knew about a teenage son of a state policeman living near Sullivan's country place who liked to hunt in the same area. Two of them intercepted Sullivan early one morning as he set out for a walk in the woods. They shot him with a deer rifle and took his body to a spot in the woods where they knew the boy would be. They carried a decoy inflated to the shape resembling a deer and probably acted like one. The boy shot at him and thought he hit a deer. The agents dropped Sullivan's body at that spot and left. They accidentally left the pair of gloves one of them was wearing. The boy went over to the spot in the early morning semi-darkness, found Sullivan's body, and thought he had killed him by mistake. He still thinks so. There was no investigation and no questions asked. “Why was Sullivan killed? As mentioned before, William Sullivan was J. Edgar Hoovers' right hand man in charge of Division Five, the FBI's clandestine domestic operation that included an assassination squad. Every likelihood exists that Hoover ordered Sullivan's division to kill King and that Sullivan used Frenchy/Raoul and Jack Youngblood to do the job. Sullivan was also due to meet with the Select Committee within a day or two after the day he was shot. Whether he would have talked or not probably makes little difference. The PCG couldn't take the chance.” http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp16.html I have come across references before to Division Five of the FBI that included an assassination squad. Does anyone know if this is a myth, or is there any credible source or sources that there has ever been a Division Five for bumping people off? Ron

Bill, I think you're right. There's nothing else you can do. Your argument makes sense to me, but I guess I'm not "an open minded individual." Ron

Shanet, Quoting from my biography (to which I note the link doesn't work), I believe that "JFK was assassinated by the military-industrial-intelligence complex, using anti-Castro Cubans and the Mafia in supporting roles, and with Lyndon Johnson more than happy to manage the cover-up as needed from his new home on Pennsylvania Avenue, far from any prison where he belonged and to which he might have gone were it not for Dallas." I believe there was a shooter on the south knoll, as it makes perfect sense in terms of triangulation, and provided a straight head-on shot. It also explains the the exit wound in the right rear of JFK's head as opposed to a shot from the north knoll. This has been well argued by weapons expert Al Carrier, who has explored the area, and he has pretty well convinced me. And there is Tosh's account, of course. He says he heard a shot from that area. I have no reason to doubt that Tosh was there as he says. I do wonder (and maybe Tosh can comment as to whether he has wondered too) if he was deliberately misled when told he was on an abort mission. Were Tosh and others potential patsies? The evidence points to at least one shooter in the TSBD (west side) and one person who at least acted like a shooter to draw attention to Oswald's window. One shooter in Dal-Tex, and possibly one on top of the Records building, and one or two shooters on the north knoll. As for Jimmy Files, I worked with convicts for about 20 years, and I think Files has the same amount of credibility as about 99 percent of them, which means none. But that's just guilt by association, so I'll add that his story of how things went down that morning, with him stepping in as a shooter and looking around for a spot about two hours before the shooting because Roselli got cold feet, is patently absurd. I don't think presidential assassins work in quite that fashion, just sort of winging it as they go along. I think Hunt and Sturgis were involved someway, which is why Hunt gets "visibly uncomfortable" when asked about the subject, and why Congress couldn't find out for sure where either one of them was on 11/22/63. They are part of the Watergate connection you mention, which I certainly see in terms of the people who were used (the burglary itself had nothing to do with Dallas), starting at the top with Richard Nixon. I think Nixon was in Dallas that morning to show his moral support for the killers. Ron

Tim, If light and shadow create a particular image on a wall, I don't see why that image would not show up in two or three different films or photos, all taken at the same approximate time, if not at the exactly the same angles. I don't know this, I'm not an expert on such matters, it's just my intuition. My intuition also tells me that an assassin, once he has fired a shot or shots at the president, would not just stay there in view where he was at (in Nix, I believe, not even moving the rifle from its aimed position), watching the limo going on through the underpass, but would be making his exit faster than you can say "Hatman" or "Black Dog Man." The experts say there is no flesh tone in this image, as there is in BDM, which they therefore assumed was an actual person. I don't know how these things are determined, as I know nothing about photography and photoanalysis, that's just what they say, and it jibes with my intuition that there was no one there. You may be right, I just don't think so, so far. Ron

In looking at that photo, I think you may be right. It's sometimes easy to forget, without a photo reminding you, how small that place actually is. BTW if you look to the right of the woman in red (her left), there's a big splotch of light and shadow on the wall of the shelter. At the right time of day, given the right tree growth, I can imagine that splotch taking the form of a classic gunman. Just a possibility. Ron

I apologize for assuming that Shanet is a JFK researcher. I'm also glad to find out that I'm "singularly obsessed with this particular history." I didn't realize I was that far gone (it sounds like I'm mentally ill), and I appreciate Tim letting me know. Thanks, Tim. Ron

I have passed along the info he gave me on this subject for the benefit of the forum, since you brought it up. If his email scared you, that's between you and Gary. But don't forget, it's almost Halloween. I do find it odd that a JFK researcher had never heard of Gary Mack, since he goes back quite a ways. Ron

He has also cited the large wound in the back of JFK's head. I believe it was also Gary who discovered Badgeman in the Moorman photo. As far as I know he has not repudiated his discovery.

This is from Gary Mack on the bridge question: "I never knew, and I don't think any books mention it, that the Triple Underpass is private property owned by several railroads. That information surfaced a few years ago while working on a Sixth Floor Museum project.That, plus information from other documentation which I do not recall, explains what happened. In 1963, the Secret Service and Dallas Police had no jurisdiction over private property and people who had a legal right to be on it.According to DPD reports and WC testimony, the DPD called nearby Union Terminal (headquarters for railroad operations in the area) to send someone over to ID the workers who had a lawful right to be there. They sent S.M. Holland to do just that." On the subject line Gary used in emailing you, I believe he was simply quoting you, as a reference point to the post he was responding to. I don't see nothing wrong with that. But I realize you've already addressed the matter of your reaction before knowing much about him.

Tim, I have two problems with this. One, the problem of size I mentioned earlier. When I said he would have to be the size of Goliath, I didn't mean just height-wise. The image looks overall too large to be a person back where you say he was. Second, I believe it was pointed out some time ago on another forum that if this person was where you say he was, he couldn't even see the limo over the retaining wall. Whether this is true or not you can check out for yourself when you get to Dallas. Take a photo for us of what he could see from where you say he was. Ron

James, Thanks for that info on Nugan Hand. I've run across the name several times in the literature, and have been wanting to learn more about it. On Colby, I've read two things that may be related to his death. One, he was working on a new book, which of course was never completed. Two, I recall reading that he had started working or was going to work for some publication (can't remember which one), in Washington I think, that was critical of Clinton, and this enraged Slick Willie. Can't remember the details or source, but Colby was rather obviously murdered, and he wasn't the only one who got offed during the Clinton years.