Greg Doudna
-
Posts
2,265 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Doudna
-
-
23 hours ago, Gerry Down said:
DPD officer Les Beilharz claimed in an interview that it was his microphone, not H.B. McLains, that was stuck that day.
This is interesting. An article on the MFF site, Chris Scally, “Bugliisi, Bowles, and the Open Mike” (2007), although Scally does not favor Beilharz, cites a lot of information there that does. Question: how does it affect the assessment of the HSCA acoustic analysis if it WAS Beilharz? After reading the Scally MFF site article, also another by Scally, Dealey Plaza Echo Vol 8 No. 1, March 2007, and with this tape of Beilharz, sounds to me like it’s Beilharz. But what does it mean if so?
-
34 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Greg--
Since no one was seen outside the Walker home carrying a rifle the night of the shot...
Is it possible that shot resulted from a handgun?
That would explain why Coleman did not see anyone carrying a rifle.
Whoever shot Walker's window then immediately stuffed a handgun under his belt, and off they go....
It would make a getaway (and arrival) simpler without risking being seen to be a shooter wouldn't it? I have no idea. Oswald told Marina it was the rifle, according to Marina, but then Oswald was telling her other things that were not the truth. Everyone has always thought it was a rifle. But I don't know Benjamin and I don't know enough about ballistics to be the best person to ask either.
-
Ruminations on the identity of Kirk Coleman's man No. 1
I also think I know who Kirk Coleman's man No. 1 was, though I did not put that in my paper and it does not affect anything in the argument if this isn't right. Kirk Coleman gave a description of man No. 1 that had specific details: about 19-20 years of age, skinny, long hair, long narrow face, prominent nose.
In the odd story which appeared in Dick Russell from Brad Angers, Angers claimed that Larrie Schmidt told him, Angers, in early 1964 that Larrie's brother Robert "Bob" or "Robbie" Schmidt knew Oswald, drove Oswald the night of the shot, accompanied and assisted Oswald in taking the shot the night of the shot. Then the record shows Bob Schmidt happily went to work for Walker as Walker's chauffeur a few months later starting ca. later Oct 1963. Normal thing to do after helping Oswald take a shot which supposedly was attempted murder of General Walker, right?
On the hunch that Angers' strange story might reflect some strange decades-later hearsay version of the staged shot involving Surrey and Oswald as developed in my paper, naming a participation of Robert Schmidt and his car as assisting Oswald in that staged shot that evening, I wondered if Robert Schmidt in fact could be the missing identity of No. 1.
In my paper I wrote of the movements of man No. 1 seen by Kirk Coleman, of his standing outside of a car with the engine running (Coleman first sees him apart from his car in the parking lot walking toward an otherwise-empty car idling with its engine running and headlights on moments after the shot, then getting into the already-running car and driving away out to Turtle Creek Blvd) ... and man No. 1 from where he was standing away from his car with the engine running would have been standing with line of sight into the alley capable of eye contact with the shooter in the alley ... and that that all made excellent sense interpreted as No. 1 as a signaler in the parking lot part of the shot, capable of signal communication with both inside the Walker house and the shooter in the alley, i.e. No. 1 as part of the shot and not a car and person unrelated to the shot. However I left No. 1 unidentified in my paper apart from the argument that No. 1 too was involved in the staged shot, and was not some unrelated random church or other person standing like that, line of sight to the shooter in the alley, away from a car with its engine running, at the moment of the shot.
From a passing mention in the WC testimony of Bernard Weissman, Robert Schmidt was 29 years old in 1963, a bit older than Kirk Coleman thought from seeing No. 1. But I found letters of Larrie Schmidt in 1963 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site confirming that Larrie knew Robert Surrey since at least Feb 1963--moved in the same right-wing circles, Larrie mentions Robert Surrey by name in a letter of Feb 1963--and separately those letters confirm Larrie's brother Bob was in Dallas in early-mid 1963, no known employment, and that Larrie's brother Bob in fact months later began direct paid employment with General Walker as a chauffeur starting ca. late Oct 1963--brought into that paid employment for Walker by Robert Surrey.
I think Bob Schmidt is Robert L. Schmidt, 1934-1981, born and died Lincoln, Nebraska, 29 years old in 1963, US Navy vet in Korea, photo of tombstone here: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/74093487/robert-l-schmidt.
I looked up Robert L. Schmidt's high school yearbook photo from his high school in Lincoln, Nebraska. That is the only photo known of Larrie Schmidt's brother Bob known to me in existence, nor was Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt ever interviewed by anyone re things 1963 or Walker or JFK assassination related. There is no known personal information, no obituary, no knowledge of whether he had wife or kids, no knowledge of employment, nothing about him even though his name is familiar in the Larrie Schmidt/CUSA documents and investigations following the assassination in Nov 1963. The one detail of interest learned from the photo of his tombstone (assuming this is the right person) is he was a Navy vet in Korea and not part of the Army vets in Gemany of the Larrie Schmidt and Weissman CUSA circles as generally assumed. On rechecking Larrie Schmidt's 1963 letters I cannot find any evidence Larrie's brother Bob served in Germany or in the Army, even though that has been assumed.
Anyway, Robert L. Schmidt's high school photo, the only known photo in existence known to me for Larrie's brother Bob who was in Dallas in 1963--the same individual named in the strange Angers story in which Angers says Larrie told him ca. early 1964 (over a few drinks? with Angers, who was in the electronic surveillance business, recording Larrie without Larrie's knowledge as Larrie spun him a tall one?--who knows) ... that strange story says Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt was with and assisted Oswald the night of the Walker shot--Robert L. Schmidt's Lincoln, Nebraska high school photo struck me for having a long, narrow face, in agreement with Kirk Coleman's physical description of man No. 1.
The plausibility of some unemployed vet already in circles known to Robert Surrey in early 1963 who could be trusted to do a job and keep his mouth shut, being the missing identification of man No. 1 with Surrey in the staged Walker shot, came together as intriguing to me.
And the known months-later explicit employment of Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt, recommended to Walker by Robert Surrey for paid employment for General Walker says if Bob Schmidt was involved with the shot April 10, 1963 it was part of a staged shot working with Surrey, not actual intent to murder Walker. (Because Bob Schmidt did not try to kill Walker when he was later hired as chauffeur and had opportunity!!!!!!--because that Walker shot of April 10, 1963 never was about trying to kill General Walker!)
There is no other candidate for Coleman's No. 1 to my knowledge. In favor of Bob Schmidt as No. 1 is the plausibility of vet Bob Schmidt known to be in Dallas and in Robert Surrey/Walker circles in early 1963 via his brother Larrie, possible need for money (reflected in the Larrie Schmidt letters), and there is the decades-later hearsay claim.
And then the long narrow face.
When I saw the long narrow face I said to myself, "Self, I think this may be a match." Anyway that's my best guess at identity of No. 1. Robert L. Schmidt seems to check most of the boxes as at least possible for No. 1--if this isn't a false positive.
-
In addition there is something else: the Robert Surrey car match to Coleman's No. 2 was in a sense there as at least a suggestion all along in a written report of an FBI interview of Robert Surrey of 1964, but nobody picked up on it or noticed: it is when Robert Surrey told the FBI that he had used that same church parking lot, implied similar position in the church parking lot nearest to the Walker house, to park his car a few days earlier, as where Coleman saw the No. 2 man getting into the parked car the night of April 10, 1963 moments after the shot. Although the color match of Robert Surrey's and the No. 2 car was not known in any FBI or WC information or MFF document prior to Pieces of the Puzzle in 2017, the same location of parking of those two cars, just days apart, was in the public record to researchers all along (in an FBI interview WC exhibit, available to researchers since 1964?). But nobody picked up on it, nobody noticed, nobody said, "could that car of man No. 2 seen by Kirk Coleman in the same position as Robert Surrey's car a couple of days earlier, possibly be Robert Surrey's car the night of the shot?"
Why did nobody pick up on that earlier? I don't know. You tell me.
-
16 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:
I'm having similar questions, Jim. Why now.
If you’re asking why the match of colors of Robert Surrey's 1963 car to the car of Coleman’s man No. 2 did not suggest a car identification to anyone before now, even though that information was published in 2017, I can answer that in my own case: I did not notice and focus on that detail before Nov 2022 even though I had the book long before then. I assume the reason nobody else did either, including David Surrey, his friend Allen Kent, the authors of Pieces of the Puzzle, or anyone else is the same reason.
-
4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:
If I understand your response, you didn't ask her and she didn't offer?
Do you find it plausible she didn't know, considering the arrest made the news and his subsequent interview was broadcast.
It's slightly more plausible that Ruth wasn't aware Lee traveled MC, but the leafletting and arrest and radio interviews in NOLA beg the question how she remained in the dark.
Hypothetically, if she knew about the arrest, why didn't she have a quiet chat with authorities either in NOLA or Dallas? Furthermore, I think by September she must have known SA Hosty was in the picture or she could have reached out to her friend SA "Hart" Odum off the record.
Or, as you seem to intimate, she was clueless.
No I meant I can’t remember anything in her testimony, letters to family, or interviews etc that refers to knowledge of that pre-nov 22. But I also did not ask her myself nor did the subject come up with me when I knew her.
I would not assume someone not living in New Orleans would know of the Oswald arrest in New Orleans unless told of it.
Ruth testified that Hosty coming to her door Nov 1, 1963 to see Marina was the first time in her life she met an FBI agent.
-
8 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:
Greg, do you recall whether Ruth knew that Oswald had been arrested in New Orleans before he left for MC?
I don't know, Leslie. I can't think of any time she referred to it.
-
1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:
Mrs. OSWALD. She was very good to us, to Lee and to me, and Lee was quite friendly with her, but he did not like her. I know that he didn't like her
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he didn't like her?
Mrs. OSWALD. He considered her to be a stupid woman. Excuse me these are not my words.
Mr. RANKIN. Were you and Mrs. Paine good friends?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, so-so. I tried to help her as much as I could. But I also--I was---I did not like her too well. I also considered her not to be a very smart woman.Lee and Marina borrowed a car belonging to Michael Paine parked at Ruth Paine's house behind her back when she was gone for a few hours and Ruth never noticed, on Nov 11, 1963 (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1450). I wonder if that is why they considered her stupid, for not noticing?
Marguerite accused Ruth Paine of being part of the assassination of JFK, as she also accused the two Secret Service agents at the motel with her and Marina, Howard and Kunkel--she told the Warren Commission she thought Howard and Kunkel had been involved in assassinating JFK too, along with Ruth Paine. The Warren Commission kept asking if she had any evidence to substantiate her claims. She never provided any. Sounds like CT accusations today regarding Ruth Paine.
And some people wonder why Ruth never seemed interested in taking in any more Russian immigrant young women after that. "Been there, done that, no thanks"?
-
8 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:
You seem to forget that when it came to Marina and the kids, Ruth Paine had a heart of gold, but when it came to Oswald, nothing but hate.
Ruth Paine’s behavior toward Oswald before Nov 22 was not hateful. You are misrepresenting. She welcomed him on weekends when he visited. She took him for driving lessons to try to help him get a drivers license. She gave him rides, gave him a map, made a birthday cake for him. There is no sign or testimony that she badmouthed him to Marina. Ruth’s letters to her family members in 1963 pre-Nov 22 do not show hate for Lee but concern for his as well as Marina’s wellbeing. The “hate” is simply not in evidence in heart or behavior prior to Nov 22.
I agree she viewed him negatively after Nov 22, believed and believes to this day that he killed jfk, and by December she further believed he had attempted premeditated murder of walker eight months earlier proving in her mind he had the heart to do premeditated murder of a president too. Pretty horrifying to believe that coming out about someone who had been in your home and you didn’t see that coming. But you are reading that backwards pre-nov 22.
-
2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:
Ruth Paine, when asked about this call said, “I don’t recall an offer like that being made. I have heard this rumor, but it’s certainly unknown to me.”
It wasn't a rumor, it was sworn testimony.
No, it is sworn testimony that the job paid better. But there is no sworn testimony that Ruth ever was told or knew that. This has been discussed before. The notion that Ruth purposely acted to keep Oswald from a better job for himself and his family is one of the baseless slurs that has an indefinite life, believed and believed and believed and believed, when there is no sound basis to suppose it is true.
You are aware that Ruth received a call from the Texas Employment Commission prior to the TSBD job, a message for Lee, for a very good job offer, and Ruth passed it on to Lee, and Lee did go and apply but was turned down at that place? If Ruth was so dead set against Lee getting a good job other than TSBD, why did she pass on that call to Lee?
-
The single most important difference between the Scott Reid article and my study is this. Referring to the testimony of witness Kirk Coleman who saw two persons in two cars leaving the church parking lot next to Walker's house immediately following the shot, Reid states, in the Kennedys and King article of March 19, 2023:
"Coleman provided a detailed description of both men ... Sixty years later, the identities of the two men have yet to be uncovered ..."
The first sentences of my study, posted on my website on March 11, 2023:
"Witness Kirk Coleman saw two men in two cars ... The following represents a breakthrough in the case: a solid identification of one of those two vehicles and individuals seen by witness Coleman. The solution to this identification has been missed in all studies until now. This breakthrough is not minor but critical, going to the heart of what happened that evening of April 10, 1963 ..."
My study argues that man No. 2 of Coleman was Walker aide Robert Surrey going to his car, coming from the Walker house. Readers (including Scott Reid who I am sure had not seen my study at the time he submitted his article to Kennedys and King) can assess on the basis of the evidence and judge up or down for themselves: was Coleman's car No. 2 Robert Surrey's car, and Coleman's man No. 2 Robert Surrey, or not?
That is the central starting point of my study, the breakthrough in the case. As the quote from the Scott Reid article shows, as recently as March 19, 2023 the Robert Surrey identification of one of the two cars seen by Kirk Coleman was still not on the radar of the mainstream of the CT community.
It was all made possible for me by the work of Gayle Nix Jackson who produced Pieces of the Puzzle (2017), and contributions from her coauthors such as Steve Roe. Gayle Nix Jackson reported the data, I read it a few times without realizing the significance, until one day as I read and thought, read and thought ... and then an "aha!" reaction as I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4. If not for Pieces of the Puzzle this would not have happened. I will be interested in and welcome Scott Reid's take on my study.
This morning I was honored to see Jefferson Morley feature the work of Gayle Nix Jackson and my study on his online newsletter, JFK Facts (https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/did-lee-harvey-oswald-shoot-general?utm_. (Worth the price of the one or two cups of coffee per month subscription to help support the work of a hardworking journalist who is probably the premier journalist dealing with the JFK assassination in America.)
-
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:
Ruth Paine certainly didn't apply the presumption of innocence principle to Oswald when he was dead. Her badmouthing of him then was despicable and it destroys her self-presentation as a kind and virtuous person.
To do that to a murdered man was inexcusable. What made it even worse is that it effectively condoned the actions of the Dallas police in their facilitating Oswald's murder.
In view of Ruth Paine's behaviour in these respects alone, she cannot be considered innocent.
The issue under discussion is the belief held by lots of CT people (with zero hard evidence) that Ruth Paine was an accomplice in the assassination of President Kennedy or participation in an advance plot to frame Oswald, both serious crimes if true. That she believed the FBI, Warren Commission et al reporting after the fact that Oswald did it, or whether you consider her kind or virtuous, is irrelevant and does not make her guilty of those crimes.
If you believed you knew for sure who killed JFK, you probably would badmouth them too. If you were mistaken in that belief, would that make you guilty of being part of a criminal conspiracy to assassinate JFK? Same logic.
-
6 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:
Ruth Paine was fine human being, especially after Oswald was arrested. She really helped him out didn't she ?
Gil she told Michael Paine late Fri night about Marguerite’s concern for Oswald having legal representation and Michael called the Dallas ACLU (I think it was) Saturday morning and was told they were on it, according to Michael.
She made one attempt late Sat at Oswald’s request to reach Abt in New York and then Oswald was dead. She tried to support Marina that weekend. She opened up her house to Marguerite, Lee’s mother, fri night. What was it her responsibility to do in Lee’ predicament that weekend, with her own life and house overturned, property hauled off, two children to care for, and above all concern for Marina, that you use the dripping sarcasm and scorn on her?
Do you ever consider applying innocent until proven guilty to Ruth Paine?
-
11 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
Ruth Paine cold-called Roy Truly and got Lee Harvey Oswald his job at the TSBD. Nothing can ever change that fact.
I assume you do not mean this in a complimentary or praiseworthy sense, in helping someone poor with a pregnant wife who desperately needs a job and wants to work but has not yet found a job. With no idea the president would be assassinated from that building a few weeks later, and horrified at that event, which she could not possibly have foreseen.
No, the idea is that an essential advance part of the conspiracy was that Oswald be employed in the TSBD building.
Denny, are you claiming that a successful planned-in-advance conspiracy, planned to accomplish this particular supposed critical and pivotal part of the conspiracy—for it to work—of Oswald becoming employed there—… by deciding to have a housewife in Irving pick up the phone and cold-call the supervisor of TSBD, who never heard of this woman before, and rely on her cold-call persuasive skills to ensure success, as the planned reliable mechanism to ensure that critical step was accomplished?
Is that what you really think?(Committee planning meeting of conspirators: “we’ll have Ruth Paine call up cold and have him hired there that way” “but—but, boss, what if they say they’re not hiring? or to come in and apply and they’ll keep it on file blah blah blah? Or what if they about his military discharge and refuse him on those grounds as has happened to him with other employers before?” “Please. You don’t know how skilled our Ruth Paine is at cold-calling persuasiveness in single phone calls to business executives who never heard of her. Why, she went through our agency’s top-secret Cold-Call Persuasion Course—no business executive getting a cold phone call from her will say no, you can rely on that. Now—what are our status reports on the forty-point coverup plan in place now that we’ve got it planned how Oswald will be placed and all else lined up…?”
Do you believe having a housewife in Irving making a cold call is a believable advance plan by conspirators to accomplish that?
Everyone else I have seen asked this question who has answered, always answers by saying one or more others must have been involved too, not just the Ruth Paine cold calling on its own, in getting Oswald placed there. What about you, and who else do you think? Linnie Mae Randle? Buell Wesley Frazier? Roy Truly? Lee Harvey Oswald?
Without invoking additional actors in the supposed advance plot to ensure Oswald is hired, a cold call from an unknown housewife in Irving is not a reliable plan. it suffers from plausibility issues.
But you see, the moment you start invoking or supposing involvement of other persons, second or third actors, if you think about it, now Ruth Paine is no longer essential or needed to get Oswald placed there in the first place. And what would follow would be the unthinkable for many CT’s—that Ruth’s phone call asking if there was possibly an opening for a desperately needed job for Marina’s husband might after all be reasonably interpreted as it would be if it were any other human being under any other circumstances: a simple act of humans helping one another in this world. “No good deed goes unpunished”.
-
6 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:
After reading GW’s testimony it turns out this is the window of the room he was sat in when shot at. I always imagined it to be upstairs. If it was dark, a more competent assassin may have got closer to ensure success…..
Sean, Steve Roe, Mark, anyone -- where is the floodlight normally lighting that backyard that Surrey told police was inoperable the night of April 10? Is it that bright white circle in the middle of the roofline, middle of the photo? Is that bright circle a defect in the photo, sunlight reflecting off of metal in daylight, or a light that is on?
-
52 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:
Greg, how do you explain the pieces of metal that were reportedly dug out of Walker's arm?
Self-inflicted prior to entry to the room. Back of right forearm pressed gently down on metal pieces lightly breaking skin 3-4 places would do it, almost painless. Compare Curtis Sliwa of the Guardian Angels faking attacks on himself for parallel. No serious injury, no witnesses, publicity seeking figure, otherwise unsolved… cause of law enforcement suspicion pattern… you’re aware something like 40 percent of fires of commercial establishments (or whatever the high percentage is) are arson by owners for insurance purposes? Same principle by analogy, though each case is case by case. There already was a case for a staged shot, but the covered-up presence of Walker’s friend and publicist Surrey leaving the house right after the shot and the involvement of a known right-wing movement infiltrator as the gunman, to borrow the phrase of a Larry Hancock title, is the tipping point. The key point is Surrey was involved and Surreys involvement would be on behalf of Walker not an attempt to kill Walker (only to look that way).
-
5 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:
Good stuff. The published images are somewhat hard to interpret, but the same police report said the backyard was an upgrade to the alley, and I've "always" assumed that (a) the line of sight from the muzzle to the head of the seated Walker would be downward, and (b) nicking the upper edge of the glass would tend to deflect the bullet upward. Do you think Oswald's aim was wrong because he failed to consider that the scope was zeroed in at a much greater distance?
A better explanation for why the shot did not hit Walker is he was not in the room when the shot was fired, i.e. the staged shot suspected by law enforcement from the beginning. It was not until 2017 with the publication of Gayle Nix Jackson's book, Pieces of the Puzzle, that it was possible to learn that Walker aide Robert Surrey's car was black over white, the same color match and, it turns out therefore, the same car that Kirk Coleman saw in the church parking lot entered by a man leaving from the direction of the alley moments after the shot.
That was Robert Surrey coming out of the Walker house following the shot, moments before driving into the alley and picking up his son David, then age 12, who in later years also told of it. Kirk Coleman saw the man--Surrey--leaning over in the car putting something on the rear floorboards. That was clearing the front seat preparing it for a passenger, his 12-year old son, to sit. Exactly what I have done countless times with with my car clearing the front passenger seat for someone to sit there. All of this means something that has not been recognized before: that Robert Surrey was present in the house with Walker at the time of the shot and that it was Surrey who was the man Coleman saw coming from the alley to get into the black-over-white car. But both Walker--to a reporter that night who published a newspaper story the next day (this was brought to my attention by Steve Roe)--and Surrey to police, FBI, and in his Warren Commission testimony, denied Surrey was present in the Walker house at the time of the shot--dissembled over that highly relevant fact.
But Surrey was in the house with Walker at the time of the shot because Kirk Coleman saw him getting into his car and leaving moments after the shot. Surrey staged that shot on behalf of General Walker, who according to Minutemen founder Robert DePugh had asked him, DePugh, the year before in 1962 to stage a fake kidnapping of himself to be blamed on communists for publicity in his run for governor of Texas. As Oswald's m.o. in New Orleans illustrates and as Oswald directly told Michael Paine, he was spying on the extreme right in Dallas with mention of Walker, according to Michael Paine. Oswald worked with Surrey to carry out that staged shot on behalf of Walker, and did not tell Marina all of what he was doing.
This solution to the case makes use of new information which first came to light only in 2017 and not recognized for its significance even then, argued in 79 pages, 30 of which are primary source documents quoted, some work to read but for those interested may be worth the slog (make it easier on the eyes and print it out on paper using the button below), https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1497. I discussed this paper on the Ochelli Effect radio program with Chuck Ochelli and Larry Hancock on March 16: https://podbay.fm/p/the-ochelli-effect/e/1679088261.
-
3 hours ago, Steve Roe said:
Greg, the color photo of Walker's window comes from the 1993 Frontline series, "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald". That's some 30 years before, so no doubt the damage does look different from the original damage photos. At approximately the 1:03:00 mark in the video shows the color version. Also of interest to you is Coleman's account of the vehicles leaving the area, just after Walker's narrative. The '58 Chevy could have been the car that Walker saw driving off and turning left on Turtle Creek Blvd.
Thanks Steve, I looked at the video and confirmed as you say the color photo posted by Mark Ulrik is walker’s window. Also I did see the older Kirk Coleman immediately following which was interesting. On the window though an important question: you say the window was raised meaning the bottom pane which slides up and down. It was a hot night; someone checked and it was something like 80 degrees even that late at 9 pm, so unless he had air conditioning the raised window would make sense. But—in that color photo posted by Ulrik it looks like the bullet path not only went through wood but went through the top of the glass, a glass pane below the bullet hole. How could that be if the lower window pane in fact was raised?
On the car Walker saw leaving turning out on Turtle Creek Blvd, I read that as Coleman’s No. 1, the 1949-1950, that Coleman did tell police and FBI he saw drive out of the parking lot by that route. Not the No. 2 Coleman-identified 1958 Chevy, which he did not see which way it left. I believe you yourself plausibly said in a video tour at the walker house on YouTube that that ‘58 Chevy may have left by the alley, and for other reasons I think that is correct (David Surrey said he left in his fathers car in the alley, which I think was that car), such that that would not be the car walker saw exiting out to Turtle Creek Blvd.
-
47 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
So Ruby was given instructions. He dithered, hoped for something to happen, the orders rescinded, whatever. But in the end....
Benjamin, I am asking you to remove my name from the title of this topic you have posted, because it is a factual misrepresentation in which you are giving the impression I am involved in authorship or responsibility for the article along with Morley. The article is a great article but I had nothing to do with it. Please correct by removing my name (easy to do, same as editing a post). Attribute it properly solely to Morley.
-
19 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:
Ouch! The upper one is from a CE and the others from Walker interviews found on (I think) YouTube, but not sure if the one in color is still online. Will have to look around and get back to you. Perhaps I still have my "work files" somewhere.
Mark, the damage in the wood from the bullet looks different in all three photos. Are you sure all three photos are of the same window? How is the wood damage different? If the top one is a CE photo then it is legit but is the "lower" whitish area glass or wood, in that top photo, would be the question?
There is a basic prior question, and that was was the glass window up or down at the time of the shot? Someone asked me if that room was air conditioned the night of the shot and I checked and did not know. I saw no police report confirming glass shattered by the shot though one police report said "wood or glass" had hit Walker's arm and a reporter wrote a news story with that conjunction changed to "wood and glass" had hit Walker's arm. That raised a question to me whether there was any shattered glass involved at all. Then came your photos. But now, how can it be known all those photos are of the same wood damage and same window, since they look different?
-
On 3/21/2023 at 6:53 AM, Mark Ulrik said:
No, the police report only states that the trajectory from window to wall was downward. However, the shot came from an elevated position due to the sloping of Walker's backyard, and the trajectory was already downward when the bullet hit the window. Nicking the upper edge of the glass pane must have caused a slightly upward deflection, just enough to miss the intended target.
Thanks for this Mark. Whether the bullet trajectory actually was deflected I doubt is known, but that it could have been deflected slightly upward (or downward), either way, not necessarily only downward as per Benjamin's article and also my article (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1497), is prima facie demonstrated from your photo showing the bullet passing through the edge of glass, not only wood, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I will be correcting my paper on that point, thanks. Can you say your source for the photos?
-
Benjamin error correction, this is Morley’s story solely, I had nothing to do with producing it; please take my name out of your topic title. This is the second time you have improperly implied I am a coauthor or colleague or involved in producing a Morley story. Not that I don’t like and enjoy Morley’s work on these stories. But please edit this, thanks.
-
It’s so obvious the Trump/MAGA America of right-wing militias, demonization of Democrats and talk of insurrection, are the modern equivalents of General Walker and the Minutemen who hated JFK and considered JFK their “deep state” to overthrow with violence. Similar dynamics, similar politics.
-
That Kurtz or anyone on behalf of Kurtz never responded to what Pat Speer wrote--compelling and damning what Pat put together--is itself rather damning. And I can hardly see any logical contortions how it was not witting (as if Kurtz had ghostwriters produce all his books and did not know what the ghostwriters were publishing in his name all those years...). For an academic if that had been shown in a formal complaint to a professional society or to his university that could have gotten him fired or publicly discredited by his peers which is equivalent to career-ending for an academic. But nothing formal was done and he incurred no consequences. And to this day offers no explanation. It is a shame formal charges were not registered for that would have produced a compelled response from Kurtz, which does not now exist.
That Kurtz's books have large-scale prevarications in them which are incapable of being interpreted as the result of careless errors can hardly be disputed in the wake of Pat Speer. The unanswered question is "why?" The question of why Kurtz suffered no professional consequences is explicable: nobody proactively initiated making it an issue in a professional society or in his university setting; an accident. But "why" did Kurtz do that? Prof. Kurtz could answer that question, or perhaps one or more who knew Kurtz as colleagues, or family, could explain. That is what one wants to know: "why?"
But never mind, neither explanation nor his papers may ever be forthcoming. Pat is right, "just walk away" from any citation or influence or use of anything in Kurtz.
The Acoustics Evidence
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Greg Doudna
I think if one reads the two Scally articles combined with the clip posted by Gerry Down, it is clear McLain is a red herring, nothing to do with anything with the acoustics, its Beilharz. One small detail among many: McLain himself, who denied it was his motorcycle, noted a “whistling” on the tape and said that is what Beilharz did, whistled. McLain believed it was Beilharz, and Beilharz says it was Beilharz. But Beilharz was at the overpass, then Trade Mart, then Parkland, apparently did not go with the motorcade through Dealey Plaza. If it was Beilharz’s mic, would it be accurate to say that excludes the interpretation that the stuck mic recorded the shots?