Robin Unger Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 3/10/64 Mr. WALTER LUKE WINBORN, 2823 Maple Springs, Dallas, Texas, was interviewed at 500 South Houston Street, Dallas, and furnished the following information: Mr. WINBORN stated he was presently employed as a switchman for Union Terminal Company, 500 South Houston Street, Dallas, and was so employed on November 22, 1963. On this date, Mr. WINBORN took a position on the Elm Street railroad viaduct so that he could observe the Presidential motorcade and President KENNEDY. Mr. WINBORN stated that very shortly theafter the motorcycle escort dispersed and one motorcycle was abadoned by the police officer riding it on the grassy slope on the north side of Elm Street, and this officer rushed up the steps leading to the pavillion and was lost from sight. The vehicle carrying the President immediately left the area at a high rate of speed. Mr WINBORN then moved away from the east edge of the viaduct, where he could get a clear view of the area to the West of the Texas School Book Depositor Building (TSBD). he remained at this point and observed the approach to the railroad tracks for a few minutes, but failed to see anyone moving toward the railroad tracks. EDITED VERSION: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- on 3/17/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461 By Special Agent THOMAS T. TRETTIS JR. and E.J. ROBERTSON Date Dictated 3/17/64 In the testimony below is Simmons saying that a motorcycle cop drove up the grassy slope WEST to EAST towards the TSBD. ?? FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 3/19/64 JAMES L. SIMMONS, 1325 Rosemont Street, Mesquite Texas, was interviewed at the Union Terminal Company, 500 South Houston Street, Dallas, Texas. SIMMONS advised that he is a car inspector and on November 22, 1963, he was standing on the Elm Street viaduct with some fellow employees waiting for President JOHN F. KENNEDY's motorcade to come into view. SIMMONS stated when the President's car started down Elm Street he heard three shots ring out. President KENNEDY slumped forward in his seat and appeared to have been hit by a bullet. SIMMONS said that he recalled that a motorcycle policeman drove up the grassy slope toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, jumped off his motorcycle and then ran up the hill toward the Memorial Arches. SIMMONS said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building. SIMMONS then ran toward the Texas School Book Depository Buildidg with a policeman. He stopped at a fence near the Memorial Arches and could not find anyone. SIMMONS advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated that immediately after the shots were fired, people were running in every direction through the whole area and there was a sense of mass confusion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- on 3/17/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461 By Special Agent THOMAS T. TRETTIS JR. and E.J. ROBERTSON Date Dictated 3/17/64 Edited October 30, 2007 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) In the testimony below is Simmons saying that a motorcycle cop drove up the grassy slope WEST to EAST towards the TSBD. ?? Hard to tell, but the motorcycle drove up the grassy slope. Here's more on Hudson's testimony: Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether? Mr. HUDSON - Three. Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was. The second shot. Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here another shot? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, "...at the present time." When was that? At the second shot? Who was standing next to Hudson at that time? An unknown older THIRD MAN? he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind. Edited October 30, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Thanks for the input Robin & Bernice. Winborn's quote shows exactly how confusing it is. If what he said was accurate he was neither talking about Haygood or Hargis, it is very possible he just simply mixed them up in his mind. If the only source of a cop riding halfway up the incline & then abandoning his bike comes from the Terminal Annex employees then, well let's just say(with all the best will in the world to those gentlemen), it doesn't mean it really occured. If they all said one cop fell over after an attempted curb jump & another rid up the incline, then we might have a problem, the bottom line at this time though is, they are most likely talking about Haygood but we cannot be sure. Bernice, I just want to put a permenant link here to that enlightening "Darnell" frame. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...arnellmaybe.jpg Did Chris post more frames than this & is it from Darnell? If your reading this Chris & you feel like sharing more please do, I don't have it on tape anymore & haven't seen it for years. Great capture. Also, thanks for the Cabluck, nice spot. That's Haygood though, not Hargis(he's already left the scene), same for Willis7 & as you said, those two snapped at virtually the same moment(Bond5 too shows Haygood at same spot). It looks like Haygood ran for the actual corner there but, you can see him in Bond7, several feet south of the corner, climbing up the wall. The other two bike cops I'm looking for signs of, were further back in the motorcade. Scaggs & Bond7 show one of them beside a bus, that bus came after the one Cabluck was riding in. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...gman/Scaggs.jpg I can't recall if Bond10 shows Haygood or that area(I know #9 doesn't) but if it does, it might show slightly more than what we see in this pan of the knoll in the Bell film, which if you check, shows the "Haygood area" in deep shadow. No sign of a bike halfway up the incline there anyway. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/Belldcm.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 RE: "Is the guy next to Hudson on the steps the young man he spoke of in his WC testimony". IMO Miles? No he's not. The young man who repeated told Hudson to "lie down" has to be the red shirted man. The older man has left the scene(okay, we think he has) & it is the red shirt we see next to Hudson on the ground in those aftermath photos, Willis & Bond to name but two. Unless the older guy dove for cover behind the wall & repeatedly shouted at Hudson from that spot? Anything is possible in this thread I guess but, as Hudson spoke of only one man in his entire testimony I choose the RSM to be that person. The third man ran away because he was involved with the hit some how IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) You are quick to find fault with David & extol yourself. However, I wonder if you can argue the facts without relying ad hominem attacks? Otherwise, maybe you deserve what you suggest for David.[/color] I think we went through this before when I called you people on the use of the term "ad hominem attack". Once more I see you need the defintion cited to you so here it is .... Ad Hominem: It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. Now go back and read the four quotes that consisted of everything David said in this thread and tell me how that applies to the term 'ad hominem attack' because David offered no data concerning the topic at hand to attack an argument over. So, Hudson was standing beside the young fellow when the first shot rang out? Then, what happened? Did the THIRD MAN jump to Hudson's side, pushing the young man down the steps? So is it your amazing ability to comprehend reality that makes you believe that the late 50 year old Hudson couldn't refer to a man half his ages as a "young fellow" or is it that your poorly though-out conclusion that the red shirted man on the lower step was one of the men Bowers spoke of, so there couldn't have been two young fellows on the steps because the other man Lee described was slightly older than middle aged and heavy set? This is what happens when you start with a conclusion and then look for evidence afterwards. Your reasoning on this matter is little more than a fallacy. Fallacy: 1. A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. A fallacious ARGUMENT is not a VALID argument. 2. A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning 3. A false notion. 4. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference. 5. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness. 6. The quality of being deceptive. THIRD MAN? Where did he come from? The grass? From the top of the embankment?This is just for starters into carefully looking into Hudson's story.[/color] Well, by the looks of things in the Willis photo, I'd say the red shirted man was already on the steps when the first shot rang out. The one thing that can be said of the red shirted man was that he wasn't standing 10 to 15 feet away from Hudson as Bowers watched them both "STANDING" and looking towards Main and Houston as the caravan rounded the corner, now can we. (read definition of the word "Fallacy") Edited October 30, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Not good enough. Not by a LONG shot!(Miles) Miles, if it is not good enough, then don't you see, you have to go to Dallas, for you will not believe what others tell you. If it's really important to you..... Kathy Kathy, If you review my posts you will find that I repeatedly expressed thanks & appreciation for Groden's great help with the photos he supplied. My post # 531: Yes, despite the excellent & very helpful snaps from Groden (thanks!), I maintain what I said before, that Bowers could have & did see the west edge of the stairs/sidewalk. My post # 539: Analysis of Groden's pics (many thx for same!) will show that a portion of Hudson is visible to Bowers. My post # 547: I'd also like to join Miller in thanking Gary & Bob. Many thanks to Bob Groden for providing these many excellent photos! My gratitude not in question. What is in question is what exactly do the photos show on extensive analysis, regardless of who took the photos, in correlation to the WC testimony of Hudson & others. Now, my question currently is to Miller (since Alan agrees that the man standing next to Hudson is NOT the "young fellow" [sEE PHOTO BELOW]) and is this: Is the red shirted man the "young fellow" Hudson speaks of in his testimony? Yes or No. Is this too complicated to answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Rheberg Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) RE: "Is the guy next to Hudson on the steps the young man he spoke of in his WC testimony".IMO Miles? No he's not. The young man who repeated told Hudson to "lie down" has to be the red shirted man. The older man has left the scene(okay, we think he has) & it is the red shirt we see next to Hudson on the ground in those aftermath photos, Willis & Bond to name but two. Unless the older guy dove for cover behind the wall & repeatedly shouted at Hudson from that spot? Anything is possible in this thread I guess but, as Hudson spoke of only one man in his entire testimony I choose the RSM to be that person. The third man ran away because he was involved with the hit some how IMHO. Alan (and Miles), What Emmett Hudson said seems very clear. The man to his left, whom he sat next to and stood next to before and during the shots, was the young man who worked on Industrial Boulevard. At the time of the headshot, this young man turned and ran up the stairs as seen in the Muchmore and Nix films. He wasn't involved with the hit. He wasn't running after a shooter. He was running for cover behind the wall. Hudson then said this man was laying down "on the sidewalk." This could only mean the sidewalk behind the wall. It wasn't the steps or the ground. He took cover behind the wall and yelled back to Hudson, "Lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President. Lay down. Lay down." So Hudson laid down "over on the ground," meaning the grass, not the steps or the sidewalk, as seen in the Hughes film. The redshirted man, who was not with Hudson, ran up the steps and joined him on the grass. So Hudson was in the grass. The young man was up at the top of the stairs lying on the sidewalk behind the wall when he called out to Hudson to lie down. The redshirted man was not the young man. Ken Edited October 30, 2007 by Ken Rheberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 RE: "Is the guy next to Hudson on the steps the young man he spoke of in his WC testimony".IMO Miles? No he's not. The young man who repeated told Hudson to "lie down" has to be the red shirted man. The older man has left the scene(okay, we think he has) & it is the red shirt we see next to Hudson on the ground in those aftermath photos, Willis & Bond to name but two. Unless the older guy dove for cover behind the wall & repeatedly shouted at Hudson from that spot? Anything is possible in this thread I guess but, as Hudson spoke of only one man in his entire testimony I choose the RSM to be that person. The third man ran away because he was involved with the hit some how IMHO. Alan (and Miles), What Emmett Hudson said seems very clear. The man to his left, whom he sat next to and stood next to before and during the shots, was the young man who worked on Industrial Boulevard. At the time of the headshot, this young man turned and ran up the stairs as seen in the Muchmore and Nix films. He wasn't involved with the hit. He wasn't running after a shooter. He was running for cover behind the wall. Hudson then said this man was laying down "on the sidewalk." This could only mean the sidewalk behind the wall. It wasn't the steps or the ground. He took cover behind the wall and yelled back to Hudson, "Lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President. Lay down. Lay down." So Hudson laid down "over on the ground," meaning the grass, not the steps or the sidewalk, as seen in the Hughes film. The redshirted man, who was not with Hudson, ran up the steps and joined him on the grass. So Hudson was in the grass. The young man was up at the top of the stairs lying on the sidewalk behind the wall when he called out to Hudson to lie down. The redshirted man was not the young man. Ken Alan, A very interesting scenario from Ken. BUT: You do not buy it, Alan. (Or, do you?) I do not buy it. Question: Does M i l l e r buy it? The world awaits with bated breath! What will the oracle say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Thanks for the input Robin & Bernice.Winborn's quote shows exactly how confusing it is. If what he said was accurate he was neither talking about Haygood or Hargis, it is very possible he just simply mixed them up in his mind. If the only source of a cop riding halfway up the incline & then abandoning his bike comes from the Terminal Annex employees then, well let's just say(with all the best will in the world to those gentlemen), it doesn't mean it really occured. If they all said one cop fell over after an attempted curb jump & another rid up the incline, then we might have a problem, the bottom line at this time though is, they are most likely talking about Haygood but we cannot be sure. Bernice, I just want to put a permenant link here to that enlightening "Darnell" frame. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...arnellmaybe.jpg Did Chris post more frames than this & is it from Darnell? If your reading this Chris & you feel like sharing more please do, I don't have it on tape anymore & haven't seen it for years. Great capture. Also, thanks for the Cabluck, nice spot. That's Haygood though, not Hargis(he's already left the scene), same for Willis7 & as you said, those two snapped at virtually the same moment(Bond5 too shows Haygood at same spot). It looks like Haygood ran for the actual corner there but, you can see him in Bond7, several feet south of the corner, climbing up the wall. The other two bike cops I'm looking for signs of, were further back in the motorcade. Scaggs & Bond7 show one of them beside a bus, that bus came after the one Cabluck was riding in. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...gman/Scaggs.jpg I can't recall if Bond10 shows Haygood or that area(I know #9 doesn't) but if it does, it might show slightly more than what we see in this pan of the knoll in the Bell film, which if you check, shows the "Haygood area" in deep shadow. No sign of a bike halfway up the incline there anyway. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/Belldcm.png Alan, 1.Haygood cutting between the cars. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) [...]Now go back and read the four quotes that consisted of everything David said in this thread and tell me how that applies to the term 'ad hominem attack' because David offered no data concerning the topic at hand to attack an argument over. [/b] [...] oh, Bill.... we understand your relationship with Groden AND Mack, I also understand Groden's old NYC optical film house bosses relationship with Groden (which of course is on the record, the OFFICIAL as in testimony record). Hell Groden hawks JFK memoribilia and books in the Plaza, regularlly -- why not have him take a few DP oriented pics, upload 'em here the same day.... take 15 minutes? Gary can carry his camera bag.... you can provide lunch. I'll call a local Dallas reporter I know and we can have us a JFK media event....eh? Just a simple suggestion, our side has done it before.... Lamson has done it before.... your's and Groden's turn in the box. Stay on script now Edited October 30, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 2. Wiegman films him after he has made his cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 3. I believe it's Atkin'ss who has him next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) oh, Bill.... we understand your relationship with Groden AND Mack, I also understand Groden's old NYC optical film house bosses relationship with Groden (which of course is on the record, the OFFICIAL as in testimony record). Hell Groden hawks JFK memoribilia and books in the Plaza, regularlly -- why not have him take a few DP oriented pics, upload 'em here the same day.... take 15 minutes? Gary can carry his camera bag.... you can provide lunch. I'll call a local Dallas reporter I know and we can have us a JFK media event....eh? Groden has taken such pictures on three occasions ... I'm not bothering him again over such nonsense. The tower is where it always has been, as well as the colonnade and the steps. As far as you knowing a Dallas reporter covering a JFK media event, why was he not called when Jack was finding all those ground breaking earth shattering alleged alterations that would have proven a conspiracy at the highest levels of our government - or did you and he passed once he saw what you had to offer??? Just a simple suggestion, our side has done it before.... Lamson has done it before.... your's and Groden's turn in the box. I didn't know there was a "side" as you call it, but seeing how you have said you have seen no proof of alteration and also that you believe there was alteration, I guess that you are on both sides. And yes, I recall some pictures being taken in the plaza of the rain sensors and some reference being made as to them being listening devices as if the CIA is worried about that gene pool being heard. By the way, was it the listening device rain sensors that caused your reporter friend not to call for a 'JFK media event' at that time??? Bill Miller Edited October 30, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) 4. Back to Couch for the curb shot. chris Edited October 30, 2007 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 My gratitude not in question. Yeah ... you are expressing so much gratitude that you keep referring to Groden by a name he doesn't like to be called even by his friends. Maybe your motive should be in question more than anything else. What is in question is what exactly do the photos show on extensive analysis, regardless of who took the photos, in correlation to the WC testimony of Hudson & others. It supports the testimony as to where these men were in relation to what Bowers could and could not have seen at certain given points in time. It is not Bowers who is wrong, but rather you in trying to make a case for unrelated witnesses being the two men Bowers told Mr. Ball about. You claim that everyone but you and Myers have gotten it all wrong for over 45 years, but could it be that all those witnesses before you were smart enough to know the colonnade was between Bowers and the men on the steps and thats why they didn't make the same erroneous connection that you somehow have come up with ... I believe that is it in a nutshell. Now, my question currently is to Miller (since Alan agrees that the man standing next to Hudson is NOT the "young fellow" [sEE PHOTO BELOW]) and is this:Is the red shirted man the "young fellow" Hudson speaks of in his testimony? Both men were obviously young fellows in Hudson's mind, but to a man who was almost 60 years of age - most men under the age of 30 - 35 are considered young fellows. With Hudson watching the President's car head for the underpass - and then hearing someone telling him to get down ... he apparently wasn't aware of the man who stood below him taking the other man's place who ran off without Hudson realizing it. It's a minor thing IMO considering the event that Hudson was focused on and it damned sure won't move the colonnade move out of the way so to see Bowers window in the tower. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now