Don Bailey Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 In the Croft 3 photo you can see four people in the crowd... three are sitting on the wall and one person standing behind the wall. The man behind the wall is holding up an ok hand signal, the man in front of him is holding a large wooden mallet or a novelty gavel. Would this possibly be a signal for the shooters? Was it meant to show JFK that judgment has been passed on him and his sentence is death? Or both? Although there was construction in the area at the time, I do not know of any job that would require a large wooden hammer unless there was a carnival in the area. Were any of the four people ever identified? Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Very interesting observation! It does appear to be an oversized gavel or wooden mallet. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Very interesting observation! It does appear to be an oversized gavelor wooden mallet. Jack Looks like he is holding up a cup or mug as if saluting the President as he passed by. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I vote with Bill. It is ridiculous to think the assassins would use someone in the crowd raising a hammer as a signal to "GO". Moreover, as we know, the hammer was an allegoric sign of the social justice movement in the early sixties (think P, P & M). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Bailey Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 A cup or a mug that large would hold a half of gallon or more of liquid. It's almost as big as the hat of the man sitting next to him. The shadow of the mallet's handle is seen on the man's shirt below the shadow of his arm. Tim, it's also ridiculous to think that a man with an open umbrella would be signaling the shooters. But the photographs show he was there pumping his umbrella up and down at the time of the shots. Again, is there any record to identify these four people? Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Don, for the same reason I doubt the umbrella man was part of the plot. As you point out it is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Bailey Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 Don, for the same reason I doubt the umbrella man was part of the plot. As you point out it is ridiculous. The fact that Louis Witt lied during the HSCA investigation makes me think that he was part of the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Bailey Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 Don, for the same reason I doubt the umbrella man was part of the plot. As you point out it is ridiculous. The fact that Louis Witt lied during the HSCA investigation makes me think that he was part of the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Don: I do not think you can see what you call the mallets handle in the black and white original, also I believe there are a few other discrepancys....that can be seen. I am thinking that it could very well be, when coloured, a few leniencys were taken.. Once touched in such a way they are really never the same, what do you think after comparing both..? B.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) A cup or a mug that large would hold a half of gallon or more of liquid. It's almost as big as the hat of the man sitting next to him. The shadow of the mallet's handle is seen on the man's shirt below the shadow of his arm. My back is killing me this morning ... I could use what ever you are taking. I have a travel mug as big as what the man is holding and I just shake my head when you say something about how it is too big. And the shadow remark ... you cannot be serious. Edited November 22, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 The fact that Louis Witt lied during the HSCA investigation makes me think that he was part of the plot. Sometimes the things I have read that you post have made me wonder but what you are part of the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 To Don B: If the conspirators had their wits about them, and they evidently did, they would certainly not use someone as visible as the UM and if they were going to use someone standing in DP they certainly could have figured out a signal less noticeable than pumping an umbrella open and shut--don't you think? If there were spotters with the shooters the spotters could even have used binoculars to observe the crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) My computer hiccuped! Sorry, folks. Edited November 16, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 The fellow immediately to Mug Man's right seems to be holding ... wait for it ... a cannister vacuum cleaner! Was it a message from ... wait for it ... HOOVER??? Look, you shouldn't take this the wrong way. There is every sound reason to understand the roles of Umbrella Man and White Windbreaker Man (why his flatulance enters into this discussion is beyond me) as redundant signalers (in the event of radio problems). But there are limits. Except, of course, to humor. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Bailey Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 Don:I do not think you can see what you call the mallets handle in the black and white original, also I believe there are a few other discrepancys....that can be seen. I am thinking that it could very well be, when coloured, a few leniencys were taken.. Once touched in such a way they are really never the same, what do you think after comparing both..? B.... Bernice, The B&W picture shows a nice frosty mug of beer compared to the color version... the two pictures do not match. Compare the lighting of the mug. Don 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