Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hammer Man and Crew


Don Bailey
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

______________________________________

In posts #1 and #9 this thread, I think that's a Rambler station wagon that's parked directly behind the woman wearing the blue dress and red sweater/coat and I think it's parked on the "Elm Street Extention" that ran in front of the TSBD. If it's a Rambler station wagon, maybe it's the one that Detective Roger Craig saw Oswald get into around the corner on Elm Street proper. If not, then maybe it's the one that Richard Randolph Carr saw two suspicious-acting men get into after the shooting and be driven away in by a dark-complected man.

______________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The mallet/mug-o-brew/coffee cup...

Two words...

False Attachment.

It's a real attachment taken from the Croft 3 photo. If it is not a mallet/mug-o-brew/coffee cup... what could it be?

Mr. Miller claims he has a travel mug that big but I doubt anyone sold travel mugs that big in 1963.

Thomas:

You will find lots of information about the Ramblers in DP at this link:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6365

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mallet/mug-o-brew/coffee cup...

Two words...

False Attachment.

It's a real attachment taken from the Croft 3 photo. If it is not a mallet/mug-o-brew/coffee cup... what could it be?

Mr. Miller claims he has a travel mug that big but I doubt anyone sold travel mugs that big in 1963.

Thomas:

You will find lots of information about the Ramblers in DP at this link: (emphasis added by T.G.)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6365

________________________________________

Yes Don, that's a wonderful link and thank you for referring me to it but the particular car I'm interested in is the one that's visible in Croft #3 in posts #1 and #9 this thread, directly behind the woman wearing the blue dress and red sweater/coat.... It certainly looks like a Rambler station wagon to me and it certainly looks like it's parked on the Elm Street Extention which runs right in front of the TSBD....

I'm hoping that our resident car identification expert J.W. King will give his opinion on this particular car, i.e. is it a Rambler station wagon?

Thanks,

--Thomas

________________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Miller claims he has a travel mug that big but I doubt anyone sold travel mugs that big in 1963.

Based on what do you doubt things from 1963??? Do a Google search ... at least then you can say you researched the idea first.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

But, you know what, it had been raining earlier that day, so an umbrella wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

Kathy Collins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

But, you know what, it had been raining earlier that day, so an umbrella wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

Kathy Collins

This is too large to be a 60s travel mug or a coffee mug.

But it is exactly right for a beer stein.

beer2.jpg

Edited to add verb.

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mallet/mug-o-brew/coffee cup...

Two words...

False Attachment.

It's a real attachment taken from the Croft 3 photo. If it is not a mallet/mug-o-brew/coffee cup... what could it be?

Mr. Miller claims he has a travel mug that big but I doubt anyone sold travel mugs that big in 1963.

Thomas:

You will find lots of information about the Ramblers in DP at this link: (emphasis added by T.G.)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6365

________________________________________

Yes Don, that's a wonderful link and thank you for referring me to it but the particular car I'm interested in is the one that's visible in Croft #3 in posts #1 and #9 this thread, directly behind the woman wearing the blue dress and red sweater/coat.... It certainly looks like a Rambler station wagon to me and it certainly looks like it's parked on the Elm Street Extention which runs right in front of the TSBD....

I'm hoping that our resident car identification expert J.W. King will give his opinion on this particular car, i.e. is it a Rambler station wagon?

Thanks,

--Thomas

________________________________________

Bump

__________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Miles,

After my first post I did a search of beer steins and only found one that kind of resembles the one in the picture. Was he drinking an extra large beer at noon?

Don

No prob., Don.

I think Robin's idea of a doffed hat might prove out.

But necessary to analysis of Robin's proposal is a preliminary look at the alternatives so far advanced in this topic: a beer stein or a travel mug.

The tip off is the object's huge size.

Travel mugs were simply not produced in this super size except as "trick or novelty" joke props to be used by circus clowns or stage magicians.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that the photo was altered to conceal a signal device (radio).

What could be that big & how could anyone mistake this object for a travel mug?

Well, I suspect that the extreme blowup magnification of this crop is the culprit causing this confusion or elementary error.

A solid founding in the laws of perspective will prevent illusions of this type: the travel mug or coffee mug misidentification , for example.

The alleged travel mug is actually larger that this man's head!

beer2-1-1-2.jpg

I have not heard of a Dallas Rathskeller, but German American tradition could exist accounting for a stein.

More likely would be Robin's Tarboosh or truncated cone hat. Yet, if a large stetson with a light coloured interior lining were held with brim flaps pinned back the image makes sense:

beer33.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Kathy but a guy pumping it up and down like a raving lunatic would.
Posted Today, 03:49 AM

Does it really matter what the hell the guy is waving?? Don, whatever it is, hammer, coffee mug or beer stein, it was NOT a signal to fire. OK.

Right, Denis, true enough in a sense.

But, many times in the past researchers have failed to analyse in depth, only to discover to their embarrassment that seemingly insignificant details later proved to be key points of linkage to points of major importance.

In this regard, a good example (remaining on topic) is the case of the irrational exuberance which occurred when it was apparently discovered that Lee Bowers could not have seen Hudson on the steps. This alleged discovery was mistakenly hailed as a proof that Bowers' general testimony of seeing the two men at the steps was invalid.

But, afterwards, lo & behold, these remarkable photos surfaced proving that Bowers easily could have seen Hudson's right plaid jacket at the shoulder or if he had raised his right arm:

eve.jpgBowers44.jpg

So, paying attention to little stuff can pay off BIG!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...