Hammer Man and Crew

[Denis Pointing]

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:

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

From little acorns...etc etc, yes Miles, your right of course but this does not include close examination of what every body in the plaza was holding/waving that day, does it. With respect sir, your dictum must be applied with a certain amount of common sense. Whatever the guy, who seems to be having a innocent fun day out with the wife and kid, was waving is not going to help this case one iota.

[Miles Scull]

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:

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

From little acorns...etc etc, yes Miles, your right of course but this does not include close examination of what every body in the plaza was holding/waving that day, does it. With respect sir, your dictum must be applied with a certain amount of common sense. Whatever the guy, who seems to be having a innocent fun day out with the wife and kid, was waving is not going to help this case one iota.

Not so.

For example:

[J. William King]

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

________________________________________

Sorry for the delay in responding, Thomas. I've been pouring through all of my photos to find either a better version, or another version, of both your Rambler, and Mr. Mallet. Quite frankly, I can't say one way or the other on whether that is a Rambler wagon or not. I know there there IS a Rambler American wagon in one of the Murray photos taken at the corner of Elm and Houston just minutes after the assassination, and that has been discussed (with photos) in another thread. The Croft picture just isn't sharp or detailed enough for me to tell one way or the other.

As for Mr. Mallet, it looks to me like something behind his arm that is distorted because of the camera movement. Could be part of the wall, or someone's head.

JWK

[Bernice Moore]

As for Mr. Mallet, it looks to me like something behind his arm that is distorted because of the camera movement. Could be part of the wall, or someone's head.

JWK

Something further in the background.....

This is how it appears before it was colourized....

which does distort photos....

B....

[Thomas Graves]

Sorry for the delay in responding, Thomas. I've been pouring through all of my photos to find either a better version, or another version, of both your Rambler, and Mr. Mallet. Quite frankly, I can't say one way or the other on whether that is a Rambler wagon or not. I know there IS a Rambler American wagon in one of the Murray photos taken at the corner of Elm and Houston just minutes after the assassination, and that has been discussed (with photos) in another thread. The Croft picture just isn't sharp or detailed enough for me to tell one way or the other. [...]

JWK

_____________________________________

J.W.,

Thanks for trying!

At least you don't rule out the possibility that it could be a Rambler station wagon back there on the Elm Street Extention...

I think it is a Rsw (and I used to own one).

--Thomas

____________________________________

Edited November 24, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Duke Lane]

... Was he drinking an extra large beer at noon?

Beer: it's not just for breakfast anymore!

[J. William King]

Sorry for the delay in responding, Thomas. I've been pouring through all of my photos to find either a better version, or another version, of both your Rambler, and Mr. Mallet. Quite frankly, I can't say one way or the other on whether that is a Rambler wagon or not. I know there IS a Rambler American wagon in one of the Murray photos taken at the corner of Elm and Houston just minutes after the assassination, and that has been discussed (with photos) in another thread. The Croft picture just isn't sharp or detailed enough for me to tell one way or the other. [...]

JWK

_____________________________________

J.W.,

Thanks for trying!

At least you don't rule out the possibility that it could be a Rambler station wagon back there on the Elm Street Extention...

I think it is a Rsw (and I used to own one).

--Thomas

____________________________________

No, I don't rule it out at all. I can see where it resembles the car in question (rear fin area especially), but I just can't be positive about it. BTW, my dad used to have one too. I think it was a '59 wagon. They were all over the place back then.

JWK

[Don Bailey]

Ok Denis,

Look at the man standing behind the man with the large object in his hands... the man is holding up an OK hand sign. Soon after the limo passed these men a shot hit JFK in the throat. When JFK passed the Umbrella Man the first volley of shots paused until the head shots. Since the first volley of shots didn't kill JFK they had to rely on phase 2, the 2nd volley of shots hit their mark.

Sorry Robin and Miles but I do not see a doffed hat as the object in the man's hand... there are no shadows to make it look like a doffed hat. The object appears to have a beveled edge and flat at the top and bottom similar to that of a gavel.

Don

[Tim Gratz]

From Post #1:

Was it meant to show JFK that judgment has been passed on him and his sentence is death?

Of course the mug or mallet was not a signal to the shooters but Don may be right in the sentence quoted above.

Little question that when JFK saw the raised mallet or mug he knew a death sentence had been passed upon him. The symbolism could not be any clearer. The only question is why he forgot to duck.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Kathy, of course I was being facetious to illustrate the absurdity of Don's suggestion that whatever the man was holding was meant to send a message to JFK. Of course, mallet or not, the "symbolism" is not "clear". In fact, it's to laugh.

[Tim Gratz]

Kathy, I certainly agree with you about not making light or humour of the tragedy of the assassination.

My ducking comment was also meant to illustrate the utter absurdity that the conspirators would give JFK "advance notice" (even if only a second or two) that he was about to be hit. His reaction or even that of a SS could then have destroyed the conspiracy.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Bill Miller]

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.

They should be more embarrassed that they constantly misspell the word "analyze".

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

Miles, the mistake that is being made is you misstating the facts in some instances and inventing facts that never existed in others. If Hudson would have waved his arms - if Hudson would have raised his arms - if Hudson would have walked off the steps and stood where Bowers could see him on the incline - if Hudson had walked up to the tower and out in front of Bowers window so Lee could see him wouldn't make a bit of difference because Hudson, being the heaviest set man on the steps, wasn't wearing dark pants as Bowers described the man he was talking about had worn. In fact, you have offered no evidence that Hudson's coat was plaid. William, Emmett's son. is listed in the book ... I invite anyone to call him and ask about his dad's coat. Just like you purposely misstated the evidence by constantly saying that Bowers saw a 'red plaid' shirt or jacket when Bowers had never used the word "red" .... you are now attributing the same design to Hudson's coat. Let me remind you and everyone else that your past position was that the 'heavy set man' was in your words ... just the heavier set man between the two men Bowers told Mr. Ball about. So if Hudson wore a plaid coat for arguments sake, then he couldn't be the man who wore the black pants (which was the heavier set of the two men Lee was describing when he testified before the Commission) and if Hudson was ever thought to be the man in plaid that Bowers spoke about, then he is too heavy for Emmett was by far the larger of any of the men on the steps.

So no matter how you try and twist the facts to fit the initial accusations you had made concerning why you believed the three men on the steps were the two men Bowers testified about - there is always something else in their description or where they were at a particular moment in time cancels them out as candidates for being the two men Bowers described to Ball. Even your responses show this to be the case for you have gone to implying that Bowers could see the men as they stood on the steps to if Hudson was holding his right arm out to his side, then Bowers could have seen Emmett's coat. You've managed to go from looking to be mistaken due to a poorly thought-out claim to showing that once you know you had made a mistake that you will make up silly possibilities to justify your previous statements.

And just so you know ... I got several calls during the conference week from people who were in the plaza who told me that Groden and Mack were exactly right and that Bowers could not have seen the three men on the steps when the caravan entered the plaza. So like myself, I know they are watching your responses with great interest.

Then there is the little matter of the two men Bowers testified about who were standing 10 to 15 feet apart when the caravan entered the plaza. Again, Hudson was sitting down on the steps and side by side with the man seen next to him in the assassination images.

One thing that you (Miles) seem to be slanting a tad bit and that is that you have had photos taken of the LOS from the steps to the tower and the person who took the photos you are using found that one could not stand or sit where Emmett Hudson was located during the caravans trip through the plaza and see the window that Lee Bowers sat behind when the assassination took place. The description that Robert Groden gave and offered by way of photographs, along with the independent description Gary Mack relayed to me was in fact accurate. Your photographer had to actually step off the steps and onto the grass of the slope to fall onto a LOS that would allow them to see Bowers window and/or for Bowers to have seen them. I'll even extend an offer for you to ask your photographer to read what I have said and to respond as to whether the information already provided by several sources is accurate or not.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

My ducking comment was also meant to illustrate the utter absurdity that the conspirators would give JFK "advance notice" (even if only a second or two) that he was about to be hit. His reaction or even that of a SS could then have destroyed the conspiracy.

One cannot help but wonder if some of the more ridiculous claims are being made so to make it appear that CT's are off their rocker. Just think of it .... what better of a way to counter CT's than by pretending to be one of them and then waste tons of time raising some of the most ridiculous observations possible. The man at the wall raised a mug, glass, or what ever to toast the passing President. Another old guy being said to be giving the 'OK' sign as if he is signaling someone . These things coming from someone who cannot even look at a photo and see a shade line on a man's arm only to mistake it for being the handle on a mallet. And if that isn't bad enough, then let's waste forum space trying to make something out of nothing.

[Anthony DeFiore]

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

But I bet the dark complected man sitting next to him after the assassination with a radio in his pocket might have had something to do with it as he had his hand raised / waving at the President when the frontal shot in the throat took place (behind the stemmons sign)

[Alan Healy]

I just tried to make some of the guy's right arm more visible & it does appear to go all the way to the object, making it more likely that he's holding a mug with a short handle rather than mallet with a long one, IMHO.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Alan Healy