Greg Burnham Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Oh and I forgot about Chauncey Holt also. Another poseur who was exposed by Ed Tatro. I mean how many times does this have to blow up for people to get the message? I guess several times. If they serve no purpose to the plot then why are they significant in any way? To me they are even a worse distraction than Braden. Braden at least you can connect with some power centers. But these guys? Come on. The research community sometimes makes mistakes. Oliver Stone admitted he made some errors in his film. THat is fine. Pre ARRB that is excusable. But post ARRB? WIth all the new compelling evidence that blows this case to kingdom come? Why bother with this kind of stuff? Does everyone see what happened to Shane O'Sullivan? To his credit he admitted he was wrong. But he smudged up some good people, like Ed Lopez. Photo ID is one of the trickiest forms of detection that there is. We have seen too many of them lead us astray. Jimbo, Do you believe police officer Wes Wise when he explains the "cotton" stuffed into his right ear on 11/22/63 as his way of dealing with an alleged ear ache? --Thomas Yea Tom, you don't mean Wes Wise. He's a former radio and TV reporter and anchor and mayor of Dallas who knew Ruby and ran down the Carl Mather connection. There was a Dallas cop named Wise, motorcycle maybe, but no relation to Wes. BK TOM that would be Marvin Wise..........he was with the tramps...b Thanks BK and Bernice. That's what I get for being too lazy to re-"research" it and get my facts straight before I open my big mouth. I meant the other, younger, blond(?) policeman with something in his right ear which he later claimed was cotton because he had an ear ache. Perhaps Bernice will be kind enough to post a photo of the dude I'm talking about? Sorry for the boo-boo. --Thomas Tom-- The first one is kinda cut-off, the second one is not too good a copy, but it's Wise. He's the first cop (far right). Edited July 9, 2011 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Tom-- The first one is kinda cut-off, the second one is not too good a copy, but it's Wise. He's the first cop (far right). Thanks, Greg. I'm talkin'about the cut-off guy on the far RIGHT. At this point, I don't care what his friggin' name is. LOL --Thomas P.S. That's interesting stuff you posted about Krulak changing Hemming's mind (about Lansdale walking past the "hobos" in the photo). Edited July 9, 2011 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Tom here is the full photo...fwiw thanks greg...b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Tom is this the one your after...the first wise..b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Hmm. That cop Wise looks a lot like E. Howard Hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) P.S. That's interesting stuff you posted about Krulak changing Hemming's mind (about Lansdale walking past the "hobos" in the photo). Hi Thomas, Yeah, it's true. Hemming was not very "forgiving" of wild theories nor wild speculation. He adamantly rejected the ID of Lansdale offered by Prouty despite my friendship with both he (Hemming) and Prouty. However, he would not easily dismiss same when it came from Krulak. It's funny, but I had never had a conversation with Hemming about this subject (Lansdale in DP) for the entire time we were in contact. It first came up in a thread (I believe) on this forum years ago. I wasn't even a member here back then. Someone (who shall remain anonymous) sent me an email about the thread. I called Gerry and gave him the info over the phone. Then I scanned the document and sent it via email. He, somewhat begrudgingly, conceded the point. However, over the phone he was less vitriolic about it. He expressed his deep respect for Krulak and his belief that if it came from Krulak--as a confirmation--it was as good as gold, in his view. Edited July 10, 2011 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 P.S. That's interesting stuff you posted about Krulak changing Hemming's mind (about Lansdale walking past the "hobos" in the photo). Hi Thomas, Yeah, it's true. Hemming was not very "forgiving" of wild theories nor wild speculation. He adamantly rejected the ID of Lansdale offered by Prouty despite my friendship with both he (Hemming) and Prouty. However, he would not easily dismiss same when it came from Krulak. It's funny, but I had never had a conversation with Hemming about this subject (Lansdale in DP) for the entire time we were in contact. It first came up in a thread (I believe) on this forum years ago. I wasn't even a member here back then. Someone (who shall remain anonymous) sent me an email about the thread. I called Gerry and gave him the info over the phone. Then I scanned the document and sent it via email. He, somewhat begrudgingly, conceded the point. However, over the phone he was less vitriolic about it. He expressed his deep respect for Krulak and his belief that if it came from Krulak--as a confirmation--it was as good as gold, in his view. Great stuff man, and fascinating as well. --Thomas AKA Tommy O'Pepper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) deleted double post Edited July 11, 2011 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Tom-- The first one is kinda cut-off, the second one is not too good a copy, but it's Wise. He's the first cop (far right). Thanks, Greg. I'm talkin'about the cut-off guy on the far RIGHT. At this point, I don't care what his friggin' name is. LOL --Thomas P.S. That's interesting stuff you posted about Krulak changing Hemming's mind (about Lansdale walking past the "hobos" in the photo). I just noticed something I'd never noticed before-- Either "Frenchy" or "The Old Hobo" directly behind him has something WHITE in his left hand and appears ready to hand it off to the dude walking past them in the suit (Lansdale?). Comments? --Thomas Edited July 10, 2011 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 The white "thing" is tramp Harold Doyle's left hand slightly curled inwards towards his body. Greetings Duncan: I fear you are mistaken. The man known as "FRENCHY" is central casting's idea of what an assassin should look like. I see NO RESEMBLANCE to the harmless hobo, Harold Doyle. I respectfully submit that, in this instance, your visionary capacity is clouded. And the La Fontaines, who first promoted the Doyle theory, are A BIG JOKE! http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=222298 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 He expressed his deep respect for Krulak and his belief that if it came from Krulak--as a confirmation--it was as good as gold, in his view. Yeah well I for one am a bit more sceptical of Krulak, and nothing Hemming or Krulak says is as good as gold to me. I do see a Lansdale lookalike in one of the tramp photos, but not the guy that Krulak claims to see. THe Lansdale lookalike is on the extreme left of this photo. We cannot see his full face, so a 100% positive ID is not possible: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tramps.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/3tramps.htm&h=335&w=490&sz=52&tbnid=CDr4VCCenAlN-M:&tbnh=91&tbnw=133&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dthree%2Btramps%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=three+tramps&usg=__y93NeO0bKOQaFDGNHqQr2wpy3N4=&sa=X&ei=FTMaTuHVMsTKgQfy5PUP&ved=0CB8Q9QEwAg&dur=26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 The white "thing" is tramp Harold Doyle's left hand slightly curled inwards towards his body. Greetings Duncan: I fear you are mistaken. The man known as "FRENCHY" is central casting's idea of what an assassin should look like. I see NO RESEMBLANCE to the harmless hobo, Harold Doyle. I respectfully submit that, in this instance, your visionary capacity is clouded. And the La Fontaines, who first promoted the Doyle theory, are A BIG JOKE! http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=222298 Hey Ray, That's pretty good. How'd I miss that? Your take on La Fontaines is pretty much the same as mine. Except you're being facetious when you say this, aren't you Ray? “One upon a time, Lee Oswald went to Russiaas a U.S.agent.” BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Except you're being facetious when you say this, aren't you Ray? “One upon a time, Lee Oswald went to Russia as a U.S.agent.” BK When the La Fontaines make a claim you automatically know it is a BIG LIE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) Who did the LaFontaines ID as the Three Tramps? I only remember that I found their jail cell book insubstantial, a kind of blown-up anecdote that would be better as a brief article than conclusive research between covers. So I probably didn't think much of their ID. Prouty, Krulak, and Hemming at least had the virtues of "being there," and the faults of being there for some dangerous covert doings, which can restrict or alter the information one releases. Edited July 11, 2011 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Oh no, here we go again with Ray C and Saint John Hunt, with Howard Hunt in Dealey Plaza. Please, spare us this BS Raymond. It was not the La Fontaines. It was the arrest records and then the corroborating witnesses, about four of them. OK? Keep up the disinfo OK Raymond. People don't age over 30 years either right? "That Doug's a fine fellow, isn't he?" 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