Jump to content
The Education Forum

Roy Truly


Robin Unger
 Share

Recommended Posts

Chris I can only go by what I see in the film and also the Bell film. Although Bell is not as clear as Towner it does not appear that he slows down.  It looks like he just glides along at a consistent speed. I understand that that's what Truly said. All I can say is perhaps he misremembered what he saw because the film does show it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 7:48 AM, Bart Kamp said:

Paul, not going down that route with you.

Read my paper, if all that what is in there does not clearly show that Truly was completely full of it then specify were that's the case.

Truly lied during his W.C. testimony and in his statements.

They all lied................

Truly

Baker

Fritz

Shelley

Lovelady

Reid

Bookhout

Hosty

Kelley

Sorrels

Do I need to go on?

Yes Sir please do.  I believe those you mentioned lied.  Many in the USA  probably can't comprehend why this many common people would.  Why did they?

Well, from Reid on up on the common part.

 

 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Truly Identified the man on the 3rd or 4th floor as a TSBD employee for Baker was he lying?  Baker describes this guy before anyone can influence him, on the day of the assassination.  While his memory is fresh.  Somebody did ask him if he ever saw the man again and he said no.  Why didn't they do a lineup of employees and have him pick him out?  Kind of like, again, why did no one ask Truly who he ID'd on the 3rd or 4th floor?  As Jim D pointed out on another thread a man in a brown jacket was seen leaving out the back of the TSBD.  Would a competent investigation have compared the descriptions of these two suspects and questioned the witnesses who saw them about them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2017 at 4:17 PM, Michael Walton said:

Chris I can only go by what I see in the film and also the Bell film. Although Bell is not as clear as Towner it does not appear that he slows down.  It looks like he just glides along at a consistent speed. I understand that that's what Truly said. All I can say is perhaps he misremembered what he saw because the film does show it differently.

Yes,

The Bell and Towner films(overlapping in the Elm St turn) complement each other quite nicely (limo speed-as they should) when you apply the correct FPS for both and plot them using Robert West’s plat. 

The point being, the Elm St. turn is a perfect location to hide distance/time/FPS for whatever  adjustments were needed later. 

Truly tried with his (add some more time) testimony. 

Myers tried with his multi-film(limo tires-inside diameter) sync project.

The WC tried with CE884(2.24/3.74mph) and the Z film start/splice at Z133 along with the (Willis photo sync).

The Towner splice (aligned JFK with the TSBD corner). 

"From what Tina and Jim Towner told me over the years, they had no knowledge of how or when that splice was made. What is known is that the film was developed for them by The Dallas Morning News within a few days of the assassination; available records suggest the film was never seen by investigators until the HSCA. The only other time the film was out of the Towner’s possession was when LIFE magazine borrowed it from them in 1967 for publication in their November issue about Kennedy assassination photographers."
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

Again, I will repeat my claim -- the speed of the JFK limo as it made that turn is so TRIVIAL that it makes no sense for anybody to LIE about it.

Why bother?

Yet since you insist, let's look at Roy Truly's WC testimony again about this turn, so ensure that everybody is reading it in the same light.

Mr. TRULY. That is right.  And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.

Here Roy Truly is trying to make the point that the JFK limo was not moving at 15 mph.   That's the only point he's trying to make.  It could not have been 15 mph, "because they were getting ready to turn."  And this turn was even slower than average, because "he slowed down perceptibly."

Also, when Roy Truly says "he pulled back to the left", I think some people may be reading that as "he went backwards."   Yet nowhere does Roy Truly suggest that the SS driver of the JFK limo ever moved "backwards."   He says very specifically, "he pulled back to the left".   This phrase could have many meanings, but the operative term, in my reading, is, "the left".   He meant to say, "pulled sharply to the left" but he was not being particularly articulate during this WC testimony.   His conclusion was "he came too far out this way when he made his turn."

So, I see nothing suspicious at all in that reading.  He was only saying that the limo driver slowed down perceptibly in making a left hand turn, and that is entirely normal, and also confirmed by the TOWNER film.   I see nothing further in that WC testimony than that. 

Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved -- as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? 

Here Mr. Belin is only repeating what he heard -- but nobody is suggesting the JFK limo backing up or "hitting" anything.

Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.  If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. 

Nothing in Roy Truly's WC testimony says that the JFK limo came to a stop.   He only repeats that he had to (1) slow down; and (2) pull over to the left.

Obviously -- if anybody is going to make a left hand turn in a limo, that person must (1) slow down; and (2) pull over to the left.   There's just nothing weird or suspicious about that Roy Truly testimony -- unless one is desperate to project something dirty onto it. 

That's my reading,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

The limo enters the intersection at 9.3 mph, slows down to 6.6mph and incrementally climbs to 7.1 then 7.9 and back to 9.3mph.

came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour.

swung out too far to the right,

came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment

he slowed down perceptibly

pulled back to the left

get over into the middle lane

he had to almost stop

probably have hit this little section 

Chris

24480581497_7605fd4ba4_b.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Paul,

The limo enters the intersection at 9.3 mph, slows down to 6.6mph and incrementally climbs to 7.1 then 7.9 and back to 9.3mph.

came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour.

swung out too far to the right,

came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment

he slowed down perceptibly

pulled back to the left

get over into the middle lane

he had to almost stop

probably have hit this little section 

Chris

Chris,

Everything you say here is merely a repetition of what Roy Truly says -- the difference is that you are projecting your CT onto it.

Again -- the phrase you seize upon is this one: "pulled back to the left."    You suggest that this means a backward motion.   IT DOESN'T.

Also, this phrase, "had to almost stop"  doesn't mean anything like, "he stopped."    It just means the driver slowed down.

If the JFK limo driver had not (1) slowed down; and (2) turned more sharply to the left; then he would "probably have hit this little section," BUT HE DIDN'T HIT IT.

Nor does the TOWNER film show how close the JFK limo driver came to that little abutment there.

Nor did he STOP.   Nor did he move BACKWARD at any time.   Your CT is projecting onto Roy Truly's testimony, and then accusing him of LYING. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

Everything you say here is merely a repetition of what Roy Truly says -- the difference is that you are projecting your CT onto it.

They are excerpts from Truly. 

Again -- the phrase you seize upon is this one: "pulled back to the left."    You suggest that this means a backward motion.   IT DOESN'T.

I haven't seized upon any specific phrase. You decided to single these out and emphasize them.

Also, this phrase, "had to almost stop"  doesn't mean anything like, "he stopped."    It just means the driver slowed down.

That's your interpretation. 

Chris' Statement: The limo reduced its speed from 9.3mph to 6.6mph

Chris' description: The driver slowed down.

If the JFK limo driver had not (1) slowed down; and (2) turned more sharply to the left; then he would "probably have hit this little section," BUT HE DIDN'T HIT IT.

You forgot:  "perceptibly".

You added: "sharply"

The limo was 20ft from the abutment.

Nor does the TOWNER film show how close the JFK limo driver came to that little abutment there.

Sure it does. I just explained the distances involved. Maybe a plotted graphic will help.

Nor did he STOP.   Nor did he move BACKWARD at any time.  

I never said he did.

Your CT is projecting onto Roy Truly's testimony, and then accusing him of LYING. 

With the exception of the estimated speed into the turn, nothing Truly described occurred.

Yes, I would call that a lie.

 

 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul , my responses are in blue.

38651000734_49a579c364_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Paul , my responses are in blue.

Chris,

Thanks for the continuing polite and fruitful conversation.    The following is my opinion:

1.  You continue to show the view of the JFK limo from an angle that is very different from the angle seen by Roy Truly's position near the TSBD.

2.  A limo seen from across the street -- the position of the film camera -- could look very different -- closer or father away -- than the same limo seen from the position of the sidewalk, or the steps of the TSBD, or near the abutment itself.

3.  Has anybody stood where Roy Truly stood, and filmed a limo-length automobile making that same turn from Houston onto Elm street, going at about the same rate of speed?   

That would be interesting to me -- it might confirm the sorts of views that Roy Truly recalled.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the WC listened to Truly's description (limo turning onto Elm St) and plotted it (Position A) accordingly.

Then again, Position A's path to where the limo is shown at extant Z133, as opposed to where the other films (Towner, Bell) show its path, would add more time/distance/frames to the equation. So, at another point, more time/distance and frames could be subtracted.

Think Myers.

Same result as Truly's long-winded description.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1589sGWXKv9W_793F4fYQZ-iCqOhNcmxG/view?usp=sharing

Mr. SPECTER. When you say that position A is the first position at which President Kennedy was in view of the marksman from the southeast window on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, you mean by that the first position where the marksman saw the rear of the President's stand-in? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. 
Mr. SPECTER. So that would be the first position where the marksman could focus in on the circled point where the point of entry on the President was marked? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. 
Mr. SPECTER. Could the marksman then have taken a shot at the President at any prior position and have struck him with the point of entry on that spot, on the base of the President's neck? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't quite understand the question. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at the base of the back of his neck? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the chalk mark on the back of his coat. 

38665457234_fb0364fcde_z.jpg%22%20width=

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The analogy would be the 56 chevy? making the turn.

The outside left turn lane from Houston onto Elm, would be more indicative of a Truly path, in relationship to the abutment.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cK1h20oqrGCfE_gEeNuowaMiwxTpNXxM/view?usp=sharing

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 12:23 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Paul,

Do you believe the films or his testimony?

Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. 
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? 
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. 

There are a few things that make TRULY's testimony - and the removal of the ELM TURN - a distinct possibility

First there is POSITION A.  Created by Shaneyfelt:

r. DULLES. Where is position A on that chart? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Position A is here. 
Mr. McCLOY. That is before you get to the tree? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he isn't under the tree yet. 
Mr. SPECTER. And what occupant, if any, in the car is position A sighted on for measuring purposes? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. All of the photographs made through the rifle sight that are shown on the exhibit in the lower left-hand corner were sighted on the spot that was simulating the spot where the President was wounded in the neck. The chalk mark is on the back of the coat. 
Mr. SPECTER. When you say that position A is the first position at which President Kennedy was in view of the marksman from the southeast window on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, you mean by that the first position where the marksman saw the rear of the President's stand-in? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. 

Mr. SPECTER. So that would be the first position where the marksman could focus in on the circled point where the point of entry on the President was marked? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. 
Mr. SPECTER. Could the marksman then have taken a shot at the President at any prior position and have struck him with the point of entry on that spot, on the base of the President's neck? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't quite understand the question. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at the base of the back of his neck? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the chalk mark on the back of his coat.

Now see, this is a false statement, just look at CE886...  can the vehicle be moved to the left and still see the chalk mark on the jacket? Of course you can...

 

 

So the question then is not a matter of what significance POSITION A was, other than the limo traveled thru that point...  yet if the limo traveled thru that point, 

How does it get back into position for Z133 given what it looks like to have POSITION A and Z133 in the same frame

If the limo did not travel thru POSITION A there would be no reason to include it in the analysis...  but they did.

 

 

THIS is what the turn looked like - how they were able to fix the TOWNER film is something we need to keep looking at...

It must be remembered that the limo was almost 22 feet long... that's over 2/3 the width of the lane...

Ask yourself - why did the FBI add and then include position A... if the limo never drove thru it?

(edit:  Would have turned?  Shaneyfelt claims Station C is where the limo WOULD have turned... no just turned...
if the turn started after C, Truly's curb recollection is more than plausible...

5a469b6b8fe18_StationCCE875CE886andtheturnontoElm.thumb.jpg.3d531dde7811de7fba3f5a40b4b858ec.jpg

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As counter point - and why I just can't accept it without some better explanations...

Weigman established the location of the curb Truly talks about...
Here is Towner with the Weigman curb drawn in...

To get into position A the car's rear end would need to be much closer to the TSBD...

5a469d3e5f345_WeigmanshowsTrulycurbandTownershowsthempassingrightby.jpg.9185c92d159beddc88b94aac3b7919bb.jpg

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...