Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tripple Underpass


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  (1)  I do not believe that there was a shooter anywhere near the north knoll; behind a fence; on a car hood; in the parking lot; behind a wall.  I do not care what the "Experts" say.  They have not proven their case to me beyond a resonable doubt.  That goes for the South Knoll as well as the North Knoll locations.

Today we have better equipment to photo work these pictures. That technique should be applied by professional personal.., example Law enforcement or private corp. that deal with such matters.  What I think. What you think. And what the public has been led to think is of no value today.

I agree, but politics finds its way into those institutions and prevents such things from happening. I believe that is what happened with MIT and Jack's images he wanted them to see. I think they appeared interested thinking it would not go anywhere until they seen the Badge Man and what he looked to be doing and then realized that they could not get involved with this, thus they sent the material back to Jack. Jack can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is what he told me once in an email.

There is no such thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt" in this case unless you have a film of someone in the act. However, there can be really strong circumstantial evidence showing the high probability of this happening and cases have been won on such evidence. Let's recap the evidence ....

1)Sam Holland and no less than five co-workers heard a shot come from the trees at the moment JFK was fatally hit and watched a cloud of smoke get propelled through the foliage towards the street. This smoke was seen by people on the east and south sides of the knoll, as well. (see attachment 1)

2)There is a film that shows this smoke drifting towards the street. If one removed the bad frames and overlays the good ones - they can be put in motion so to look for moment. (see attachment 2}

3)When officer's ran to this suspected area, they smelled a distinct odor of burnt gunpowder. At the time of the shooting the wind was blowing from the RR yard towards Houston Street, thus if the burnt gunpowder smell didn't come from the RR yard, then from where? The burnt gunpowder odor, like the smoke, had to travel the path of the wind. It makes no sense that someone fired a shot at anything while further back northwest into the parking lot, nor has anyone claimed to have done so. (see attachment 3)

4) If not assassins or conspirators, then at least 2 people who both Bowers and Hoffman seen had vanishied into history without so much as coming forward to say that all was well in the RR yard. While Bowers claims to have taken his eye off the Hat Man (which I do not believe), Hoffman said that a man turned away from the fence and had a long gun/rifle with him. Hoffman said that the man went towards the steam pipe and tossed the gun to another man. At the same moment in time, a RR worker who was on the overpass told Seymour Weitzman that shortly after the assassination he had seen something through the trees being tossed. When Weiztman asked where exactly did this occur, the RR worker said 'over by the steam pipe'.

5)Then there is the direction that the bulk of the brain matter and debris was thrown out the back of the President's head. It was Hargis and Martin that got the worst of it.

6)The avulsed bones protruding outward in JFK's scalp is undeniable evidence of a frontal shot. This evidence was so damaging that an attempt was made by the Commission to not address it each time a Parkland doctor referenced it in their testimony.

So in my view there is certainly good evidence for a knoll shooter and much more of it than there is for a South knoll shooter.

(2) I do not believe that a professional snipper team would place a shooter that close to the public with a rifle or a pistol. (within twenty five feet of people watching the motorcade and between the personal on the overpass and the kill zone.)  If that WAS the case it would have been done by amatures and they would have been caught before they got away from their position.

They may have been caught had there not been people in that area with false credentials turning people away and working as a look out. There would have to be assurances that they would be protected and that seems to have been the case when Officer Joe Smith met one if them who claimed to be with the Secret Service. Such imposters were also reported to be ebhind the TSBD, which would be handy in the event that those who risked firing from a 6th floor of a building would be able to esacpe before the police would have blocked off their exits. As one may remember - a shooter was seen on the 6th floor and was said to have remained at the window for a short period and he and his cohorts were still able to leave the building unmolested and without fear of being caught.

(3)  I was there.  I helped Sergio spot for that type of stuff.  And there were others, from our team, who were at the North Knoll. 

Where on the North knoll were these alleged spotters supposed to be? I have access to the entire knoll by cross referencing the available assassination films and photos - I will be happy to find them or point out that there is no one there - whichever the case may be.

It was a military Covert Ops.  Anyone ever associated with that type of warfare knows what that means. 

As you should know - such Ops also use disinformation after the fact. Such disinformation could come in the way of someone like yourself claiming to be somewhere he was not. It could come in the way by giving an opinion about there not being a shooter on the knoll, but not explaining why the circumstantial evidence doesn't make a case for it. It could come in the way of making points about such shooters not risking getting caught while not telling how people with fake SS badges were met in the same area or explaining what their purpose was. Then there is the wind and burnt gunpodwer issues that were not touched upon. So I hope you don't mind me asking some common sense questions here that need to be asked. Now if you could tell me exactly where you and your spotter friend were standing - it would be a good start in getting comfirmation for what you have said or exposing a tall tale. I'll offer the best images I can either way. As someone once said, "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall."

Bill

Thank You. I respect your thoughts and theroies. If you would read previous post and pay attention to what others have said on the subject matter and the information which has been presented by them, you would know where I was standing. Is it possible to broaden your concepts and help this "dis-information" person? Thanks any help would be appreciated. Tosh Plumlee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  (1)  I do not believe that there was a shooter anywhere near the north knoll; behind a fence; on a car hood; in the parking lot; behind a wall.  I do not care what the "Experts" say.  They have not proven their case to me beyond a resonable doubt.  That goes for the South Knoll as well as the North Knoll locations.

Today we have better equipment to photo work these pictures. That technique should be applied by professional personal.., example Law enforcement or private corp. that deal with such matters.  What I think. What you think. And what the public has been led to think is of no value today.

I agree, but politics finds its way into those institutions and prevents such things from happening. I believe that is what happened with MIT and Jack's images he wanted them to see. I think they appeared interested thinking it would not go anywhere until they seen the Badge Man and what he looked to be doing and then realized that they could not get involved with this, thus they sent the material back to Jack. Jack can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is what he told me once in an email.

There is no such thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt" in this case unless you have a film of someone in the act. However, there can be really strong circumstantial evidence showing the high probability of this happening and cases have been won on such evidence. Let's recap the evidence ....

1)Sam Holland and no less than five co-workers heard a shot come from the trees at the moment JFK was fatally hit and watched a cloud of smoke get propelled through the foliage towards the street. This smoke was seen by people on the east and south sides of the knoll, as well. (see attachment 1)

2)There is a film that shows this smoke drifting towards the street. If one removed the bad frames and overlays the good ones - they can be put in motion so to look for moment. (see attachment 2}

3)When officer's ran to this suspected area, they smelled a distinct odor of burnt gunpowder. At the time of the shooting the wind was blowing from the RR yard towards Houston Street, thus if the burnt gunpowder smell didn't come from the RR yard, then from where? The burnt gunpowder odor, like the smoke, had to travel the path of the wind. It makes no sense that someone fired a shot at anything while further back northwest into the parking lot, nor has anyone claimed to have done so. (see attachment 3)

4) If not assassins or conspirators, then at least 2 people who both Bowers and Hoffman seen had vanishied into history without so much as coming forward to say that all was well in the RR yard. While Bowers claims to have taken his eye off the Hat Man (which I do not believe), Hoffman said that a man turned away from the fence and had a long gun/rifle with him. Hoffman said that the man went towards the steam pipe and tossed the gun to another man. At the same moment in time, a RR worker who was on the overpass told Seymour Weitzman that shortly after the assassination he had seen something through the trees being tossed. When Weiztman asked where exactly did this occur, the RR worker said 'over by the steam pipe'.

5)Then there is the direction that the bulk of the brain matter and debris was thrown out the back of the President's head. It was Hargis and Martin that got the worst of it.

6)The avulsed bones protruding outward in JFK's scalp is undeniable evidence of a frontal shot. This evidence was so damaging that an attempt was made by the Commission to not address it each time a Parkland doctor referenced it in their testimony.

So in my view there is certainly good evidence for a knoll shooter and much more of it than there is for a South knoll shooter.

(2) I do not believe that a professional snipper team would place a shooter that close to the public with a rifle or a pistol. (within twenty five feet of people watching the motorcade and between the personal on the overpass and the kill zone.)  If that WAS the case it would have been done by amatures and they would have been caught before they got away from their position.

They may have been caught had there not been people in that area with false credentials turning people away and working as a look out. There would have to be assurances that they would be protected and that seems to have been the case when Officer Joe Smith met one if them who claimed to be with the Secret Service. Such imposters were also reported to be ebhind the TSBD, which would be handy in the event that those who risked firing from a 6th floor of a building would be able to esacpe before the police would have blocked off their exits. As one may remember - a shooter was seen on the 6th floor and was said to have remained at the window for a short period and he and his cohorts were still able to leave the building unmolested and without fear of being caught.

(3)  I was there.  I helped Sergio spot for that type of stuff.  And there were others, from our team, who were at the North Knoll. 

Where on the North knoll were these alleged spotters supposed to be? I have access to the entire knoll by cross referencing the available assassination films and photos - I will be happy to find them or point out that there is no one there - whichever the case may be.

It was a military Covert Ops.  Anyone ever associated with that type of warfare knows what that means. 

As you should know - such Ops also use disinformation after the fact. Such disinformation could come in the way of someone like yourself claiming to be somewhere he was not. It could come in the way by giving an opinion about there not being a shooter on the knoll, but not explaining why the circumstantial evidence doesn't make a case for it. It could come in the way of making points about such shooters not risking getting caught while not telling how people with fake SS badges were met in the same area or explaining what their purpose was. Then there is the wind and burnt gunpodwer issues that were not touched upon. So I hope you don't mind me asking some common sense questions here that need to be asked. Now if you could tell me exactly where you and your spotter friend were standing - it would be a good start in getting comfirmation for what you have said or exposing a tall tale. I'll offer the best images I can either way. As someone once said, "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall."

Bill

Thank You. I respect your thoughts and theroies. If you would read previous post and pay attention to what others have said on the subject matter and the information which has been presented by them, you would know where I was standing. Is it possible to broaden your concepts and help this "dis-information" person? Thanks any help would be appreciated. Tosh Plumlee.

' Your quotes"...."There is no such thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt" in this case unless you have a film of someone in the act. However, there can be really strong circumstantial evidence showing the high probability of this happening and cases have been won on such evidence. Let's recap the evidence" ....

Well thats nice. You prove my point. I feel I have presented a world of information and documentation, and detailed government documentation, and "dovetailed" events for a number of years, as to my previous activites and knowledge of the events of the time. I fell I have presented enough "circumstantial evidence" that qualifies me to at least express my thoughts on the subject matter you introduced.

How did you say it? " a strong circumstantial evidence showing the high probability of this happening..". If this statement works for you?... why not for me? Are you that "closed minded"? If so I do not want to deal with you. Thanks again for any "factual" information you care to share with me or the Forum. It would be appreciated. Tosh Plumlee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deleted for space

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you say it? " a strong circumstantial evidence showing the high probability of this happening..". If this statement works for you?... why not for me? Are you that "closed minded"? If so I do not want to deal with you. Thanks again for any "factual" information you care to share with me or the Forum. It would be appreciated. Tosh Plumlee

For a story to be even remotely considered plausible, there has to be cooperation from all parties at getting at the truth. Documents are nice, but they too can be forged. I had heard that you started out saying you were in the street and when shown a good Cancellare print ... you were unable to find yourself or your alleged companion. Then I heard that you thought you were on the knoll itself. For all I know you may have chosen another location since then, so my question was a fair one in my opinion. That question is simply - where exactly do you now say you were standing?

At the moment I am only interested in the photographical record concerning your story. You'll have to forgive me if my question makes you feel like it doesn't deserve a straight answer, but I have had a couple of times where I met someone who told me they were in Dealey Plaza and they walked me out to the location and gave a pretty convincing story about that they had seen and heard. I then went back and looked at the films and photos and not only were they not where they said they were - no one was in that area. When I tried to get them to explain their absence from the available images which they obviously didn't know well - they too all of a sudden became defensive and didn't to deal with me. From what I recall - you have said you were on an abort mission to stop the murder of President Kennedy, but you say you were standing on the South knoll when it happened. Surely if you were in Dallas to abort the mission, then you must have been told were to go to get word to the assassins. So if I wanted to drill you on things that do not make sense - I believe I could, but all I have asked so far is an exact location where you are now claiming to be. If you are unsure where you were or are afraid that I will show that area and penetrate any shadows that you have chosen to place yourself in, then I can certainly understand your not wanting to deal with this. President Kennedy's murder was a serious matter to me and serious questions have to be raised. I don't intend on going back and forth with you and getting evasive answers. I don't want to be told you were someplace and if it's shown no one is really there - I don't want you to have to pick another location. So unless I get an updated reply as to where you say you and your alleged spotter was, then the photographical record as I no it does not support you being where I believe you have said you were. I can get details out of photos that some cannot. Just as some originally thought the man behind the truck was sitting in its truck bed bed - enhancements can clear up a lot of things. If you are where you claim to have been, then I'll find you.

Bill

Nor do I intend on going back and forth with you.

Your quote: ".... I had heard that you started out saying you were in the street and when shown a good Cancellare print ... you were unable to find yourself or your alleged companion. Then I heard that you thought you were on the knoll itself. For all I know you may have chosen another location since then, so my question was a fair one in my opinion. That question is simply - where exactly do you now say you were standing?..".

You have heard from others as to what they have said I said. I have never changed my statements as to where I was standing, to you are anyone. In fact I have never talked to you or told you anything about that day or where I was or doing. You assumed from others that I have changed my position and now your trying to imply I am dishonest and dis-information. I have dealt with your kind before. I am on record for many years stating where Sergio and I were located at the time the shots were fired. If you choose to listen to others telling you what they say I said, and now present what you have heardt as fact, then that tells me a lot about your qualifications as a researcher.

I have tried to be fair with you and all forum members. In my opinon, it is researchers like you with closed minds and preconcieved concepts based on your own ego and concieted self worth that make it hard for the hard working honest researchers to do their job. I'm sorry for you. Think what you want. But, as far as I am concern.., go peddle concepts somewhere else.. With all due respect. I mean that in the most positive way. Tosh Plumlee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you say it? " a strong circumstantial evidence showing the high probability of this happening..". If this statement works for you?... why not for me? Are you that "closed minded"? If so I do not want to deal with you. Thanks again for any "factual" information you care to share with me or the Forum. It would be appreciated. Tosh Plumlee

For a story to be even remotely considered plausible, there has to be cooperation from all parties at getting at the truth. Documents are nice, but they too can be forged. I had heard that you started out saying you were in the street and when shown a good Cancellare print ... you were unable to find yourself or your alleged companion. Then I heard that you thought you were on the knoll itself. For all I know you may have chosen another location since then, so my question was a fair one in my opinion. That question is simply - where exactly do you now say you were standing?

At the moment I am only interested in the photographical record concerning your story. You'll have to forgive me if my question makes you feel like it doesn't deserve a straight answer, but I have had a couple of times where I met someone who told me they were in Dealey Plaza and they walked me out to the location and gave a pretty convincing story about that they had seen and heard. I then went back and looked at the films and photos and not only were they not where they said they were - no one was in that area. When I tried to get them to explain their absence from the available images which they obviously didn't know well - they too all of a sudden became defensive and didn't to deal with me. From what I recall - you have said you were on an abort mission to stop the murder of President Kennedy, but you say you were standing on the South knoll when it happened. Surely if you were in Dallas to abort the mission, then you must have been told were to go to get word to the assassins. So if I wanted to drill you on things that do not make sense - I believe I could, but all I have asked so far is an exact location where you are now claiming to be. If you are unsure where you were or are afraid that I will show that area and penetrate any shadows that you have chosen to place yourself in, then I can certainly understand your not wanting to deal with this. President Kennedy's murder was a serious matter to me and serious questions have to be raised. I don't intend on going back and forth with you and getting evasive answers. I don't want to be told you were someplace and if it's shown no one is really there - I don't want you to have to pick another location. So unless I get an updated reply as to where you say you and your alleged spotter was, then the photographical record as I no it does not support you being where I believe you have said you were. I can get details out of photos that some cannot. Just as some originally thought the man behind the truck was sitting in its truck bed bed - enhancements can clear up a lot of things. If you are where you claim to have been, then I'll find you.

Bill

Your picture: Wrong place. Wrong location on picture. Sloppy research on your part. If my credibility is nill , then you have just proven yours is less than nill. Get it together and re read other peoples post as to where I and Sergio were standing. Get your facts right before you go spouting off on things you know nothing about... Done deal.. Tosh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your picture:  Wrong place. Wrong location on picture. Sloppy research on your part.  If my credibility is nill , then you have just proven yours is less than nill. Get it together and re read other peoples post as to where I and Sergio were standing.  Get your facts right before you go spouting off on things you know nothing about... Done deal..  Tosh

I thought I made it clear what the picture was about. If you had read the post more carefully ... I had said that this example showed that even though some people had thought this man to be sitting in the bed of a truck - he is actually standing beind it. The enhamcement makes that quite clear and nowhere did I say it represented where you claimed to have been positioned because I do not know for certain where that is at this time. Please try to follow the questions and postings with more attention being given to the details and with less emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay

Bill, thank you for making a few reasonable posts.

Tosh, thank you for telling your story and presenting the possibility of a south knoll shooter...very professional, both of you.

BUT Bill, I must point out a few things.

The badgeman photos just look like a Rorshach test, random.

I never see the badgeman.

But many of the photos posted on this thread show a Classic Gunman

in position.

Tosh, do you think a south shooter might explain that nasty wound around

JFK's right ear that is in the Zapruder film and the autopsy photo?

In other words was the big right side wound an exit wound from a shot fired from the south knoll?

Neither Tosh nor the south knoll shooter is in the photo posted so often,

but it is after the shooting, and the shooter (if there was one over there)

has slipped back into the parking lot

Bill, though, raised his tone to a more professional level, so that's good.

Tosh is not happy because the thread went from the south knoll theory

over to the Classic gunman, and he's right, we need to look into the

south knoll.

James, do you have any other shots of the south Knoll?

Maybe those pix are what got destoyed and rounded up.

Let's keep working together, even though we don't agree.

shanet

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tosh

I am going to ask a brave question.

I know so much is theory. Some of it is so true of who was where they stated that they were and proof to back that in every way.

My question is

Have you ever had a feeling that some of the ones that claimed something that wasn't true of where they stated they were (had been told to say that, and or were paid off to do those statements)? Something that would be your own gut feelings, your own wonder about them?

I have ran into this several times now. Hits hard in the face and comes hard when it happens to you. Something that is so noticable.

I had a very good talk with your daughter, and I did enjoy that private conversation. I still do hold part of that conversation to myself. Very much so.

Leslie is a good girl.

Thanks,

Nancy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said that nobody was on the bridge at the time the President came into the zone. I do remember that there were people above the President on the north side on the underpass, on the bridge, about six or seven as the Limo passed under. I remember Sergio and I questioned that.

Mr. STERN - Yes. Can you estimate the number of people that were on the overpass immediately as the motorcade came into view?

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, I would estimate that there was between 14 to 18 people.

Mr. STERN - So, that it is fair to say that at the time the President's motorcade turned into this area, there was no one on the overpass that you didn't know either as Terminal Co. employees, or railroad employees, or as a policeman?

Mr. HOLLAND - Wouldn't be fair to say that, because there was quite a few came up there right in the last moments.

The Bell film shows two or three RR employees where the overpass slants towards the picket fence and the Altgens 7 photo shows 11 witness from the column south of the south side curb to the north side of the street. (See images 1 and 2.}

I remember a man leaning over the back of the Limo and notice that people were on the bridge above the limo as it past under. That was just before we reached the man in the pickup truck.

There was a man standing on the south side of a pickup truck.

note: It has been said that a south knoll shot would put Jackie and the Texas Gov. in the path and a shot could not have come from the south side of the Plaza. I might point out the slight curve to the southwest at the point of impact about four or five degrees just before it makes a more of a turn, about ten or twenty degrees) before reaching the underpass. If you draw a line and the Limo is even with Main, then the line would rule out a south shot, but turn the limo five degrees to the left (south) and what do you have? A second or two and.., "An open window for a clean shot"...: Check it out.

I assume we are not talking about a first shot being there was no damage to the windshield as late as Altgens 6. The trajectory to JFK and the occupants positions would depend on where the limo was between Z312 and Z313.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleted

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Okay

Bill, thank you for making a few reasonable posts.

Tosh, thank you for telling your story and presenting the possibility of a south knoll shooter...very professional, both of you.

BUT Bill, I must point out a few things.

The badgeman photos just look like a Rorshach test, random.

I never see the badgeman.

But many of the photos posted on this thread show a Classic Gunman

in position.

Tosh, do you think a south shooter might explain that nasty wound around

JFK's right ear that is in the Zapruder film and the autopsy photo?

In other words was the big right side wound an exit wound from a shot fired from the south knoll?

Neither Tosh nor the south knoll shooter is in the photo posted so often,

but it is after the shooting, and the shooter (if there was one over there)

has slipped back into the parking lot.

Bill, though, raised his tone to a more professional level, so that's good.

Tosh is not happy because the thread went from the south knoll theory

over to the Classic gunman, and he's right, we need to look into the

south knoll.

James, do you have any other shots of the south Knoll?

Maybe those pix are what got destoyed and rounded up.

Let's keep working together, even though we don't agree.

shanet

shanet

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay

Bill, thank you for making a few reasonable posts.

Tosh, thank you for telling your story and presenting the possibility of a south knoll shooter...very professional, both of you.

BUT Bill, I must point out a few things.

The badgeman photos just look like a Rorshach test, random.

I never see the badgeman.

But many of the photos posted on this thread show a Classic Gunman

in position.

Tosh, do you think a south shooter might explain that nasty wound around

JFK's right ear that is in the Zapruder film and the autopsy photo?

In other words was the big right side wound an exit wound from a shot fired from the south knoll?

Neither Tosh nor the south knoll shooter is in the photo posted so often,

but it is after the shooting, and the shooter (if there was one over there)

has slipped back into the parking lot.

Jack really lost it that's too bad.

Bill, though, raised his tone to a more professional level, so that's good.

Tosh is not happy because the thread went from the south knoll theory

over to the Classic gunman, and he's right, we need to look into the

south knoll.

James, do you have any other shots of the south Knoll?

Maybe those pix are what got destoyed and rounded up.

Let's keep working together, even though we don't agree.

shanet

shanet

Shanet...most people have no trouble seeing the badgeman image.

Jack

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

×
×
  • Create New...