Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was it Lansdale?


Guest Mark Valenti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mark Valenti

I'll take a closer look yet I think you are mistaken about your timeline...

Do you believe that three men were arrested and stayed in jail until the 26th or are the CHAMBERS reports created after the fact to hide who these men really were...

If more than three men were removed from the train, per Harkness, what happened to them?

Why does WISE's account include lies about Middleton and not a single followup report from VAUGHN or BASS... nor, with photos now available after 1966, were these men ever asked about them?

Just curious what you think...

It's all explained in how they did paperwork generally at Decker's office, and how things were handled on that chaotic day. Chambers didn't even remember filling in the arrest report but there it was, in his own handwriting, and he admitted that he did write it up. I can't imagine how crazy things were in the office that day - emotions high, reports flying around.

I do believe the three tramps photographed in DP were Doyle, Gedney and Abrams. I believe they were kept in jail for a few days and were simply lost in the shuffle.

It was a constant practice for Decker to keep people in a cell without charging them. He had unbelievable power in Dallas in those days. For all we know, there were more vagrants picked up who were held in cells also. But these three had paperwork filled out on them more due to an accident than prudence.

Wise was trapped in a hopeless situation that day. He couldn't let the tramps go, despite the fact that he knew they were innocent. So he carted them back and forth like a chauffeur and them left them to stew in a cell for a few days.

Now, he didn't feel so badly about it that he didn't go back and try to get credit for the "arrest." He was in full civil servant mode there.

I don't know how to explain the Middleton question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think that forensic artist Lois Gibson's study definitively shows that Tall Tramp is Charles V. Harrelson. It confirms what one's own eyse tell one, and what Harrelson danced around in his jailhouse interviews. See link below:

http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?p=2858

I'm unconvinced of her ID of Chauncey Holt, if only because Old Tramp seems to have a shorter upper lip than Holt, but I'm not an expert. Other facial similarities to Holt, especially shadows falling under facial features, are compelling.

Charles Rogers as Sporty Tramp is more uncertain, because of the age differences between the tramp and the available pictures of Rogers.* Interestingly, there is in Gibson's presentation a photo of a man closer to Sporty Tramp's age mounted beside ST's photo, but Gibson does not comment on the pertinent resemblances nor identify this man as Rogers.**

One thing that one comes away with from Gibson's presentation is that photos of the men identified as "Gedney," "Doyle" and "Abrams" bear no comparison to the three tramps.

If only we could get this woman to work on the back of Ed Lansdale's head,,,,

* Because of his alleged intel career, the later murders attributed to him, and his subsequent disappearance, Rogers makes a convenient fall guy.

** Does anyone think that in the different photos of the three tramps Sporty Tramp's hairline is altered in some photos?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Lois Gibson is full of it.

She scammed a grieving family into believing that their missing daughter, Tionda Bradley, had been spotted on the internet.

Gibson: "I took a hard look at them (the photos) for the first time (this week), and I do not say this lightly, but it's her," Gibson told the Sun-Times.

The family was given false hope and redirected their efforts toward the so-called Gibson identification.

And then came this story: http://abc7chicago.com/archive/6122109/

The girl whom Gibson identified was actually the daughter of someone named Jeff Smith. Tionda Bradley's family lost precious time chasing Lois Gibson's "100 percent positive" ID.

Gibson is a fierce self-promoter and sells among other things: high-priced lectures, books (one book for over 100 bucks), art classes ($1250), workshops, her own paintings, her forensic services and much more.

You'd have to be one of the more gullible human beings on planet Earth to buy her ID of the tramps when the tramp timeline has been established without a doubt that the tramps are indeed Gedney, Abrams and Doyle.

I'm going to guess you also believe James Files was a shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

I'll take a closer look yet I think you are mistaken about your timeline...

Do you believe that three men were arrested and stayed in jail until the 26th or are the CHAMBERS reports created after the fact to hide who these men really were...

If more than three men were removed from the train, per Harkness, what happened to them?

Why does WISE's account include lies about Middleton and not a single followup report from VAUGHN or BASS... nor, with photos now available after 1966, were these men ever asked about them?

Just curious what you think...

I think it's only fair that you go back to your thread on the DP forum and admit your error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to guess you also believe James Files was a shooter.

No, and thank you - I had forgotten that Holt's backing of Files was the other reason I don't believe Chauncey Holt is Old Tramp, and that I don't believe Chauncey Holt in general.

Sorry, though - That is Charles V. Harrelson, sure as you're born. Her positive ID lays the groundwork for audience acceptance of what she says about Holt and Rogers, which can't be supported.

I suspect Gibson was under the spell of Holt and his backers, and the whole presentation was intended to confirm Holt's veracity by sandwiching her ID of Holt between the true ID of Harrelson and the supposed ID of the cipher, Rogers.

The whole Gibson presentation video was done to support Holt, and thus Files. So it's good that we talked, as it exposes the method used.

But she is right - That is Charles V. Harrelson. Show me photographically how it's one of those old men in the purported photos.

EDITED FOR CLARITY

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point along the way Mark do you not give thought to the context of the day?

The DPD and FBI created, altered and destroyed evidence - what was left was purely incriminating to Oswald.

What was removed were indications that a conspiracy of some sort was in place to implicate Oswald - because he did not do it...

We agree there, right? Oswald did not shoot anyone from the 6th floor - he was not there at the time.

If we agree there then ALL the evidence which points to that conclusion is false.

It is very likely that at least a shot was fired from the RR yard area along the south fence...

The policeman on the SOUTH side of the overpass claims a train passes between him and the assassination so that he could nether hear or see anything - JC White was his name and he and FOSTER, the other cop who sees the manhole bullet scar drew pictures of the overpass and where they were. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0394a.htm = Foster

White: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0376b.htm

Yet he places himself on the WEST side of the overpass - where a train would pass behind him, not infront... Many believe that a shot from the SOUTH of the overpass was very possible.

Point is the DPD ahd Sherrifs LIED THEIR A$$es off Mark... about nearly everything from that first day changes... where Oswald was, the rifle, the location of the shells, the boxes in the window, and it goes on and on...

Yet you are willing to believe that these three men - where this is obviously conflicting info between the DPD and Sheriff - are the same as three hobos who stated they were in jail thur the 26th... CHAMBERS says they let them go BEFORE the photos were taken (you want to claim it was later... prove it... the way CHAMBERs report is written it makes it sound like JONES finds out about Oswald as tell CHAMBERS to let them go... How late do you think this is and how does that jive with the Tippit timeline in his story? -

1st how is his name on three arrest reports if he let them go and 2nd.. when did WISE pick them up from CHAMBERS and JONES and walk them all the way back past the TSBD to the RR yards only to turn around and walk them back for these photos? The Sheriff's building was not in that direction and definitely not to the WEST of the TSBD.

If we do not agree that DP was a charade from the beginning, that the Zfilm - in it's current 6 pieces - cannot possibly be "original out of the camera" when 0183 is not even on these pieces of film.. Nix original is lost, BYP negatives are lost while the pose from 133-C is used for recreation shots on 11/29... 12 years before they are discovered.... The Klein's evidence is a joke and on and on... then I don't know what we CAN find were we would agree...

but to you these men MUST be who the DPD says they are with reports found in 1991. Mark... with that level of insight I'm afraid we have nothing left to say to each other. I'm not looking to convince you personally of anything... you see it the way you do and you are fully within your right.. We disagree...

No use beating it to death. Hopefully we'll be able to find other areas where we can assist each other's understanding...

Take care

DJ

JC%20White%20and%20Foster%20on%20the%20o

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

At some point along the way Mark do you not give thought to the context of the day?

I'm highlighting this sentence of yours, David, because it is one of the more ironic things I've read.

The 'context' of the day. Hmm...let's see, the murder of the century, perhaps of all time, has just taken place.

Trauma is everywhere. Police agencies are trying to make sense of what happened.

Some procedural and bureaucratic steps fell along the wayside, as would be natural on such a day.

Yet you completely ignore the context of the day and assign nefarious motive to these all-too-human errors.

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going completely by memory, but as I recall the tramp IDed by Gibson as Rogers looked nothing at all like Rogers according to the photo I saw of him. The tramp does look strikingly like a guy whose name I think was Montoya, based on a couple of photos when I believe he was in military service. I don't remember to whom in the case, if anyone, he was supposed to have some connection. But that really doesn't matter in my opinion, as I'm satisfied that the tramp was Doyle. How some don't see the resemblance, i.e. how a man might look decades later, sort of mystifies me. I admit that this doesn't mean that the government didn't just go and find someone to look the part, with Doyle playing the role.

Edit: I clearly have a heck of a time with the quote function here.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

I'm going to guess you also believe James Files was a shooter.

No, and thank you - I had forgotten that Holt's backing of Files was the other reason I don't believe Chauncey Holt is Old Tramp, and that I don't believe Chauncey Holt in general.

Sorry, though - That is Charles V. Harrelson, sure as you're born. That positive ID lays the groundwork for acceptance of what she says about Holt and Rogers, which can't be supported.

I suspect Gibson was under the spell of Holt and his backers, and the whole presentation is intended to confirm Holt's veracity by presenting his ID between the true ID of Harrelson and the supposed ID of the cipher, Rogers. So it's good that we talked, as it exposes the method used.

But - That is Charles V. Harrelson. Show me photographically how it's one of those old men in the purported photos.

So you support Gibson's ID of Harrelson but you think she was swayed in her ID of Holt and Rogers.

Hmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point along the way Mark do you not give thought to the context of the day?

I'm highlighting this sentence of yours, David, because it is one of the more ironic things I've read.

The 'context' of the day. Hmm...let's see, the murder of the century, perhaps of all time, has just taken place.

Trauma is everywhere. Police agencies are trying to make sense of what happened.

Some procedural and bureaucratic steps fell along the wayside, as would be natural on such a day.

Yet you completely ignore the context of the day and assign nefarious motive to these all-too-human errors.

Why?

I believe I can separate nefarious from errors...

Decker was infamous. Do you believe he was one of a few key people in Dallas or not?

Mayor Cabell... informed to assist by his brother or not?

Curry/Fritz... basically ensured Oswald would be killed

Any 1 of 1000 DPD cops who knew Ruby and despised JFK

Stringfellow and his military connections

Hosty, Shanklin of the FBI and their knowledge of Oswald and their actions

Greer, Kellerman, Roberts, Boring... they did not make sure no autopsy would be done in TX

Max Philips and his copy of the Zfilm to Rowley Friday night... many forget about that copy...

Mark... if you are not first suspicious of every activity until it can be proven innocent and unconnected, what are we doing?

Situational reactions that are orchestrated within the context of the plan are still part of a plan. The three tramps in DP were not kept in jail, city or county, until the 26th... they were released by both accounts of WISE and CHAMBERS. Wise is told by a deputy, while Chambers is ordered by his Captain to let them go.

The arrest reports are after the fact explanations for who these three tramps in the photos are. If you'd like to conclude they were not involved, not associated and the three on the arrest reports... fine.

For the reasons stated and the context offered I have to disagree... wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong.

Part of the CIA mindset of the early 60's is the understanding that the workings of spies and CI is so out of the norm for regular people to comprehend that they don't and can't if exposed to such planning. It is my belief based on the confidence gained from previous activities of those who facilitated this killing that every trick in the book could be used...

If indeed David Atlee Phillips was responsible for the "story" and related evidence and output needed to produce this story leaving Oswald were he was and JFK were he was... do you believe he could not fashion a plan that would include catching and releasing nefarious individuals while stories are broadcast about a 5'10" 165lb man that results in the capture of 5'8" 135lb Oswald thanks to Brewer and Postal calling on a guy that looked suspicious?

If you understand CI that well where you can say that didn't happen - you know it was not planned that way... ok. I don't. I only know what I see repeated in the operations of the CIA (Larry Hancock's Nexus is an important read)... actions designed to produce behavior, the doubling and tripling or evidence to confuse - to allow honest witness accounts of fraudulent or staged activity. The "terror" of the uninvolved was counted upon to allow the easiest of execution of the plan and in plain sight.

Bottom line Mark... if you're not just a bit paranoid - I'm not sure you grasp the depth of depravity and evil that was inconsequentially employed to kill Kennedy and basically take complete control of this country and then not only maintain but grow upon this control over the last 50 years... so ok... three men hopping a train minutes after the assassination where shots were fired, along with other men who remain unnamed as well are taken in. And it takes until 1991 to learn who they are from reports denied to have even been created by the man who signed them.

Move along, nothing to see here... everything's fine... move along.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Part of my reaction to this is that "they" are simply not that smart, imo. The real-life spies, clandestine movers and shakers, powers-that-be, they're not geniuses. They are simply wired to appreciate the kind of life that spying gives them. They're like military nutjobs, the ones who blather on endlessly about their service long after they return to civilian life. Like Hemming, who probably couldn't refrain from recounting his wonderful exploits for two consecutive hours. That's the top layer. Then you have the melodramatic latter-day patriotic Constitution lovers, who have convinced themselves that America and the world are what the PR booklet says they are, which they never were, by the way. Self-important cretins like Drago who have it all figured out, yet have never made a single microscopic dent in the general momentum of events either politically or culturally. People who claim to have seen the "other" JFK murder film - but most of them claim that there are "things" they cannot reveal about their viewings. BS.

I believe there was a conspiracy, front-end and back-end. But this case produces loony whack-a-mole ideas at an astonishing rate. There is nothing in the record - nothing - that disproves that the three tramps were Gedney, Doyle and Abrams, and that Chambers wrote that report, and that they were stuck in a cell for a few days. Everything that runs counter to that simple narrative, imo, is nothing more than false legends and empty leads built around the kinds of imprecise data that characterizes our everyday life.

I can't subscribe to any "plot" that covers the amount of detail you and others envision. From a practical, human perspective, it's nothing short of silly to me. Name one other event in all of human history, acted out by any one of the billions upon billions upon billions of people who've lived and died, in which the sheer numbers of details as conjectured in the JFK case were worked out beforehand. You can't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I can't subscribe to any "plot" that covers the amount of detail you and others envision. From a practical, human perspective, it's nothing short of silly to me. Name one other event in all of human history, acted out by any one of the billions upon billions upon billions of people who've lived and died, in which the sheer numbers of details as conjectured in the JFK case were worked out beforehand. You can't do it.

This is an interesting point, IMHO. What in the world would even be the point of a plot to have three fake tramps and three real tramps and six names with some jail records but not enough? And General Edward Lansdale taking a walk by these Fakes?

This was the question I would have liked to ask Fletcher Prouty. If those are Fake Tramps and Fake Police -- all ACTORS as he thinks -- then what would be the POINT?

As propaganda it falls flat into the Theater of the Absurd. It has no meaning.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to guess you also believe James Files was a shooter.

No, and thank you - I had forgotten that Holt's backing of Files was the other reason I don't believe Chauncey Holt is Old Tramp, and that I don't believe Chauncey Holt in general.

Sorry, though - That is Charles V. Harrelson, sure as you're born. That positive ID lays the groundwork for acceptance of what she says about Holt and Rogers, which can't be supported.

I suspect Gibson was under the spell of Holt and his backers, and the whole presentation is intended to confirm Holt's veracity by presenting his ID between the true ID of Harrelson and the supposed ID of the cipher, Rogers. So it's good that we talked, as it exposes the method used.

But - That is Charles V. Harrelson. Show me photographically how it's one of those old men in the purported photos.

So you support Gibson's ID of Harrelson but you think she was swayed in her ID of Holt and Rogers.

Hmm...

Take a look at all the people in the research community who are right on one thing, but misled or deluded on others. Then extend that out to inquiry and intellectual history in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

I'm going to guess you also believe James Files was a shooter.

No, and thank you - I had forgotten that Holt's backing of Files was the other reason I don't believe Chauncey Holt is Old Tramp, and that I don't believe Chauncey Holt in general.

Sorry, though - That is Charles V. Harrelson, sure as you're born. That positive ID lays the groundwork for acceptance of what she says about Holt and Rogers, which can't be supported.

I suspect Gibson was under the spell of Holt and his backers, and the whole presentation is intended to confirm Holt's veracity by presenting his ID between the true ID of Harrelson and the supposed ID of the cipher, Rogers. So it's good that we talked, as it exposes the method used.

But - That is Charles V. Harrelson. Show me photographically how it's one of those old men in the purported photos.

So you support Gibson's ID of Harrelson but you think she was swayed in her ID of Holt and Rogers.

Hmm...

Take a look at all the people in the research community who are right on one thing, but misled or deluded on others. Then extend that out to inquiry and intellectual history in general.

This is different. It's not like saying LHO was impersonated by Batman and then saying Howard Brennan got it wrong.

This is one woman, looking at a one photo and employing the same facial recognition methods, the same aging methods, the same size, height and weight measurements, the same 3D methods to all three tramps.

Yet you say she got one right and was wrong on two others because she was swayed by external pressure.

Not even slightly credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I can't subscribe to any "plot" that covers the amount of detail you and others envision. From a practical, human perspective, it's nothing short of silly to me. Name one other event in all of human history, acted out by any one of the billions upon billions upon billions of people who've lived and died, in which the sheer numbers of details as conjectured in the JFK case were worked out beforehand. You can't do it.

This is an interesting point, IMHO. What in the world would even be the point of a plot to have three fake tramps and three real tramps and six names with some jail records but not enough? And General Edward Lansdale taking a walk by these Fakes?

This was the question I would have liked to ask Fletcher Prouty. If those are Fake Tramps and Fake Police -- all ACTORS as he thinks -- then what would be the POINT?

As propaganda it falls flat into the Theater of the Absurd. It has no meaning.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I agree.

I consider people who think like that to be "paranoid"

--Tommy :sun

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...