Jump to content
The Education Forum

“The lights all went out,” and the elevators stopped while JFK was murdered. Shelley and Lovelady were near the bottom of the back staircase, by the electrical panel... and Vickie Adams saw them ... until everyone's story changed...


Recommended Posts

I see that Ray the Troell is back with more disinformation.  Edgar Smith's testimony plus various media, particularly the Tina Towner film, indicate that there was a possibility of a 4th and unknown officer there.  Barnett says there were 3 officers assigned but that doesn't account for who told him to move and direct traffic from the center of Houston Street as filmed by Tina Towner, at the north side of the intersection as the presidential limousine goes by.   The Towner Film accounts for 3 officers at the intersection, one in the middle of Houston, another at the northeast corner of Houston and Elm, and the third at the southeast corner of Houston and Elm.  Edgar Smith's testimony puts him under the windows of the Court Record Building about 30 or 40 feet south of the southeast corner.  He is shown there under the windows in the Marie Muchmore film.  Chris Davison's Muchmore frame hides Smith there with a motorcycle cop blocking the view.  That makes 4 officers.  There is not any film or photo that shows an officer at the southeast corner of the TSBD.  I thought Mark Bell did show an officer there but, was later convinced by Bart Kamp with evidence from the Towner film that wasn't the case.  If there was an officer there it would be the 4th and unknown officer. 

Liebeler position 1 is on Elm Street across from the middle of the building more toward the southwest corner of the TSBD and not the SE corner according to WC Exhibit 354.  Position 9 according to WC Exhibit 354 is on Elm directly appears to be closer to the southeast corner of the TSBD and not as much in the middle of Houston Street..

The extra and unknown officer is why Liebeler used numbered positions.  He wanted to confuse the issue of where Barnett and the other policemen really were.  That's easy enough to fool a wanton believer in the WC nonsense that masquerades as evidence.

WC Exhibit 354 shows a large gap between Houston Street and the Dal-Tex and the Court Records Building.  That gap maybe the side of the building but, shadowed.  If that is a shadowed side to the two buildings, then what is causing the shadow when the building should be in broad daylight.   The park structures just south of Houston are not shadowed on the west side and the park structure across the Main Street is neither. The structures at the South Knoll are not shadowed on the west either.  Neither is the railroad bridge shadowed on the west side.  There is a shadow under the bridge.  The shadow on the east side of the Annex Building is shadowed but, it is not in tune with the shadows on structures west of it. 

This implies that the shadowed sides of the building are artificial.  Why with this overhead photo taken at a later time?  The TSBD looks like its southeast corner is sitting directly in the middle of Houston Street. That's probably an illusion. 

Nice try, Ray.  Now ask me endless questions that you know I am not going to answer.  I have your disinformation nonsense blocked so I don't have to pay attention to it.  This time I made an exception and may continue from time to time.  But, not as a general case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 729
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yep Ray again,John. I thought I was on your ignore list, but glad to be back to show again that you still don't understand evidence.

"Quote by Butler

"Liebeler position 1 is on Elm Street across from the middle of the building more toward the southwest corner of the TSBD and not the SE corner according to WC Exhibit 354.  Position 9 according to WC Exhibit 354 is on Elm directly appears to be closer to the southeast corner of the TSBD and not as much in the middle of Houston Street.."

Rubbish. Position one of 354 is across the short Elm Street in front of the entrance to the TSBD, which is at the South East end of the TSBD where Barnett said he was standing. And position 9 is slap in the middle of  the junction, where a cop would go to stop the traffic. 

Another quote

"WC Exhibit 354 shows a large gap between Houston Street and the Dal-Tex and the Court Records Building.  That gap maybe the side of the building but, shadowed.  If that is a shadowed side to the two buildings, then what is causing the shadow when the building should be in broad daylight."

Strange to say it is the sun, John. You know that bright object in the sky? You seem to always have great difficulty with shadows. There are numerous other buildings, as well as structures on the roof of the Court Records Building which show the same type of shadows. The South face of the CRB is in bright sunshine, as is the south face of the Dal Tex,. and the South Face of the TSBD. Maybe you can't see that.  

Learn to read a photo, John, it will help you no end.

As for your imaginary fourth cop, you do get some crazy ideas into your head. I look forward to your increasingly daft attempted justifications. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets even funnier

Quote by John Butler

"This implies that the shadowed sides of the building are artificial.  Why with this overhead photo taken at a later time?  The TSBD looks like its southeast corner is sitting directly in the middle of Houston Street. That's probably an illusion."

Only in your mind, John. The reason that the TSBD "looks like its southeast corner is sitting directly in the middle of Houston Street" is because of the angle the photograph was taken from above. The camera was not directly over the TSBD. (It's a wonder you haven't said that the TSBD must be  falling over because the corners aren't vertical." LOL)

What does "Why with this overhead photo taken at a later time" mean?

Your fascination with imaginary "painted in shadows" is making you look rather silly. 

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites

3-officers-in-intersection-1.jpg

Notice there is only one officer on the SE corner of Houston.  And, pay attention to what Officer Edgar Smith says.  Where he locates himself, which can be verified by the Marie Muchmore film, indicates there was a 4th and unknown officer there.

Officer Edgar Smiths WC testimony:

"to carry placards, but if I should notice anyone attempting to throw them or any thing like that, I should take them into custody. I was assigned to the corner of Houston and Elm Street. I got to my traffic corner about --
Mr. LIEBELER. Before you get to that - let me ask you a few questions: What did you say your name was, Edgar L.?
Mr. SMITH. E. L. - Edgar L.
Mr. LIEBELER. There were two Smiths on that corner?
Mr. SMITH. Yes; I understand that.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you received your instructions that morning, was there any specific mention made of watching the windows of the buildings in the area?
Mr. SMITH. Not that I recall - just general - watch out, you know, for the crowd.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you went down to the corner of Elm and Houston and took up your duty station there at about what time?
Mr. SMITH. I think it was about approximately 10 o'clock and - I believe that's about right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And there were two other officers there, isn't that right?
Mr. SMITH. Yes; there were.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us what their names were?
Mr. SMITH. One of them was Welcome Barnett and the other boy was named Smith too, but I don't recall his initials.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you station yourself and what did you do from the time you arrived until the time the motorcade began to approach?

Mr. SMITH. I said approximately - oh, 30 to 40 feet south of the south curb of Elm Street at the east curb of Houston. I stood around there and talked with some of the people in this general vicinity and watched the crowd.
Mr. LIEBELER. You stood across the street on Houston Street from the Texas School Book Depository Building?

566



Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Cater-cornered - and I show you Commission Exhibit No. 354, and it has a letter "A" marked there, and that will be approximately where you were standing; is that right?
Mr. SMITH. That's about where I was.
Mr. LIEBELER. What did you do from the time you stationed yourself in that position?
Mr. SMITH. Well, I stood there and talked some to the crowd after they finally formed. They didn't start forming until around 11 o'clock, and looked over here at the Texas School Book Depository Building and just stood there mainly - there wasn't much to do.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you look up at the buildings that were around this intersection here at Elm Street at all?
Mr. SMITH. Yes; I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. As you were standing there at position "A" in Exhibit No. 354, you were in a position to observe the south windows of the Texas School Book Depository Building, were you not?
Mr. SMITH. That's right
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you notice any windows open up there?
Mr. SMITH. I don't recall at this time whether there was any open. I'm sure there were, but I just don't remember it specifically - any specifically being open. There's quite a few people looking out the windows and what not of the various buildings.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see any suspicious activities of any kind in any of those windows?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. What happened when the motorcade came down Main Street and turned right on Houston Street; what did you do then?
Mr. SMITH. I Just stood parade rest there, you know, trying to keep the people back. I was facing the motorcade - they had come out in the street here a little bit and I just stood there.
Mr. LIEBELER. So you were facing west?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You did not go out into the intersection at any point here and help hold traffic back at that intersection, did you?
Mr. SMITH. No; I did. not.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, you stood there as the motorcade went by, facing west down toward the triple underpass and the motorcade turned left and started to go down Elm Street, is that right?
Mr. SMITH. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. From where you are standing, could you observe the railroad tracks that went over the triple underpass down there at the bottom of Exhibit No. 354?
Mr. SMITH. I'm sure I could see them from that location, but I don't remember, you know, noticing them. I had noticed them earlier in the day, probably from that location, and I had saw some officers up there, and other than that, I don't remember seeing anything else. I do specifically remember seeing some officers on the overpass here
.
Mr. LIEBELER. As the motorcade turned and went down Elm Street, what happened?
Mr. SMITH. I heard three shots, I guess they were shots. I thought that the first two were just firecrackers and kept my position and after the third one, I ran down the street here.
Mr. LIEBELER. You ran down Elm Street?
Mr. SMITH. Well, ran down Houston Street and then to Elm, and actually, I guess it was a little bit farther over than this, because after they turned the corner I couldn't see any of the cars, there were so many people standing there around the corner.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, you were a little bit farther south down Elm Street than Position "A"?
Mr. SMITH. Yes; possibly a little bit farther south than that - yes; I was under these windows here
. "

 

muchmore-edgar-smith-very-vague-1.jpg

 

E. Smith was under the Court Record Buildings windows about 40 feet from the SE corner.  This indicates 4 officers.  Edgar Smith's testimony is also a problem for Altgens 7 and the 10 railroad men there.

 

Another point here on the confusion of the placement of these Dallas Officers is Altgens 5:

 

Altgens-5-has-shade-a.jpg

 

This is another nail in the coffin of the authenticity of the Altgens 5 photo.

 

Edgar Smith:

 

"Mr. LIEBELER. From where you are standing, could you observe the railroad tracks that went over the triple underpass down there at the bottom of Exhibit No. 354?
Mr. SMITH. I'm sure I could see them from that location, but I don't remember, you know, noticing them. I had noticed them earlier in the day, probably from that location, and I had saw some officers up there, and other than that, I don't remember seeing anything else. I do specifically remember seeing some officers on the overpass here
."

 

Altgens-7.jpg

 

This seconds Officer Barnetts statements.  Oh, BTW what is Officer Foster standing on?  Or, is he a giant for the standards of the time?

 

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 8:33 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

Megathanks, Bart, for yet another fascinating doc from Malcolm Blunt's files.  Please keep them coming!

Below is James Richard Worrell's alleged 11/23/63 DPD statement.  Perhaps someone who knows the Dallas streets around Dealey Plaza can tell us whether Worrell's alleged affidavit supports or differs from Romack's alleged statement.  Sorry to say "alleged" so many times, but here's Worrell's alleged statement....

Worrell_Aff.jpg

Jim,

After reading 39 year old James Romack's testimony before the Warren Commission, I am persuaded that the general gist of what Romack alleged in the FBI document is correct. Romack and Officer Barnett corroborate each other, except for the minor variation that Tony noted about whether there was a brief verbal exchange between the two.

But either way, this invalidates both the FBI and DPD affidavits from James Richard Worrell, Jr.

(An unemployed 20 year old,  high school dropout, just drifting around Dallas with no particular place to go or be, but just happened to be within five feet of the TSBD and was able to see a gun in the "Oswald" window? Wonder if our hero, Worrell, might have had a police record for anything from before.)

I doubt anyone ran out the back of the TSBD within five minutes of the shooting. I suspect the Worrell document was a bogus and early attempt by the DPD to pin it on "Oswald" using a pliable witness, but then, the story later had to change about precisely from where "Oswald" left the TSBD.

We do know that the FBI created an apparently bogus statement from Worrell in which he positively identified the man fleeing the back of the TSBD as "Oswald." However, the Warren Commission was rightly suspicious of this identification, and Worrell expressly testified that he could make no such identification of the man he allegedly saw. (He could not say whether he might have told the FBI that.)

Of course, we can't clarify this with Worrell because he was killed in a motorcycle accident less than three years later.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Romack.pdf

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally figured out Chris Davidson's photo he posted in Mass Hysteria in Dealey Plaza.  Here it is compared to Altgens 5:

Chris-Davidson-altgens-5.jpg

They appear to show the same crowd in front of the Court Record Building.  But, they are from different angles and maybe elevation.  Notice that the Dallas Officers Smith are not in the photo.  The crowds look to be the same in both photos.  This might be Altgens 5 with the perspective shifted slightly?  What is the word, keystoned?  The shadow angles under the window are the same.

Once again.  Where did your photo come from Chris? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"

I finally figured out Chris Davidson's photo he posted in Mass Hysteria in Dealey Plaza.  Here it is compared to Altgens 5:

Chris-Davidson-altgens-5.jpg

They appear to show the same crowd in front of the Court Record Building.  But, they are from different angles and maybe elevation. 

You are starting to understand, John

Notice that the Dallas Officers Smith are not in the photo.  The crowds look to be the same in both photos.   

Incorrect, Edgar Smith is shown in Altgens5. He can be seen in Chris's photo, as well, just above the nearside front tire of the limo.

This might be Altgens 5 with the perspective shifted slightly?  

Yes Chris's photo is from a position slightly to the left of Ike Altgens. (You can tell from the change in perspective.)

  "The shadow angles under the window are the same."

NSS! They were taken at approximately the same time, so the shadows would be the same, unless you believe they were painted in to fool everybody.🤣

 

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 7:30 PM, Bart Kamp said:
James Romack, most interesting.
Who was the copper going there?
I have read something like this before, just cannot think of which copper. Otherwise it could be Baker?
 
Thanks to  Malcolm Blunt.
 
james_10.jpg

Once again it is a matter of who do you believe!

Romack's WC testimony is completely different from this FBI statement of 3-6-64.  Here he says he ate his lunch on the loading dock of the TSBD at the north face.  He was eating lunch when he heard the 3 shots.  He says different things in the WC interrogation.  He says he was about 125 yards from the TSBD in the construction area that would become Houston Street when he heard the 3 shots.  I submit that at that distance he would only be able to tell which direction the shots came from.  High or low or from a particular building is problematic. 

On 3-6-64 he said he never left the area of the loading dock.  In his WC testimony he was not there but 125 yards from the TSBD when shooting occurred.

Romack was a railroad worker and his statements have as much value as the false testimony of the other 10 railroad workers on the Triple Underpass.

Romack says:

"Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They rang out pretty fast.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever operated a bolt action rifle?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you own one?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did it sound like the shots were faster than it could be operated with a bolt action rifle?
Mr. ROMACK. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What kind of rifle do you have now, by the way?
Mr. ROMACK. I have a---it is a---I can't answer that really.
Mr. BELIN. What caliber?
Mr. ROMACK. It is a 30-06.
Mr. BELIN. 30-06 rifle?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes, it is. And it is an old World War I mechanism. It is either an Enfield or a Springfield.

Mr. BELIN. Bolt action?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir."

If you have either owned a 1903 Springfield or a British Enfield, there are basic differences, you would definitely be able to say which one you had unless you been caught in telling a complete falsehood and simply didn't know what you were talking about.

enfield-vs-springfield.jpg

Can Romack be believed?

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey John, I don't know if you've already counted him, but there is a cop in front of the entrance to the County Records building.  He is the third person to the left of Clint Hill in Altgen's 5.  He's wearing a black (blue?) hat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

Hey John, I don't know if you've already counted him, but there is a cop in front of the entrance to the County Records building.  He is the third person to the left of Clint Hill in Altgen's 5.  He's wearing a black (blue?) hat.

Thanks Paul,

I had missed this fellow this time.  I have a vague recollection of noting this fellow years back.  I have certainly forgotten him.  Edgar Smith was a regular Dallas Policemen which meant a blue uniform and white hat.  I believe those with the black or blue hats were reserve police if they had such a thing.  This guy doesn't have a completely blue uniform.  I don't know what that means.  Maybe a policemen from some other place?

extra-policeman-altgens-5.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

After reading 39 year old James Romack's testimony before the Warren Commission, I am persuaded that the general gist of what Romack alleged in the FBI document is correct.

romack-mkt-loading-dock.png

Edited by Tony Krome
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is easy to misread the statement on the short crop from his 3-6-64 statement to the FBI.  Is he on the MKT loading docks immediately 125 yards behind the TSBD or is he on the loading docks immediately behind the TSBD, meaning the TSBD’s loading docks.  Or, it could be the FBI formulating disinformation.

mkt-loading-doc-statement.jpg

Let’s concede he was on the MKT loading docks 125 (375 feet away) yards away from the TSBD.  According to his statements here he talked to a policeman that was probably Welcome Barnett and told him he would watch the back of the TSBD.  That would be hard to do if he was on the MKT loading docks 125 yards away.  Welcome Barnett only went about 20 feet past the NE corner of the TSBD.  Romack said he didn’t leave the loading docks.  Did they shout at each other with megaphones?  Or, was he really at the loading docks of the TSBD or nowhere at all in the vicinity of the TSBD or the MKT loading docks?

Welcome Barnett at the WC interrogation:

“Mr. LIEBELER - What did you do when you concluded that the shots were coming from that building?
Mr. BARNETT - I ran to the back of the building.
Mr. LIEBELER - Ran down Houston Street?
Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - There is a door in the back of the Texas School Book Depository. Does it face on Houston or around the corner?
Mr. BARNETT - It is around the corner from Houston Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you go in the building?
Mr. BARNETT - No, sir; I didn't get close to it, because I was watching for a fire escape. If the man was on top, he would have to come down, and I was looking for a fire escape, and I didn't pay much attention to the door. I was still watching the top of the building, and so far as I could see, the fire escape on the east side was the only escape down.
Mr. LIEBELER - Since you surmised that the shots had come from the building, you looked up and you didn't see any windows open. You thought they had been fired from the top of the building?
Mr. BARNETT - That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER - So you ran around here on Houston Street immediately to the east of the Texas School Book Depository Building and watched the fire escape?
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up. I could see the whole back of the building and also the east side of the building. “

Romack gives a better description of his behavior in his WC testimony on April 8, 1964:


“Mr. BELIN. You said you started walking away. Where did you walk?
Mr. ROMACK..Toward the School Book Depository Building.

Mr. BELIN. Along what street did you walk?
Mr. ROMACK. Well, it wouldn't be no street at the time.
Mr. BELIN. Well, if there would be a street?
Mr. ROMACK. I guess it would be just about, I don't know whether they are going to split Ross and Houston Street up.
Mr. BELIN. Would you be looking straight at Houston Street?
Mr. ROMACK. More or less. I would be looking at Houston Street; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right, and what happened as you were walking?

279
731-222 0---64---vol. VI 19



Mr. ROMACK. I heard these three rifle shots sound out.
Mr. BELIN. Did you know they were rifle shots?”

Mr. Romack on 3-6-64 said he did not leave the area of the MKT docks and heard 3 shots.  And, just a month later at the WC hearing of 4-8-64 he says something different.  He was walking towards the TSBD when he heard the shots.

Is he believable?  I don’t think so.  This is a FBI plant to say no one left the TSBD by the rear entrances.
 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
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...