Wim Dankbaar Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 You missed something. I said I recently REVISED that opinion. Besides, if that's Lansdale on the picture with the tramps, and I now believe that he probably is, he is not dressed as a tramp. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 By the way, since you don't appear to believe that Holt was one of the tramps, do you believe they were in fact Doyle Abrams and Gedney? Do you believe that this man (far right) was the short tramp, Frenchie or whatever you want to call him? http://jfkmurdersolved.com/slide/DSC00109.JPG Now, investigators came out saying that this man, Harold Doyle, was the short tramp. I do not believe that anyone needs a degree in structure, facial structure, to notice that the head is just shaped differently for this individual. His chin is a little longer, his nose is way bigger and his lips are further away from his nose and the eyebrow-shape is completely different. - Lois Gibson Without personal photos of the tramps taken at around the same time, it's impossible to know if the old guy is the tramp. The police report states their names, that's as close as we can come. If nobody can locate pertinent photos or some other linking evidence, we will never know for certain. But I do know that none of the tramps in those photos are Holt, Raoul, Montoya, Archacha Smith, Hunt, Carswell, Rogers, Vallee, Sturgis, Crisman or Harrelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 By the way, since you don't appear to believe that Holt was one of the tramps, do you believe they were in fact Doyle Abrams and Gedney? Do you believe that this man (far right) was the short tramp, Frenchie or whatever you want to call him? http://jfkmurdersolved.com/slide/DSC00109.JPG Now, investigators came out saying that this man, Harold Doyle, was the short tramp. I do not believe that anyone needs a degree in structure, facial structure, to notice that the head is just shaped differently for this individual. His chin is a little longer, his nose is way bigger and his lips are further away from his nose and the eyebrow-shape is completely different. - Lois Gibson Without personal photos of the tramps taken at around the same time, it's impossible to know if the old guy is the tramp. The police report states their names, that's as close as we can come. If nobody can locate pertinent photos or some other linking evidence, we will never know for certain. But I do know that none of the tramps in those photos are Holt, Raoul, Montoya, Archacha Smith, Hunt, Carswell, Rogers, Vallee, Sturgis, Crisman or Harrelson. How do you KNOW that? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 How do you KNOW that? Jack He doesn't. But as long as there is an argument , it's okay. Smoke and mirrors, divide and conquer. Avoid answers, claim everything, deny everthing, create uncertainty in the mind of the layman. We can also create an argument if the sun will rise tomorrow Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 How do you KNOW that?Jack He doesn't. But as long as there is an argument , it's okay. Smoke and mirrors, divide and conquer. Avoid answers, claim everything, deny everthing, create uncertainty in the mind of the layman. We can also create an argument if the sun will rise tomorrow Wim I know it because I can see it with my own eyes. This is not an attempt to divide and conquer, that's silly. This is just me looking at your claim (which you have not addressed yet about the police believing the tramps were ATF agents) and recognizing it as bogus. Any rational, logical, objective person can look at the photo of Chauncey Holt from 1963 and know immediately and without reservation that he is not the older tramp in the photos. It's indisputable to anyone without a financial stake in the situation. I understand why you feel the need to promote this point of view, as well as directing as much traffic to your web site as possible. But none of that makes the Holt claim true. Look at the disconnect between Dankbaar and Jack White. One is convinced down to their bone marrow that the old tramp is Holt. The other believes with all his heart that the old tramp his Howard Hunt. How can this be? How can two intelligent people with powers of discernment come to such a different conclusion? It's because the available evidence is not conclusive. Therefore they rely on their judgement. And their judgement leads them to make subjective analysis. One guy says two plus two equals five, the other guy says two plus two equals six. I think they're both wrong. And that is as far as any of us can go until we have more pictures of all of these suspects. And once again, Mr. Dankbaar, speaking of "Avoid answers, claim everything" - which Dallas cops believed the tramps were from the ATF? MV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) double deleted Edited October 3, 2006 by Mark Valenti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Weaver Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 How do you KNOW that? Jack He doesn't. But as long as there is an argument , it's okay. Smoke and mirrors, divide and conquer. Avoid answers, claim everything, deny everthing, create uncertainty in the mind of the layman. We can also create an argument if the sun will rise tomorrow Wim I know it because I can see it with my own eyes. This is not an attempt to divide and conquer, that's silly. This is just me looking at your claim (which you have not addressed yet about the police believing the tramps were ATF agents) and recognizing it as bogus. Any rational, logical, objective person can look at the photo of Chauncey Holt from 1963 and know immediately and without reservation that he is not the older tramp in the photos. It's indisputable to anyone without a financial stake in the situation. I understand why you feel the need to promote this point of view, as well as directing as much traffic to your web site as possible. But none of that makes the Holt claim true. Look at the disconnect between Dankbaar and Jack White. One is convinced down to their bone marrow that the old tramp is Holt. The other believes with all his heart that the old tramp his Howard Hunt. How can this be? How can two intelligent people with powers of discernment come to such a different conclusion? It's because the available evidence is not conclusive. Therefore they rely on their judgement. And their judgement leads them to make subjective analysis. One guy says two plus two equals five, the other guy says two plus two equals six. I think they're both wrong. And that is as far as any of us can go until we have more pictures of all of these suspects. And once again, Mr. Dankbaar, speaking of "Avoid answers, claim everything" - which Dallas cops believed the tramps were from the ATF? MV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Were individuals "found" or in need of protection at the railyards? I believe the Bum Walk was staged, in that it was a non-arrest, it was more of a security escort for these three characters. ______________________________________________ Even though the cops are carrying shotguns, I've often wondered if they weren't the shooters or helpers and if the "tramps" weren't the ones doing the "escorting" (in order to create plausible deniability for the cops). --Thomas ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Comments, anyone? --Thomas ______________________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Were individuals "found" or in need of protection at the railyards? I believe the Bum Walk was staged, in that it was a non-arrest, it was more of a security escort for these three characters. ______________________________________________ Even though the cops are carrying shotguns, I've often wondered if they weren't the shooters or helpers and if the "tramps" weren't the ones doing the "escorting" (in order to create plausible deniability for the cops). --Thomas ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Comments, anyone? --Thomas ______________________________________________ I believe that Prouty has stated the man walking away is Lansdale. This was confirmed by some of his associates , who also knew Landsdale. Prouty further stated " forget the tramps" they are actors" The important thing is that it has been established that Edward Landsale was in Dallas that afternoon. Edward Lansdale, lifetime spook and a man with more than an ax to grind with JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) I know it because I can see it with my own eyes. This is not an attempt to divide and conquer, that's silly. This is just me looking at your claim (which you have not addressed yet about the police believing the tramps were ATF agents) and recognizing it as bogus. Mark, guys like you make me chuckle. No relation to Jack Valenti, have you? I knew that your "knowledge" was based on your own eyes. Maybe you should consider stronger glasses? Any rational, logical, objective person can look at the photo of Chauncey Holt from 1963 and know immediately and without reservation that he is not the older tramp in the photos. It's indisputable to anyone without a financial stake in the situation. Well, I guess there are a lot of people then , not as rational and objective as you, including the experts. In short what you claim here, is provably untrue. I note you said the same about Charles Harrelson. Even Harrelson himself is on record as "amazed" with the resemblance. Jack White, of all people, has no doubts either. But fortunately we have Mark Valenti, with his superb eyes and his "knowledge". Tell me , Mark, how long have you been in the JFK research business? You're pretty new on the block, aren't you? What spiked your sudden interest in the case? Have you gathered so much in so little time, or do you in fact know very little? Obviously, you have a lot to learn about Holt. I understand why you feel the need to promote this point of view, as well as directing as much traffic to your web site as possible. A classic! I was waiting for this smearing trick. It was only a matter of time. But none of that makes the Holt claim true. Look at the disconnect between Dankbaar and Jack White. One is convinced down to their bone marrow that the old tramp is Holt. The other believes with all his heart that the old tramp his Howard Hunt. Exactly my point about you. Emphasize disagreement, divide and conquer. How can this be? How can two intelligent people with powers of discernment come to such a different conclusion? You tell me. You said that the authorities mentioned the names of the tramps, so that is "close as we can get". That's like saying: With the Warren Commission we came as close as we can get. Since you seem to count yourself in the category of intelligent people, why did you not answer the question, whether your eyes tell you if Harold Doyle looks like the short tramp? Don't avoid the the question, just give me an intelligent answer, maybe you could add some details which facial features are consistent? It's because the available evidence is not conclusive. Therefore they rely on their judgement. And their judgement leads them to make subjective analysis. One guy says two plus two equals five, the other guy says two plus two equals six. I think they're both wrong. And that is as far as any of us can go until we have more pictures of all of these suspects. Sure. And Mark Valenti is right, because he has the FBI and Dallas police behind him. Well, Mark, most of us here agree that they are part of the problem , rather than the solution. Have you considered joining McAdams' newsgroup? He's still behind what they said right away. Osald killed Kenndey alone. You'll be welcomed there. Also , your theories about me pursuing hoaxes for monetary gain will fall into fertile ground there. And once again, Mr. Dankbaar, speaking of "Avoid answers, claim everything" - which Dallas cops believed the tramps were from the ATF? I did not avoid this question, look back and you'll know it. I gave you some homework to find the holes in their stories yourself. But it's no surprise you didn't want to take the trouble. But to answer once again: All of the "arresting" officers did, cause they were told so by the tramps. But they're not gonna tell you. They wanted to keep their job and pension. But since you want to rely on law enforcement so much, the FBI director himself said that Oswald killed Kennedy alone within two hours after it happened. You believed that too? Cause I don't know really where you are coming from regarding your take on the assassination. Why don't you tell us? Edited October 4, 2006 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Kelly - It's amazing how everybody was there. Have you ever met General Ed Lansdale? Holt - Ed Lansdale? He was originally brought in as one of the early planners for the Bay of Pigs, but he didn't think too much of the idea. So Bissell and those guys shipped him out to Southeast Asia. I saw him two or three times, but enough to recognize him. Kelly - Did you see him at Dealey Plaza? Holt - I tell you, I did see somebody at Dealey Plaza who looked a hell of a lot like him, but I couldn't be sure. In those pictures, you see one of those cops lagging so far behind that it was as if he wan't even with us. And as we walked by the Depository wall, there was somebody who was walking the other way who looked remarkably like Lansdale. I had seen him in the latter part of 1960, maybe early 1961, but I never saw a picture of him. Gary Shaw has a whole bunch of pictures of him and the funny thing about it is that he looks different in each one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John J. McCarthy Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I know it because I can see it with my own eyes. This is not an attempt to divide and conquer, that's silly. This is just me looking at your claim (which you have not addressed yet about the police believing the tramps were ATF agents) and recognizing it as bogus.Mark, guys like you make me chuckle. No relation to Jack Valenti, have you? I knew that your "knowledge" was based on your own eyes. Maybe you should consider stronger glasses? Any rational, logical, objective person can look at the photo of Chauncey Holt from 1963 and know immediately and without reservation that he is not the older tramp in the photos. It's indisputable to anyone without a financial stake in the situation. Well, I guess there are a lot of people then , not as rational and objective as you, including the experts. In short what you claim here, is provably untrue. I note you said the same about Charles Harrelson. Even Harrelson himself is on record as "amazed" with the resemblance. Jack White, of all people, has no doubts either. But fortunately we have Mark Valenti, with his superb eyes and his "knowledge". Tell me , Mark, how long have you been in the JFK research business? You're pretty new on the block, aren't you? What spiked your sudden interest in the case? Have you gathered so much in so little time, or do you in fact know very little? Obviously, you have a lot to learn about Holt. I understand why you feel the need to promote this point of view, as well as directing as much traffic to your web site as possible. A classic! I was waiting for this smearing trick. It was only a matter of time. But none of that makes the Holt claim true. Look at the disconnect between Dankbaar and Jack White. One is convinced down to their bone marrow that the old tramp is Holt. The other believes with all his heart that the old tramp his Howard Hunt. Exactly my point about you. Emphasize disagreement, divide and conquer. How can this be? How can two intelligent people with powers of discernment come to such a different conclusion? You tell me. You said that the authorities mentioned the names of the tramps, so that is "close as we can get". That's like saying: With the Warren Commission we came as close as we can get. Since you seem to count yourself in the category of intelligent people, why did you not answer the question, whether your eyes tell you if Harold Doyle looks like the short tramp? Don't avoid the the question, just give me an intelligent answer, maybe you could add some details which facial features are consistent? It's because the available evidence is not conclusive. Therefore they rely on their judgement. And their judgement leads them to make subjective analysis. One guy says two plus two equals five, the other guy says two plus two equals six. I think they're both wrong. And that is as far as any of us can go until we have more pictures of all of these suspects. Sure. And Mark Valenti is right, because he has the FBI and Dallas police behind him. Well, Mark, most of us here agree that they are part of the problem , rather than the solution. Have you considered joining McAdams' newsgroup? He's still behind what they said right away. Osald killed Kenndey alone. You'll be welcomed there. Also , your theories about me pursuing hoaxes for monetary gain will fall into fertile ground there. And once again, Mr. Dankbaar, speaking of "Avoid answers, claim everything" - which Dallas cops believed the tramps were from the ATF? I did not avoid this question, look back and you'll know it. I gave you some homework to find the holes in their stories yourself. But it's no surprise you didn't want to take the trouble. But to answer once again: All of the "arresting" officers did, cause they were told so by the tramps. But they're not gonna tell you. They wanted to keep their job and pension. But since you want to rely on law enforcement so much, the FBI director himself said that Oswald killed Kennedy alone within two hours after it happened. You believed that too? Cause I don't know really where you are coming from regarding your take on the assassination. Why don't you tell us? "One is convinced down to their bone marrow that the old tramp is Holt. The other believes with all his heart that the old tramp his Howard Hunt." There is one person, for sure, who could ID a number of the 'tramps'......G Gordon LIddy. Can someone in the DC area call him and get his opinion? (Keep in mind, Liddy states that the reason for the Watergate break-in was to get the list of hookers from Larry O'Brien's desk which contained the name of Noreen (Dean). So if you think that is unfathomable, you may not find any veracity in his ID of the 'tramps'. Bests, John McCarthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Johansson Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I would be curious to know how many members, apart from Jack White and AJ Weberman, still believe that Howard Hunt is the tramp with the hat??? Would they please step forward? I have the same question about Frank Sturgis. Who believes he was the tall blond tramp? Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I believe that Prouty has stated the man walking away is Lansdale. This was confirmed by some of his associates , who also knew Landsdale. Prouty further stated " forget the tramps" they are actors" The important thing is that it has been established that Edward Landsale was in Dallas that afternoon. Edward Lansdale, lifetime spook and a man with more than an ax to grind with JFK. I remember the first time I saw this id by Prouty being very convinced. Prouty knew Lansdale well and would certainly recognize him, even from the back. FWIT I always thought the old tramp resembled Hunt more than anyone else, and now that his at- home with -the -kids alibi has been totally disolved one has to wonder ... Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Well, I guess there are a lot of people then , not as rational and objective as you, including the experts. In short what you claim here, is provably untrue. I note you said the same about Charles Harrelson. Even Harrelson himself is on record as "amazed" with the resemblance. Jack White, of all people, has no doubts either. But fortunately we have Mark Valenti, with his superb eyes and his "knowledge". Tell me , Mark, how long have you been in the JFK research business? You're pretty new on the block, aren't you? What spiked your sudden interest in the case? Have you gathered so much in so little time, or do you in fact know very little? Obviously, you have a lot to learn about Holt. A third-grader could look at the old tramp and judge that it's not Holt. How long does one have to be "in the JFK research business" to see the difference between orange and blue? It's not him, and shouting it from the roof won't make it so. Trot out tearful video interviews with the poor guy, cobble tangential facts together, but you can't transform that smelly old tramp into your guy. A classic! I was waiting for this smearing trick. It was only a matter of time. It's worth noting that there are dozens of JFK related web sites in the world but you're the only one with the hubris to create one called "jfkmurdersolved." You may have balls the size of Indiana but that doesn't mean your theories are true. It's not a smear, Mr. Dankbaar. Since you've been allowed to begin posting here again you have directed traffic to your site many times. That's a fact. And I don't see anything wrong with that - but in the interest of full disclosure it's worth noting. Your site sells lots of JFK murder merchandise, that's your business. You're entitled to make a profit on your investments. But to call that reference a smear? Don't be ridiculous. It's commerce, plain and simple. You tell me. You said that the authorities mentioned the names of the tramps, so that is "close as we can get". That's like saying: With the Warren Commission we came as close as we can get. Since you seem to count yourself in the category of intelligent people, why did you not answer the question, whether your eyes tell you if Harold Doyle looks like the short tramp? Don't avoid the the question, just give me an intelligent answer, maybe you could add some details which facial features are consistent? The mouth is similar and so are the ears. But decades of aging, who knows if he gained and lost weight, sun damage to skin, whatever, prevent a precise ID. You can't match the faces perfectly without incremental photos through the years. As I said before, you can make a judgement call, as many have done, but you won't know without more pictures. You could probably find pictures of yourself as a child that don't resemble yourself now - and that tramp is not Chauncey Holt no matter how many times you repeat it. Sure. And Mark Valenti is right, because he has the FBI and Dallas police behind him. Well, Mark, most of us here agree that they are part of the problem , rather than the solution. Have you considered joining McAdams' newsgroup? He's still behind what they said right away. Osald killed Kenndey alone. You'll be welcomed there. Also , your theories about me pursuing hoaxes for monetary gain will fall into fertile ground there. Are you saying I'm not welcome here? Weird. I did not avoid this question, look back and you'll know it. I gave you some homework to find the holes in their stories yourself. But it's no surprise you didn't want to take the trouble. But to answer once again: All of the "arresting" officers did, cause they were told so by the tramps. But they're not gonna tell you. They wanted to keep their job and pension. But since you want to rely on law enforcement so much, the FBI director himself said that Oswald killed Kennedy alone within two hours after it happened. You believed that too? Cause I don't know really where you are coming from regarding your take on the assassination. Why don't you tell us? Actually you did avoid the question. You posted a brazen theory without citation. As any interested observer might, I asked you where you got the information. You basically told me to find out for myself where you got your information from. That's a neat trick. I can suggest that UFOs killed JFK, and if you ask me for proof, I can tell you to go find it yourself. Cool. Okay, UFO's killed Kennedy. Now you go prove it. For what it's worth, based on the evidence I've studied for over twenty years, I believe: There was a conspiracy to kill JFK. The Warren Report is, at times, criminally negligent and proactively full of disinformation. LHO did not act alone. There were at least two shooters. LHO's background was full of espionage with one or more government agencies. Some documents and some medical evidence may have been altered or fudged. The Secret Service did not perform their duties that day, either by negligence or participation. The FBI had foreknowledge of an assassination attempt. etc. etc. Have a lucky day. MV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now