Wim Dankbaar Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 So now I have to contact Monk and Fetz myself to backup a false claim that YOU put forward? Sorry Jack, but is doesn't work that way. If you can't backup such an easy claim from people that can be contacted easily, then don't make them, and if you do, retract them. For I might take you up on it and indeed call Fetzer or Burnham and post here what they said. I could also email you their numbers if you lost them. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Which interview? The one that Thom Hartmann did? I have only the 2nd part. You should ask Waldron or him for the rest. To me they have not responded thusfar. I have access to 3 video interviews with Holt and 2 or 3 more transcripts of other interviews with him. I dare to assure you that any person with a brain and some knowledge of the case, will understand that Chauncey Holt was not "charming conman" as Jack White wants us to believe. Why Jack wants to claim that, I have no clear idea, nor do I really care. Why he is spreading false information about Holt, like that Holt claimed he is in the Barryand boys photo, is something I condemn. I was told that Jack is also in possession of the "overlays" of known pictures of Holt over the tramps photos. Friends beg me to post them, but I have no permission to do so. But Jack has them also. Bill Kelly did one interview with Chauncey and transcribed another. Maybe you should ask him what he thinks of Holt. James Fetzer, a friend of Jack white, is fully convinced of Holt's veracity. The difference is ofcourse, that Fetz knew and met with Chauncey. Same goes for John R. Craig, Gary Shaw and Lois Gibson, the forensic facial expert end composite sketch artist for the Houston PD. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm The most persuasive interview is the one with his daughter, 9 hours, in the knowledge he has not long to live. Also, I am in the dark as to why Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron claim that Holt is a xxxx, although it's easy to jump to a speculative more sinister reason. I challenge them to make the rest of their Holt interview available. Holt did not plan on dying at the age he did, and what he left behind has never been properly published. When it would be, everyone would understand a lot more, for example why Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch enjoy the protection they enjoy. Wim I do not know what you mean re: "I was told that Jack is also in possession of the "overlays" of known pictures of Holt over the tramps photos. Friends beg me to post them, but I have no permission to do so. But Jack has them also. " I will be glad to post anything I have on Holt. Karyn provided numerous photos hoping they would show her father's veracity. I was sorry to disappoint her, because she sincerely believes her father's tales. If I ever have time to look thru storage boxes, I will look for the several long letters Chauncey mailed me trying to prove his bonafides. I wrote him back requesting photos of him from the period, and he said he had none. However, Karyn provided many. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Which interview? The one that Thom Hartmann did? I have only the 2nd part. You should ask Waldron or him for the rest. To me they have not responded thusfar. I have access to 3 video interviews with Holt and 2 or 3 more transcripts of other interviews with him. I dare to assure you that any person with a brain and some knowledge of the case, will understand that Chauncey Holt was not "charming conman" as Jack White wants us to believe. Why Jack wants to claim that, I have no clear idea, nor do I really care. Why he is spreading false information about Holt, like that Holt claimed he is in the Barryand boys photo, is something I condemn. I was told that Jack is also in possession of the "overlays" of known pictures of Holt over the tramps photos. Friends beg me to post them, but I have no permission to do so. But Jack has them also. Bill Kelly did one interview with Chauncey and transcribed another. Maybe you should ask him what he thinks of Holt. James Fetzer, a friend of Jack white, is fully convinced of Holt's veracity. The difference is ofcourse, that Fetz knew and met with Chauncey. Same goes for John R. Craig, Gary Shaw and Lois Gibson, the forensic facial expert end composite sketch artist for the Houston PD. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm The most persuasive interview is the one with his daughter, 9 hours, in the knowledge he has not long to live. Also, I am in the dark as to why Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron claim that Holt is a xxxx, although it's easy to jump to a speculative more sinister reason. I challenge them to make the rest of their Holt interview available. Holt did not plan on dying at the age he did, and what he left behind has never been properly published. When it would be, everyone would understand a lot more, for example why Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch enjoy the protection they enjoy. Wim I do not know what you mean re: "I was told that Jack is also in possession of the "overlays" of known pictures of Holt over the tramps photos. Friends beg me to post them, but I have no permission to do so. But Jack has them also. " I will be glad to post anything I have on Holt. Karyn provided numerous photos hoping they would show her father's veracity. I was sorry to disappoint her, because she sincerely believes her father's tales. If I ever have time to look thru storage boxes, I will look for the several long letters Chauncey mailed me trying to prove his bonafides. I wrote him back requesting photos of him from the period, and he said he had none. However, Karyn provided many. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) Jack, sorry to say, but you are of no importance to prove Holt's bonafides. In fact, I don't care much what you say or think about him. It's possible that you didn't watch the overlays because you dont know how to use a media player. That's the excuse you had the last time, I asked you about it. I posted one of them here 2 years ago or so, much to Karyn's dismay. Maybe someone wants to retrieve it? Wim Edited September 27, 2006 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) Wim, I think you should edit that last remark before someone starts a webpage investigating your "potty mouth." You disputed some of Jack's findings the other day. It's not at all surprising that he is now disputing one of yours. Can't we aLL just get along? Edited September 27, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Ok, Pat, you got it. Toned it down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Smith Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) I lean toward it being Holt. He looks a lot like the tramp in the photo, in my opinon. Edited September 27, 2006 by Brian Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Jack, sorry to say, but you are of no importance to prove Holt's bonafides. In fact, I don't care much what you say or think about him. It's possible that you didn't watch the overlays because you dont know how to use a media player. That's the excuse you had the last time, I asked you about it. I posted one of them here 2 years ago or so, much to Karyn's dismay. Maybe someone wants to retrieve it? Wim I have no idea what overlays you refer to. What media player are you referring to? You talk in riddles. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) So now I have to contact Monk and Fetz myself to backup a false claim that YOU put forward? Sorry Jack, but is doesn't work that way. If you can't backup such an easy claim from people that can be contacted easily, then don't make them, and if you do, retract them. For I might take you up on it and indeed call Fetzer or Burnham and post here what they said. I could also email you their numbers if you lost them. Wim Wim...you will be pleased to know that Monk now "does not recall" his postings re the "boys" photo. I remember them well, and he used the file name HOLT_BOYS: "Hi Jack, I don't recall the context of the discussion to which you refer. I don't recall saying categorically that anyone in the picture was indeed HOLT. Perhaps I commented that Chauncey was very masterful at disguise and, if necessary, couild have adopted such an appearance. For clarity, I don't know who is in this photo. If I came across as making a positive identification, I apologize. GO_SECURE monk" Though the discussion went on for several weeks, we have to go with what Monk says. The attached comparison is one that I used during the discussions...on 10/20/02. Jack Edited September 27, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I think that the older tramp was Chauncey Holt disguised as E. Howard Hunt. Or vice versa. Either way, he used the alias Gus Abrams. Or . . . Now I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I think that the older tramp was Chauncey Holt disguised as E. Howard Hunt. Or vice versa. Either way, he used the alias Gus Abrams. Or . . . Now I'm confused. I think Holt was a criminal who had some CIA connections and a role in the murder, but just happened to resemble the head of 1963 CIA domestic operations E.Howard Hunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Question for Wim. Karyn appears to be about four in this picture of her with her very young father. What year would that be? He looks much too young to be the OLD tramp. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Hi, Just my two cents, don't mean to jump on anyones toes! The old tramp looks like he is about 60. Holt was what? About 40 then.... There is some similarity, but IMO not Holt. One little detail, about the Barry and the boys photo. The fellow in Jacks photo comparison images does not look like Holt (IMO), and has his partition combed to the right. In the photo with Holt and daughter it is combed to the left. Also on Wim's jfkmurdersolved page on the three tramps and Chauncey Holt's photo, probably several years later, it is on the left. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois3.htm ....bottom of page.... Assuming none of the images are flipped, the hair style doesn't match. Sure this is easy to change! Let us ask ourselves, how likely is it that one would have changed something of this nature...? Perhaps some of you have access to more photos and can make more comparisons....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Choor Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 ...Perhaps I commented that Chauncey was very masterful at disguise and, if necessary, couild have adopted such an appearance... I think this is a very important sentence Jack, because indeed Holt was a master at diguise! Gr. Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 (edited) "Hi Jack, I don't recall the context of the discussion to which you refer. I don't recall saying categorically that anyone in the picture was indeed HOLT. Perhaps I commented that Chauncey was very masterful at disguise and, if necessary, couild have adopted such an appearance. For clarity, I don't know who is in this photo. If I came across as making a positive identification, I apologize. GO_SECURE monk" Jack, that's mighty sportive of you. I guess we don't have to ask Fetzer anymore, to disprove your claim that Holt ever said he was the moustached guy in the Barry & the Boys picture. Antti observed sharply he doesn't look like Holt and that the hair style doesn't match either That's because it is not Holt and Holt never said it was him. I agree that Holt looks to have more wrinkles on the tramp photos. That's because of the harsh lighting, the sun was out, squeezing his eyes causing more wrinkles, and because he was worn out and worried about being detained. He had been driving the Oldsmobile with 3 passengers (Nicoletti, Moceri and Canty) for over 24 hours with no sleep. Plus he had been awake since arrival early that morning. He said they had to stop twice, once for car trouble and once for a sandstorm that took the paint of the car. This was checked against the weather reports of 11/21/1963 and found to be true for El Paso (West Texas). The ear of the tramp is an exact match for Holt's ear. Try that with Hunt. Holt also had a distinctive walk with his lower legs and feet somewhat tilted to the outside. That walk is recognised here: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/slide/DSC00080.JPG I do not know if Holt was a master of disguise, I have never heard or seen evidence for that. I do know that he did his best to avoid the camera and when he couldn't he drew a face in order not to be recognised. In this picture he looks like he can't hold his xxxx: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/tramps.jpg See his explanation here: When the photographs were being taken, I attempted to conceal myself behind Harrelson or Montoya, who actually changed places once. The difference in the demeanors of Harrelson and Montoya was evident to me. Montoya was noticeably apprehensive and hustled along, while Harrelson seemed almost to be amused and moved in a leisurely manner. Twice I was successful in avoiding the cameras. On one occasion I purposely distorted my face so that I would not be recognizable in the photographs. The last thing in the world that a criminal—and this includes contract agents for the govern- ment—wants is to have his photograph taken, much less in compromising situations. This was drilled into me by Meyer Lanksy during the days of Bugsy Siegel and Mickey Cohen, two ostentatious, publicity-hungry thugs who were both criticized derisively by Lansky. Al Capone was another gangster who was pointed out as an example. On the other hand, Lansky always admired Johnny Torrio, pointing out that everyone had heard of Big Al but the public was barely aware of Johnny Torrio. To be successful in crime—according to Lansky—the criminal must be as invisible as the wallpaper. That is why Lansky drove a Chevrolet and bought his clothes from the rack. Edited September 28, 2006 by Wim Dankbaar 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