Jack White Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 Some photos show a metal shed west of the TSBD which is about two-thirds the height of the auto doorway to the east. One of the tramp photos shows no such shed, but something very small, only about a fourth of the size of the auto door. This cannot be an effect of perspective, in my opinion. Something seems wrong here. Opinions invited. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 (edited) Some photos show a metal shed west of the TSBD which is abouttwo-thirds the height of the auto doorway to the east. One of the tramp photos shows no such shed, but something very small, only about a fourth of the size of the auto door. This cannot be an effect of perspective, in my opinion. Something seems wrong here. Opinions invited. Jack Jack, I have been searching for a very long time for something like this, and I regard it as being of major importance. It looks to me as though DPD officers have rigged a temporary screen to prevent spectators from seeing what was happening on the west side of the building. There appears to be a police cruiser parked alongside with a DPD officer standing nearby, while another officer armed with a rifle is standing in the background facing the crowd. Keeping people well away and moving along would be logical , if indeed what we are seeing is a temporary screen which was erected to prevent people from seeing what was taking place at that particular time. If you refer to the attached picture, you will see that I have posed three questions. The one about the walkway is based on Malcom Couch's statement to Belin concerning the pool of blood as follows: Mr. COUCH - That's right; that's right. It's there that I saw blood on the sidewalk. Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you say you saw blood on the sidewalk, Mr. Couch? Mr. COUCH - That's right. Mr. BELIN - Where was that? Mr. COUCH - This was the little walkway - steps and walkway that leads up to the corner, the west corner, the southwest corner of the book Depository Building. Another little sidewalk, as I recall, turns west and forms that little parkway and archway right next to the Book Depository Building. Mr. BELIN - Did this appear to be freshly created blood? Mr. COUCH - Yes; right. Mr. BELIN - About how large was this spot of blood that you saw? Mr. COUCH - Uh - from 8 to 10 inches in diameter. Mr. BELIN - Did people around there say how it happened to get there, or not? Mr. COUCH - No; no one knew. People were watching it - that is watching it carefully and walking and pointing to it. Uh - just as I ran up, policemen ran around the west corner and ran - uh - northward on the side of the building. And my first impression was that - uh - that they had chased someone out of the building around that corner, or possibly they had wounded someone. All of those policemen had their pistols pulled. And people were pointing back around those shrubs and that west corner and - uh - you would think that there was a chase going on in that direction. Again, the reason that I didn't follow was because A.J. had come up, and my first concern was to get back with the President. Mr. BELIN - This pool of blood - about how far would it have been north of the curbline of Elm Street as Elm Street goes under the expressway? Mr. COUCH - I'd say - uh - well, from Elm Street, you mean, itself? Mr. BELIN - Yes. This is from that part of Elm Street that goes into the expressway? Mr. COUCH - I'd say - uh - 50 to 60 feet, and about 10 to 15 feet from the corner of the Texas Depository Building. Mr. BELIN - It would be somewhere along that park area there? Mr. COUCH - Right. Mr. BELIN - Was there anything else you noticed by this pool of blood? Mr. COUCH - No. There were no objects on the ground. We looked for something. We thought there would be something else, but - Mr. BELIN - There was nothing? Mr. COUCH - Huh -uh. In the above, Couch appears to be describing a walkway on the west side of the building, and the blood pool on it near the SW corner . After considering Couch's testimony, would you please mark 'X' on the location where he said he saw the blood. My second question is about the location of the TSBD's mailing/shipping facility. As I recall, it was on the west side of the building and either on the ground floor or in the basement. Have I marked it's location correctly or not on the picture.? Lastly, If the mailing/shipping room was located where I think it was , and very close to the railway siding, it would have been directly exposed to sunlight coming in from the south-west and later in the day directly from the west. Halfway down the side of the west wall of the building ( annex?) there appears to have been a canvas -type of awning attached to shade from the sun. I think that the DPD officers removed a section of it, swung it around and attached it to a wooden frame ( see the left side) to screen off the area. As I said , I have been looking for this kind of information to assist in supporting a few suggestions I have put together to explain why Couch saw the pool of blood. I'll go into that aspect later when I get your reaction to the foregoing, and also, hopefully, hear the views of other interested subscribers. Edited May 7, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) As I said , I have been looking for this kind of information to assist in supporting a few suggestions I have put together to explain why Couch saw the pool of blood. I'll go into that aspect later when I get your reaction to the foregoing, and also, hopefully, hear the views of other interested subscribers. Information provided by Couch 37 years later, did not square with what he told Belin ( see previous post) . Moreover, in reading the text of Belin's questions, one gets the distinct impression that he is steering Couch's narration away from the TSBD location and out towards the middle of Elm St. I believe that Couch saw the pool of blood right where I have marked X on the picture attached below, but it was not at the time he stated. I think there's a good possibility that after leaving Parkland Hospital, he returned to Dealey Plaza and the TSBD location specifically. After all, he certainly claimed to have seen a rifle being pointed through an open TSBD window. Surely he would have wanted to follow-up on that aspect , since quite obviously he had no time to do so during the assassination and then immediately rushing away to Parkland. Now, why I think Jack White's picture is so important is that he brought to light a very curious and most important anomaly. It's quite obvious from the pictures which he posted that his observation is correct. The fact that he interpreted it as being a metal shed is inconsequential. What is important is that he was able to show that the 'shed' did not appear in the earlier picture of the three 'tramps' being escorted along the front of the TSBD. In the next picture I have brightened the area in the bottom left corner of Jack's picture. This is what comes into view: Look on the right and track your eyes towards the bottom right corner. This image looks like a man who is grasping a horizontal push- bar, quite similar to the handle of a lawnmover, but much wider and more robust looking. I suspect that the handle is attached to a low, flat type of cart which was used in the mailing/shipping room to transport boxes and crates of books out to the loading dock . Look carefuly at the white rectangular area. To me that appears to be a crate being hoisted onto the back of a tow-truck. The truck is not visible, but its extended hoisting arm is. On top of the crate there is depicted the image ofa man attaching a hook on the end of a chain to the lifting sling which is in the process of being deployed to encircle the crate prior to lifting it onto the back of the truck. Here are two views of a 1947 Dodge tow-truck: Notice that the chain with the attached hook hangs over a metal bar which joins the two arms of the hoist, and which is set back from the end. Similarly this also appears to be the case when we look at the sling being hooked to the chain. The final picture shows that the angle of the hoisting arm to the ground in both pictures is identical. What appears to be a bend in the superimposed line is due to the trucks being photographed not quite parallel: That's how I see it. It's significance, however, would require a considerable amount of discussion, a great deal of which would indubitably not sit too well with those who like to believe that the HSCA was validating what they already knew , namely that a shot was fired from the GK which struck JFK in the head. What the HSCA was doing was ensuring that the CT community would be kept running in circles for years to come. It sure worked! Edited May 16, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) My previous post, #3 in this thread, although it is viewable is not being listed for some reason or other... probably my error. Scroll upward and it's right there. Edited May 16, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) What is important is that he was able to show that the 'shed' did not appear in the earlier picture of the three 'tramps' being escorted along the front of the TSBD. The photo showing the shed was taken by Jim Murray only a few minutes after the assassination. The tramp photo was taken a couple of hours later. In comparing the two photos, it certainly looks like the shed in Murray's photo was removed by the time the tramp photo was taken. Compare the version below of the tramp photo. Did someone deliberately obliterate everything around and behind the second cop? For what purpose? Edited May 16, 2006 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 17, 2006 Author Share Posted May 17, 2006 What is important is that he was able to show that the 'shed' did not appear in the earlier picture of the three 'tramps' being escorted along the front of the TSBD. The photo showing the shed was taken by Jim Murray only a few minutes after the assassination. The tramp photo was taken a couple of hours later. In comparing the two photos, it certainly looks like the shed in Murray's photo was removed by the time the tramp photo was taken. Compare the version below of the tramp photo. Did someone deliberately obliterate everything around and behind the second cop? For what purpose? Ed and Ron evidently missed this aerial pic I posted last week. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 So if the shed slants off at an angle from the building, that explains why it's not visible in the tramp photo. Then what was the point of starting this thread about a "mystery"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 17, 2006 Author Share Posted May 17, 2006 So if the shed slants off at an angle from the building, that explains why it's not visible in the tramp photo. Then what was the point of starting this thread about a "mystery"? Ron...isn't it clear? About two weeks ago, I thought it was a "mystery". I could not figure it out. Then I searched my computer and found the aerial that showed the building was at an angle. The mystery is now solved. Why isn't that clear? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) So if the shed slants off at an angle from the building, that explains why it's not visible in the tramp photo. Then what was the point of starting this thread about a "mystery"? The shed is visible in the tramp photo if one knows what to look for. Bill Miller Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) Ed and Ron evidently missed this aerial pic I posted last week.Jack Not so, Jack. The above picture was posted as part of my response following the opening of the thread. I removed it only to-day to make room for other pictures. It still looks to me that it was a screen which was erected to prevent spectators for seeing what was going on behind it. Take a closer look : It looks quite similar to a heavy curtain rod which is equipped with spaced rings from which the curtain has been suspended . Further, the area above the rail looks to me as having been 'doctored' to conceal the images of policemen who were standing behind the fence. For what it's worth, that's my best attempt at an explanation. Also, I would have expected that by this time someone would have challenged me about the accuracy of my claim of perceiving a large crate being hoisted , etc. At times the CT community reminds one of medical research, inasmuch as what it cannot explain it very conveniently disregards. Edited May 17, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 A. It does look like a temporary screen on a rod. B. The angle is such that it would not be visible in the tramps photo. C. So - Why was a small angled screen in place the afternoon of the assassination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) A. It does look like a temporary screen on a rod.B. The angle is such that it would not be visible in the tramps photo. C. So - Why was a small angled screen in place the afternoon of the assassination? A. It isn't a screen on a rod. It is a sunlit metal roof with a shadow under its overhang because of the angle to the sun arounf the lunch hour. B. That statement makes no sense because the east end of the shed is seen in the tramp photo. Part of the west end of the shed is missing from the tramp photo because the photo cropped it off. C. Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 A. It does look like a temporary screen on a rod. B. The angle is such that it would not be visible in the tramps photo. C. So - Why was a small angled screen in place the afternoon of the assassination? A. It isn't a screen on a rod. It is a sunlit metal roof with a shadow under its overhang because of the angle to the sun arounf the lunch hour. B. That statement makes no sense because the east end of the shed is seen in the tramp photo. Part of the west end of the shed is missing from the tramp photo because the photo cropped it off. C. So I give up Bill ........ you are always right and I am always wrong ....... sorry for participating in your world ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 So if the shed slants off at an angle from the building, that explains why it's not visible in the tramp photo. Then what was the point of starting this thread about a "mystery"? The shed is visible in the tramp photo if one knows what to look for. Bill Miller Lets look again. There is a shoulder high fence that extends straight back from the building, this is visible in both photos. The temporary screen angles back away from the low fence and is not visible in the Tramp Photo... and it appears to be strung on temporary rods ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) Lets look again. There is a shoulder high fence that extends straight back from the building, this is visible in both photos. The temporary screen angles back away from the low fence and is not visible in the Tramp Photo... and it appears to be strung on temporary rods ......... Shanet, it is not a crime to be perspectively inept, so don't take offense when I tell you that the top of the shed only looks shoulder high because the camera in the tramp photos was taken from a position lower than the tramps upper bodies and as taught in any art class ... things in a photo all run to a vanishing point. It's called "perspective". You don't think someone hung a backdrop in the photo below because Altgens looks as tall as a lamppost - do you? And don't be so hard on yourself for always being wrong - it shows consistency! Bill Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller 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