The Southern Half of Dealey Plaza

[John Dolva]

Thank you William, by laboriously making sure of correct understanding, one can,, in a sense step into the picture and follow the rest of what you have to say. One may have a rudimentary appreciation of directions and structure locations, sound, what can be seen from that area, and so on. At least without some nagging questions.

The last post there clarified much and I realise I made some perhaps understandable but really somewhat daft assumptions that you were saying that you were standing there since the headshot. You are in fact saying that there is where you were when the picture was taken which happens to be different from where you were when the headshot occurred.

I think there is enough clarity there now.

Did you see anything that could be described as someone on a bike going past. Also at the spot where Jim saw a sniper, when you were going from the incline on to the parking lot area, did you see a tire, rubbish, car parts or something like that near the corner? I've got a lot of questions along that line which perhaps are answered and more elsewhere. Links and titles etc would be good. What would you recommend?

Also can you or Peter say how big the original was compared to the usual cropped one?

And yes, it would be good If Peter could outline the basic descriptions so one knows what to look for, and particularly out of the ordinary identifiers. Thank you.

[John Dolva]

Rather than starting a new topic on the photos, having established a description of location...moving on:

I figure that's Cancellare at the sign and judging by the motor cycle locations, the color photo is taken just before Cancellare took his.

Some areas are less photographed than others.

Or should that be 'the photographs of some areas are curiously absent'. Of those areas, those showing the area around the steps of the south knoll where William 'Tosh' Plumlee stood are just about non exoistent.

The one that does exist, has gone through intrigue and what exists, or is available today, is close to useless, except as indicator.

This is strange.

One of the other photographers appears to be filming in the direction of the south knoll. Who is he and where are his films/photo's

Edited June 16, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

The top outline here is the extent of coverage of the area, by Zapruder.

The Zapruder panorama is modified so that the various parts match the Cancellare. What I mean is that the top outline and the area of the slope at the south knoll is matched to the Cancellare. Because the Zapruder film (zfilm) is taken from a different location, different things line up, so I sliced off the cars on the lane of Commerce closest to the camera and shifted it along to match the cars on the Cancellare, similarly the edges of Main and Elm.

This is just to 'heighten realism' as the purpose was to see whether the film could be used to verify Williams statements. Unfortunately the coverage excludes this.

Anyway, It's nice to get a color on the cars.

[John Dolva]

without color it's difficult to know if it's just sunspots on the grass. Suggestive of something though.

What's the illuminated diagonal line and the apparent shadow line under it?

Edited June 18, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

"John, look just to the left of the area you enhanced/enlarged and you will see what look like legs.

Peter"

Peter, this highlights the importance of high res. images. The cropped area, which is the area you mention, is so coarse that it's impossible to say anything except, this pixel is lighter than that one. Whereas the good copy is fine enough to pick out such things as the eye area of the guy standing by the truck. Most unforunate.

There are some curious outlines, like the diagonal line which if identified woud help, particularly if by William.

The vertical line in the centre here is the line of the crop.

[William Plumlee]

"John, look just to the left of the area you enhanced/enlarged and you will see what look like legs.

Peter"

Peter, this highlights the importance of high res. images. The cropped area, which is the area you mention, is so coarse that it's impossible to say anything except, this pixel is lighter than that one. Whereas the good copy is fine enough to pick out such things as the eye area of the guy standing by the truck. Most unforunate.

There are some curious outlines, like the diagonal line which if identified woud help, particularly if by William.

The vertical line in the centre here is the line of the crop.

"... There are some curious outlines, like the diagonal line which if identified woud help, particularly if by William. ...

The vertical line in the centre here is the line of the crop....".

John: Perhaps this Email to Pete might help you in some way.

"...Pete: I was told (after you and Jim and I talked about this photo and the location) in 1999 or there abouts that I was wrong about where I was standing because a sidewalk railing was there and I would have been standing on it. I do not remember any such railing. Some years later when the light post were realigned it was said by the city of Dallas street crew who had done this work that the "Railing" (indicating one) had been removed. When I talked with Wilson he also asked me "How far from the iron Railing were we standing") I told him I did not think there was a railing. He told me I was wrong that there was a railing and IF is was really there I would remember the railing. The way he said it pissed me off. I to this day do not remember a railing at this location next to the side walk. I sent a letter to the Dallas Street Department and they could not recall removing a railing However they said that none of the personal who worked during that time frame were still employed. I was told they would try and find out if their records mentioned any removed iron railing support at the south knoll sidewalk. This was done after you and Marrs and I were no longer working together. I decided to not work on the JFK matter ever again around this time. Shortly after this I was publicly discredited by a host of so called researchers and half witts. ...".

[John Dolva]

When trying to match a contemporary with the cancellare in order to get an idea exactly where the area in question is in relation to everything else. The photo's are from different locations so the street angles are different when matching on the vertical. Is this where the steps are (were?)

it looks to me that the steps are as indicated. So while a handrail would explain the diagonal line, why a handrail there?

There are many interesting shapes in that area.

Edited June 18, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

OK. My 'unfortunate' is a irony(?). Meaning much as you put it "makes one wonder".

I got the images from the sites listed earler oin this topic. I think William posted a link to the 'uncropped one', and I the link to the cropped high res one. Please do send me a copy of the best you come across. Pref as a bitmap (filename.BMP). No enhancements etc just as is. yanndee@yahoo.co.uk

Perhaps if Jack has worked on this in the past he can supply a copy of the best he has? It would be so much appreciated.

___________________

The face and body below it appears to me to have characteristics of a shaved, young man, slimish, upright or erect carriage, what I mean is his head isn't slumped into his trunk, but carried aloft as a young health athletic type person might, dark hair, no hat , sungalsses. Was one of the two like this? The clothes appear dark with a tie and lighter shirt? Possibly not a 'suit' coat. It may also be sun spots, but it has interesting characteristics such as one may expect a three dimensional object such as a head has as far as illiumination from a source to the rear but slightly to the side. One particul;arly note worhty thing is how the background pattern appears broken by this 'shape' as if it is in front of the background.

[William Plumlee]

OK. My 'unfortunate' is a irony(?). Meaning much as you put it "makes one wonder".

I got the images from the sites listed earler oin this topic. I think William posted a link to the 'uncropped one', and I the link to the cropped high res one. Please do send me a copy of the best you come across. Pref as a bitmap (filename.BMP). No enhancements etc just as is. yanndee@yahoo.co.uk

Perhaps if Jack has worked on this in the past he can supply a copy of the best he has? It would be so much appreciated.

___________________

The face and body below it appears to me to have characteristics of a shaved, young man, slimish, upright or erect carriage, what I mean is his head isn't slumped into his trunk, but carried aloft as a young health athletic type person might, dark hair, no hat , sungalsses. Was one of the two like this? The clothes appear dark with a tie and lighter shirt? Possibly not a 'suit' coat. It may also be sun spots, but it has interesting characteristics such as one may expect a three dimensional object such as a head has as far as illiumination from a source to the rear but slightly to the side. One particul;arly note worhty thing is how the background pattern appears broken by this 'shape' as if it is in front of the background.

John I have to ask: Where are all these so called photo experts? They seem to have an opinion on everthing else. They seem to want to hijack other threads with their words of whit and supper knowledge of photography and all other matters. What are they afraid off. The photo does not bite.

Thanks for the very good work you have done on this photo.

[William Plumlee]

OK. My 'unfortunate' is a irony(?). Meaning much as you put it "makes one wonder".

I got the images from the sites listed earler oin this topic. I think William posted a link to the 'uncropped one', and I the link to the cropped high res one. Please do send me a copy of the best you come across. Pref as a bitmap (filename.BMP). No enhancements etc just as is. yanndee@yahoo.co.uk

Perhaps if Jack has worked on this in the past he can supply a copy of the best he has? It would be so much appreciated.

___________________

The face and body below it appears to me to have characteristics of a shaved, young man, slimish, upright or erect carriage, what I mean is his head isn't slumped into his trunk, but carried aloft as a young health athletic type person might, dark hair, no hat , sungalsses. Was one of the two like this? The clothes appear dark with a tie and lighter shirt? Possibly not a 'suit' coat. It may also be sun spots, but it has interesting characteristics such as one may expect a three dimensional object such as a head has as far as illiumination from a source to the rear but slightly to the side. One particul;arly note worhty thing is how the background pattern appears broken by this 'shape' as if it is in front of the background.

John I have to ask: Where are all these so called photo experts? They seem to have an opinion on everthing else. They seem to want to hijack other threads with their words of whit and super knowledge of photography and all other matters. What are they afraid off? The photo does not bite.

Thanks for the very good work you have done on this photo.

From Jay Harrison's files 2002, Austin Texas Researcher: Reference a copy of a partial letter received from (XXXXX XXXX blocked by Jay) dated July 10th 1998:

"...an 8- by 10-inch enlargement of the Cancelara photo (the original negative) was given to me (XXX) on XXX) It apparently was held by the Dallas FBI and enlarged from the negative made by Lab tech. The paper guide was set to accommodated an 8- by 10-inch on special enlarged stock paper. The back of the photograph contains an impression from a rubber stamp identifying the receiving date as December 5, 1964. Texas Department of Public safety Lab review. The emulsion scratches and creases are again evidence that this is a first generation negative/print and was matched to other photographs taken by same camara on the same roll of film. Another copy of this print was obtained from Life Magazine who had purchase same in March of 1964. The two photographs are different in scope as one (the Life Magazine) has been croped and modified from orginal. ...".

fm John's post:

"... One particul;arly note worhty thing is how the background pattern appears broken by this 'shape' as if it is in front of the background. ..".

John:

This (the letter) is background information only. I hope it helps in tracking down the chain of events and orgin of

photo. I am not sure if Pete has this information, but I will email it to him. I just wanted to get it on record before this lead is contaminated. Jay has past away but one of his associates has all of his files and research material, I am told.

Edited June 19, 2006 by William Plumlee

[William Plumlee]

When trying to match a contemporary with the cancellare in order to get an idea exactly where the area in question is in relation to everything else. The photo's are from different locations so the street angles are different when matching on the vertical. Is this where the steps are (were?)

it looks to me that the steps are as indicated. So while a handrail would explain the diagonal line, why a handrail there?

There are many interesting shapes in that area.

" ... Is this where the steps are (were?) ...".

You are very close. the forked tree shadow needs to be moved closer to the steps (east about two inches. as pictured in photo) to establish proper distance and perspective from steps. ( we were standing approx 3 perhaps 5 feet west of steps) The distance from the steps to the tree shadow is not right. (keep in mind this is a hill and the steps lead down to the sidewalk.., thus 'sidewalk steps" or "steps down to the sidewalk near curb". Also note on your left clearer photo the steps appear to curve while in facts they are stright and have about two flat landings before you get down to the side walk. I do not know if this was changed (the cruve) or if its just photography. However you can see that there is not a curve in the overhead picture of 1963 previously posted on this thread.

Edited June 19, 2006 by William Plumlee

[William Plumlee]

OK. My 'unfortunate' is a irony(?). Meaning much as you put it "makes one wonder".

Thanks Peter: However, I think its time to put this puppy to bed. There is nobody in that photo. All the work done on it Pro or Con by experts or self proclaimed experts, means nothing . Whatever Plumlee has said about it is bull. We all know that. He was not there. Nobody is there. As to the "ABORT" story there is no proof so there is no need to look further into that. Who is this Plumlee and where does he come from? What right does he have to say anything about any of this. Why does he want to miss lead us? He must be CIA dis information. There is not one document that supports anything he says, or even hints that he knew any of the players. There is not even preponderance of any evidence that could even point in that direction that he was connected in some way. Why waste our time when we can better put it to naming the 33 plus CIA Agents and Operatives that have been prove to have been in the Plaza to watch the assassination. And too, there are others who saw the gun sticking out of the eleventh floor of the TSBD, by a black man with no hair. What about the Dallas Cop behind the fence with badge 40 and the trhee men standing next to him. Now that is a prove fact. You can read all about it everywhere in the books that have been written on the subject of the assassination. These Dallas CIA Agents and military people knew all the facts about that day. That's why they were there. We have the names and we have prove they were there. What can this Plumlee add to that? Plumlee was never CIA or Military Intell. There is nothing that proves beyond doubt that he ever served in the army or was in Central America or had any forum of connections to any of this. Why does he continue to jerk our chain. Some of us know that Oswald acted alone and had nothing to do with any government operations. That he was just a nut with a very low IQ. That has been prove way back in 1964. No its best to move on and not waste anymore of our time on this. In time Plumlee will just go away and we can get on with our real work at hand and not be diverted from the truth of that day. Don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up. Does anyone out there know of Jack Kaufman or Terry Richards, or Christine? They went to school with one of the players in the Kennedy assassination, can't remember who, but they went to watch the JFK killing because this person told them it was going to happen-- because Oswald told them ten days before, that he was going shoot Kennedy when he came to Dallas. I have this from a very reliable source who I can not name at this time. AND that is FACT.

No Pete.... its time to put it to rest and move on with life. As they say: "Frankly, my dear I don't give a damn".

Edited June 19, 2006 by William Plumlee

[Dawn Meredith]

Tosh

FWIW The very fact that J "verified" you to me back when I first joined this forum, taken together with

the PM's you and I did re where and how you and J first met PRE -jfk assassination (which J verified the next day on the phone after one question!) plus all the documentation you have put on this forum and elsewhere is proof that you are telling the truth.

I guess perhaps other memeber here don't have the kinds of solid proof I have- from our now- departed and formerly deep- cover researcher pal. (I never even said his last name publicly til the day he died-5/25/05).

So please continue...ignore your doubters. You know how many are out there TO spread disinformation.

They are on every forum, all over the net, on every tv station....run the press....

Keep on tuckin' dude; you have the respect of many more than you realize here.

Dawn

[William Plumlee]

"...Can you make some comments about gross physical features, of you and your partner? Shade of clothing, tie, hat, beard, sunglasses etc, please?

John:

At the time of the shots we were a little futher up the hill (ten feet) east and about at the steps. (south and east) of where the picture was taken) The picture was taken about 30 to 60 seconds after the shoots. We had walked down to the tree area to the right of the steps when the picture was taken. We continued along the hill toward the tripple underpass. We passed the man in the pick up and something was said like, " It looks bad", We crossed over the RR Tracks on the south side of the underpass and down the hill on the other side.

I will let Peter Lemkin, a member of this forum explain what I said as to what we were waring and how we were dressed, you if he will. This was all detailed to him and a photo expert many years ago. It became a matter of confirmation and I understand the details of what I told then was confirmed by sofeware photo analysas. However, Its best to let Pete explain this to you and others in detail if he would.

Thanks for your work on this. I hope I have been of some help to you and others.

fm previous post:

"... This was all detailed to him and a photo expert(tom Wilson) many years ago. It became a matter of confirmation and I understand the details of what I told then was confirmed by sofeware photo analysas. ..". (end)

(reply)

John: to the best of my memory without my notes and those of Wilson's and my conversations at the time with all parties involved, I have stated before the fact to Pete, Jim Marrs, Tom Wilson, and Jack White, (with Jim Marrs present) and Jay Harrison where Sergio and I were standing and what we were waring and had in our hands. Its on the record as I have said before any photo work was done, and this was documented before the fact to these gentlemen. At that time we (they) did not have a good photo negative or print nor a good copy of the photo to work with. Peter, with hard work and in time, got the best picture available and sent them to Wilson.---(and I think also to Jack) I was under the impression, at that time, that Jack White was also going to work on the photo, but was told later he did not have the time and he did not think anything was there. I talked to Jack about this some years later and was told it could not be prove. From his manner and attitude, I felt he did not want to be involved in the photo work because he did not believe I was being truthful with my story.

Now as to what I was waring: Dark pants.., light colored beige shirt, short sleeve. I did have sun glasses on because I always wore sun glasses (Aviation type) I was dark hair, no beard. My weight was about 165 lbs and my height was 5'11.5" I was holding a clip board. (not sure if I was holding it up or down at my side at the time the picture was taken). I was waring loffer type shoes dark in color. We were slowly walking toward the south side of the underpass (not trying to draw attention to ourselves) and was at about the shadowed tree fork when this picture was taken. Sergio was behind me at that moment (I THINK) Sergio had grown a beard in the last two years and was waring darker pants and a light dress shirt, long sleeve. (no sunglasses) I do not recall if he had a tie on or not, but I do not think so. We both were not waring hats or coats jackets or whatever. (I can't remember for sure but I might of had a light jacket folded over my arm. For some reason this sticks in my mind but not sure) Sergio did have a 'Walkie Talkie" type radio with an extended antena, but do not think the antena was extended at that time. ( earlier he had talk briefly to someone across the way (who I do not know) and he would slide the antena into its socket and concealed the radio in his back pocket. He did have a spoting type binocular single lenes, like a range finder. Sergio did have a fire arm (pistol 38 snub) tucked inside his pants. Sergio always had this pistol concealed. I was not armed. Perhaps Pete remembers some of these details and can add something in case I forgot a matter or two. Hope this helps you.

Edited June 19, 2006 by William Plumlee

[William Plumlee]

The top outline here is the extent of coverage of the area, by Zapruder.

The Zapruder panorama is modified so that the various parts match the Cancellare. What I mean is that the top outline and the area of the slope at the south knoll is matched to the Cancellare. Because the Zapruder film (zfilm) is taken from a different location, different things line up, so I sliced off the cars on the lane of Commerce closest to the camera and shifted it along to match the cars on the Cancellare, similarly the edges of Main and Elm.

This is just to 'heighten realism' as the purpose was to see whether the film could be used to verify Williams statements. Unfortunately the coverage excludes this.

Anyway, It's nice to get a color on the cars.

Here is another link to Cancellara with a slightly different contrast:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/8688.jpg