Dark complected man

[Bill Miller]

Thanks to Gary Mack for the following:

The original Towner slides and movie film are at The Sixth Floor Museum, although she still owns them. Several years ago I did a very high-res scan of DCM and the "antenna" is, in fact, part of the picture - it is not an artifact. I can see the grain of the film and the silver highlight is not a scratch or any other defect.

To me, it looks like DCM might be bringing a transistor radio up to his ear. I suspect that if there were any pictures of him before the motorcade arrived, they would show he was listening to the live KRLD coverage of the motorcade on Main Street.

Gary Mack

I supposed that what Gary has said could be one way of looking at the photo, but there are a couple of things that I wish could be made clear and the only person to do that is a man who walked away from the plaza never to be see again. For instance, if it is a radio ... it would be interesting to hear how it was that after witnessing such a tramatic event that this man would have had the ability to put all that aside and go for a radio? I might add that the transistor radios of that day that I have seen were very small - pocket size. This radio, if that is what it is, looks to be more elongated like a walkie-talkie type device. It would seem to me that for the antenna to be pointing in the direction that it does, then the alleged radio would be turned in such a way so to not be seen as the man would have the device to his ear so to be able to hear any transmissions coming over it, but instead it appears to be turned in the manner that a two way communication device would be used. I would need to see an early 60's transistor radio that has such an elongated shape.

Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

I see three operational possibilities for DCM:

1. He was there as a signaler, though Al Carrier and perhaps others have questioned why a visual signaler would be needed there by shooters.

2. He was planted there as a taunting message, a Cuban exile whom JFK knew or knew of and would recognize and (given also the nearby umbrella) would thus know why he was being shot. (I'm more inclined to believe the umbrella was a weapon, and perhaps a signaler was needed who was close enough to see that the fletchette had found its mark, though again the need for a signaler is questionable.)

3. He was a potential walk-up gunman or suicide bomber (hence the bag).

[Mark Stapleton]

and I won't even consider that this guy and TUM were not operational or operational diversion.

Peter,

I totally agree with you on everything you say on this issue. If ever any evidence were needed to prove a conspiracy, it's the photos taken of DCM and TUM. It's so darn obvious...

--Thomas

_____________________________________________

You don't know what the man is holding, you are only guessing. And yet you are utterly convinced that these photos prove a conspiracy? Wouldn't it be more prudent to simply state that the photos are suggestive of unusual activity and leave it at that? Have you ever served on a jury? Would you like to be convicted based on someone's hunch?

You can't tell anything with certainty from these fuzzy photographs.

MV

Mark,

It would be interesting to hand over the DCM and UM material to an unbiased jury and see what they decide. I speculate such a jury would unanimously conclude that both were involved. (ie.conspiracy)

The photo evidence is damning enough, especially the fact that they appeared to behave differently from almost every other onlooker AFTER the assassination occured. Add to this the fact that they subsequently disappeared into thin air (I don't believe the Louie Witt story) and what you have, in the absence of any further information on these two, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt, IMO.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Mark,

It would be interesting to hand over the DCM and UM material to an unbiased jury and see what they decide. I speculate such a jury would unanimously conclude that both were involved. (ie.conspiracy)

The photo evidence is damning enough, especially the fact that they appeared to behave differently from almost every other onlooker AFTER the assassination occured. Add to this the fact that they subsequently disappeared into thin air (I don't believe the Louie Witt story) and what you have, in the absence of any further information on these two, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt, IMO.

Mark,

I agree, it would be interesting to have a disinterested group examine this particular situation. I have to disagree with you about the outcome -- their behavior is suspicious in light of what just happened in front of them, no question about it.

But what could a jury find them guilty of? Holding something that looks like a communication device? Seriously, what offense could you even charge them with? Not grieving? Not running for cover? Not being stunned by the shooting? They're just sitting there.

And many people blended into the crowd and into the mist of history that day, not just them.

You said "in the absence of any further information on these two, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt" - Mark, do you really believe that? Guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

The reason I'm hammering the point is that it's vital not to either maximize or minimize the importance of any particular detail without proof.

If you're willing to convict these two for just sitting there, I'm sorry, that leaves me speechless. Which may be a good thing.

[Bill Miller]

Thanks to Gary Mack for the following:

The original Towner slides and movie film are at The Sixth Floor Museum, although she still owns them. Several years ago I did a very high-res scan of DCM and the "antenna" is, in fact, part of the picture - it is not an artifact. I can see the grain of the film and the silver highlight is not a scratch or any other defect.

To me, it looks like DCM might be bringing a transistor radio up to his ear. I suspect that if there were any pictures of him before the motorcade arrived, they would show he was listening to the live KRLD coverage of the motorcade on Main Street.

Gary Mack

I supposed that what Gary has said could be one way of looking at the photo, but there are a couple of things that I wish could be made clear and the only person to do that is a man who walked away from the plaza never to be see again. For instance, if it is a radio ... it would be interesting to hear how it was that after witnessing such a tramatic event that this man would have had the ability to put all that aside and go for a radio? I might add that the transistor radios of that day that I have seen were very small - pocket size. This radio, if that is what it is, looks to be more elongated like a walkie-talkie type device. It would seem to me that for the antenna to be pointing in the direction that it does, then the alleged radio would be turned in such a way so to not be seen as the man would have the device to his ear so to be able to hear any transmissions coming over it, but instead it appears to be turned in the manner that a two way communication device would be used. I would need to see an early 60's transistor radio that has such an elongated shape.

Bill Miller

I totally [100%] disagree that these two men can only be called for suspicious or unusual behavior and not definitely sinister and operational behavior...you either have not studied their actions and the photos of them or you are just struggling to not see the naked Empire in DP. In fact, of all the persons in the Plaza, these two are perhaps the most suspicious. While they may have only been spotters, or a diversion they were to my satistaction operational....I need no further proof and think if you don't agree you need only to study further their actions, where they looked and what they did after the shooting and how they melted away.

Maybe you didn't understand my position .... if it was a transistor radio, then why only listen to it for a brief period of time for the DM is not seen using the radio at others points immediately aroud the same time frame. I believe it was a communication device.

Bill Miller

[Rex Bradford]

I see three operational possibilities for DCM:

1. He was there as a signaler, though Al Carrier and perhaps others have questioned why a visual signaler would be needed there by shooters.

2. He was planted there as a taunting message, a Cuban exile whom JFK knew or knew of and would recognize and (given also the nearby umbrella) would thus know why he was being shot. (I'm more inclined to believe the umbrella was a weapon, and perhaps a signaler was needed who was close enough to see that the fletchette had found its mark, though again the need for a signaler is questionable.)

3. He was a potential walk-up gunman or suicide bomber (hence the bag).

I think #1 is the most likely. After the first volley of shots, a close observer like the umbrella man decides whether JFK is killed or not. This would not neccessarily be easy for a shooter to decide at a distance, plus you don't want them each deciding on their own anyway. He then pumps the umbrella to signify: nope, sorry, everybody try again.

The dark-complected man could be there with walkie talkie as a backup audio signaller, perhaps.

Obviously you could instead have somebody at a distance with binoculars making this call, but these guys were mere feet away and in a great position to do so, plus then there isn't complete reliance on the electronic signalling.

Rex

[John Kennedy White]

I believe that what has been interpreted as a lump, possibly a gun and holster, in the side

of DCM's jacket was actually a bag. Based on Rickerby's photo, the photo below from

Robin Unger's site, and other photos, DCM was wearing a white shirt, light blue jacket,

and a white bag. The bag is obvious in this photo:

I think he's reaching into his holster with his left hand in this photo, causing the jacket to bulge underneath.

Thoughts?

[Frank Agbat]

I believe that what has been interpreted as a lump, possibly a gun and holster, in the side

of DCM's jacket was actually a bag. Based on Rickerby's photo, the photo below from

Robin Unger's site, and other photos, DCM was wearing a white shirt, light blue jacket,

and a white bag. The bag is obvious in this photo:

I think he's reaching into his holster with his left hand in this photo, causing the jacket to bulge underneath.

Thoughts?

I find their actions to be extremely suspicious. In the aftermath, these two are the picture of cool amidst what is otherwise chaos. They are either completely clueless, indifferent, or consumate professionals.

Another thing that is interesting in the photo above is the obvious filming/photographic position of the Babushka lady.

[Jack White]

I believe that what has been interpreted as a lump, possibly a gun and holster, in the side

of DCM's jacket was actually a bag. Based on Rickerby's photo, the photo below from

Robin Unger's site, and other photos, DCM was wearing a white shirt, light blue jacket,

and a white bag. The bag is obvious in this photo:

I think he's reaching into his holster with his left hand in this photo, causing the jacket to bulge underneath.

Thoughts?

I find their actions to be extremely suspicious. In the aftermath, these two are the picture of cool amidst what is otherwise chaos. They are either completely clueless, indifferent, or consumate professionals.

Another thing that is interesting in the photo above is the obvious filming/photographic position of the Babushka lady.

I long wondered what the white place is...but it is not a huge bag

of some kind. I finally decided it is a trick of lighting.

More disturbing is the lack of sunlight on the Cuban's face, and

what looks like blue retouching on the umbrellaman's legs.

(This enlargement is made from my slide copy from the "original"

Bronson. Remember, all originals are under suspicion.)

Jack

Edited October 6, 2006 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Well, well...look what computer enhancement brings out....

a black mark over the Cuban's face, covering all except his

ear. So the Bronson slide is added to the growing list of

pictures retouched.

Jack

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark,

It would be interesting to hand over the DCM and UM material to an unbiased jury and see what they decide. I speculate such a jury would unanimously conclude that both were involved. (ie.conspiracy)

The photo evidence is damning enough, especially the fact that they appeared to behave differently from almost every other onlooker AFTER the assassination occured. Add to this the fact that they subsequently disappeared into thin air (I don't believe the Louie Witt story) and what you have, in the absence of any further information on these two, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt, IMO.

Mark,

I agree, it would be interesting to have a disinterested group examine this particular situation. I have to disagree with you about the outcome -- their behavior is suspicious in light of what just happened in front of them, no question about it.

But what could a jury find them guilty of? Holding something that looks like a communication device? Seriously, what offense could you even charge them with? Not grieving? Not running for cover? Not being stunned by the shooting? They're just sitting there.

Normally 'just sitting there' would hardly be called suspicious behavior. However, considering what they have just witnessed, how close they were to it and the reaction of all the other witnesses in close proximity, I do consider it very strange and unusual.

And many people blended into the crowd and into the mist of history that day, not just them.

You said "in the absence of any further information on these two, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt" - Mark, do you really believe that? Guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

The reason I'm hammering the point is that it's vital not to either maximize or minimize the importance of any particular detail without proof.

Mark, I believe the photographs of DP are the closest thing to proof we are ever going to get.

If you're willing to convict these two for just sitting there, I'm sorry, that leaves me speechless. Which may be a good thing.

If a hypothetical jury had to decide whether or not they believed these two were involved, based on what information is known, I think they would conclude that they were involved. It's not only their strange behavior, it's also the fact that they vanished after November 22. DCM was the closest witness to the assassination. Why wouldn't he want to share with others what he saw?

[Antti Hynonen]

Just a question:

Why would DCM wave with his arm streched up to the max? Wouldn't it be more natural to wave with your arm extended forward, rather than all the way up? To me it looks more like a signal for something than an innocent wave.

[Mark Stapleton]

Just a question:

Why would DCM wave with his arm streched up to the max? Wouldn't it be more natural to wave with your arm extended forward, rather than all the way up? To me it looks more like a signal for something than an innocent wave.

A very good point.

To me, it doesn't look like an enthusiastic greeting from a fan of the President. I agree with you that it looks much more like a signal.

The evidence continues to mount up.

[Jack White]

Well, well...look what computer enhancement brings out....

a black mark over the Cuban's face, covering all except his

ear. So the Bronson slide is added to the growing list of

pictures retouched.

Jack

There are 62 postings in the DCM thread. But nobody

seems interested in addressing the significant discovery

that the Bronson slide image has HIS FACE CRUDELY

BLACKED OUT. Trivial speculations abound, but a

MAJOR DISCOVERY is not even noted by anyone.

Hmmmmmm.

Jack

Edited October 6, 2006 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Well, well...look what computer enhancement brings out....

a black mark over the Cuban's face, covering all except his

ear. So the Bronson slide is added to the growing list of

pictures retouched.

Jack

There are 62 postings in the DCM thread. But nobody

seems interested in addressing the significant discovery

that the Bronson slide image has HIS FACE CRUDELY

BLACKED OUT. Trivial speculations abound, but a

MAJOR DISCOVERY is not even noted by anyone.

Hmmmmmm.

Jack

Jack, I note it is interesting, but would like some idea of what technique you used on the computer to discern this.....

Peter...a very useful tool is adjustment of the chroma range

of the three primary colors (red, green, blue). By decreasing

the MIN and increasing the MAX, color intensity is brightened

and made more contrasty. Lighter tones drop out (white)

and darker tones (such as the mark across the face) become

darker and more sharply defined. This achieves a pseudo color

effect not possible by contrast and brightness controls. It takes

only a few minutes, and can be viewed live during the process.

It is very good at bringing out detail in dark areas, much like

dodging in the darkroom.

Jack