Dark complected man

[Duke Lane]

I find their [TUM and DCM's] 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. ...

Something that's always intrigued me is how and why anyone could conceive of the notion that they could talk on a walkie-talkie at a murder scene swarming with cops and go unnoticed, how they'd explain their actions if they were observed and challenged, and what would happen if a cop got ahold of the w-t and started broadcasting over it: might the broadcast not be overheard by someone else, like maybe another cop who might investigate it?

Nobody uses a w-t without the expectation that there's someone else on the other end of it somewhere. While one might be confused with a transistor radio, the reverse is true as well, so there can't have been any guarantee that it would go unnoticed, or if noticed, uninvestigated.

Even more intriguing is the question why, when persons unknown gathered and doctored so many photos and films (as some have theorized), adding people in and taking others out, such apparently potentially incriminating, certainly curious if not exactly suspicious, activities were left intact.

A concerted, coordinated effort that supposedly left nothing to chance sure was chancy! And these two guys, if not completely clueless or indifferent, don't seem to be "consummate professionals," but rather just ballsy or reckless, not who you'd think to be part of such a concerted, coordinated effort of any sort!

[John Dolva]

1960 heathkit walkie talkie

[William Plumlee]

 

Quote: "...Jack is correct to having worked hard, but reporting to me that he could discern nothing he could make a definitive comment upon. He said he thought the apparent legs seen were the inverted shadow of the crotch of the tree. Tom later confirmed that and found two figures deep in the shadow of the tree - nothing to do with the light and dark patterns that can be seen by the naked eye in the photo. ...".

Pete I am not going into a long debate about the south knoll photo. However, the record must be cleared. I was the one who told you and Jim about the fork in the tree and that it was not the legs of a person. (1990) (.. this can be confirmed todat by looking at the photo that Bernice posted the other day, which was given to Barnard Finisterwald someyears ago. I drew that picture for Barnard Finisterwald Jr. in 1981 and drew another for Gary Shaw in 1979. AND I drew another one for the HSCA and previous old Church Committee around 1974 or 75. The FBI also had a drawn picture, by me, of where I said Sergio and I were standing and that was drawn at Buna Vista, Colorado in 1964.

Yes, T. You did say long ago that the apparent 'legs' were just the shadow of the tree.

The above quote again leaves a sour taste in my mouth as to the facts behind that damn Cancellare photo. Why didn't you tell Jack at the time that I had said the alleged legs seen in the photo were not legs, but the shadow of the tree fork. I had went over that with you many times before I ever knew of Jack White, or Tom Wilson. I said and have always said that we were hidden in the shadows and if we could find a good photo or negative of that area then perhaps we could prove it. I referenced Gary Shaw's book COVER-UP copyrighted 1976; page 126 and pointed out the picture in question as an example of an area that needed further work and investigation and said that it would go a long way in proving, "conspiracy".

With Jack White, I do what I do with anyone in such a situation - you included - and tell as little as possible - only what is needed to not waste their time, so as to not prejudice them or plant ideas in their minds. I DID tell him to look in the shadows of the tree - NOT at the fake legs...and he did..he worked very hard at it and, as he said, couldn't with conventional photographic work come to any definitive conclusion....Tom Wilson, with his totally novel approach WAS able to!

This is but one of many examples of how facts become interwoven with someone else's preconceive ideas and speculations of how they want. things to be or not to be. Later, the tree fork shadow was used to discredit me because it was said that I said the fork shadow was the legs of a person. I never said that. But the damage had been done.... the jury had returned their verdict and the matter went nowhere.

Some of what you say may be true, but do NOT pin it on me nor Jack - NOR Tom Wilson, who went one hell of a long way to vindicate you...even if you have not [and I have not told you or others]....YET..and I have my reasons. Patience is a virtue, I hear.

As to me stopping Walt from releasing my personal detailed family information to the

research community, and to you... well I told you. "... I was not going to see my family's information spread around and thrown out there into the public domain for all to speculate on, as to what it really meant in reference to JFK and the TEXAS CLAN. I was not going to let it be twisted around to fit into someone's preconceived ideas about JFK and bring my family into that mess. Jay Harrison was a close friend long before I met you. I told Walt ,..NOT to release my information that Jay Harrison had obtained on me from me and others to anyone. It was not personally meant to be against you. However, by your tone I think you took it that way. Anyway, enough of this. You mentioned trust. Well I have waited over 15 years for you and Tom Wilson to get it together... but both of you were so damn secret and paranoid with your information, that nothing came of the south knoll photo findings. So if you are going to quote and slant, then get it right. I still see you as a friend and working colleague, although at times I have referenced you as my, "Radical Friend". I do not care about the photo, or if you ever get the confirmations or info from anyone.

Tom is dead and I'm dealing with his family. It is NOT easy and I don't care to go into details publicly. You blame others for what they have no control over sometimes [to often]. There are many here on this Forum and the DPF who know how hard I've worked. that you haven't seen the fruit of it yet might be something you know a lot about...resistance from strange 'quarters' and fear [or naiveté'] from even those not in on the plot.

Why do you think after all these years, that that photo has been such an embarrassment to the Federal Government? Why has it been locked away and the facts thereof sealed? Why has the details behind its existence been keep from the research community for all these years? Care to address that question ? Best to you my friend. Tosh

What specifically do you want to know and have told. I have posted before [more than once] that Tom was able to detect to his satisfaction two persons - one tall, one not so tall standing exactly where you said you and Sergio were. He could NOT see the details of the faces. He did mention objects they were carrying. One object the shorter man carried matched an exactly similar object a few other persons in the Plaza had. To me, it all says [in the short version] either you were there and so knew of the two people there in the shadows, operational, OR were told of them and told to tell the story. I'd like to for many reasons believe the former, but I can't yet make a conclusion. As I have said before in private emails and mostly you have ignored [not responded to them] the Redbird part of your story has some big holes in it......BIG holes....that seem to be a combination of two other flights that can be verified. I'm NOT saying you are not telling the truth, but it is infinitely more complex than you are making it here! Why you chose to not answer those direct questions and why when we were working 'together' you introduced me to two others who were on your flight and then my life went 'South' and you never tried to re-connect me with them, only you know....These are things you'd perhaps like to discuss privately and I'd respect that, but don't tell me I haven't gone further than anyone other than a conman starting with a V and a pornking starting with a D to try to get your story verified and out. There are many things you don't know about in the works on Wilson and putting them in public would allow the 'Bad Guys' to defeat them. Your friend. Peter

Peter: Thanks for that fine recap from your POV. Its obvious we both have a different POV and always have and perhaps will. That is one reason we debated so forcefully so many times in the past. Its the slant as to your interruptions of what I have said that 'sets me off '.

I was on record as far back as 1964 and drew a picture of that day for the FBI. I told many long before any other flights from Dallas came into the record about the parked DC-3 (which was confirmed by January before he died and too, there was an FAA record of that from him)

I did introduced you to two people who were on that flight and they told you to your face that they were there with me and Sergio.

your quote from above"...

I'm NOT saying you are not telling the truth, but it is infinitely more complex than you are making it here! Why you chose to not answer those direct questions and why when we were working 'together' you introduced me to two others who were on your flight and then my life went 'South' and you never tried to re-connect me with them, only you know.. ...".

Very true. But when I told you to make that part public because those two people gave the O.K. to do that, for their protection. you got so paranoid and scared..., that you scared them off. Their quote to me, before they died of old age some years ago, was: "... he is to paranoid for me to work with... "Do you know who you are really dealing with?..". " I don't trust him he is to secret and too scared". I told you that and you said I was holding out on you and not being truthful. Even Tom Wilson, after I contacted him in reference to the findings, of which he said he had found and asked me at the time about another person he had found in the photo, near the south parking lot; told me he was NOT working with you anymore because you were to "PUSHY and on the radical side". I even told you that some time ago and you got pissed at me, because I contacted him without your permission. And asked me why I was sabotaging the project. Then you blamed me for all your trouble in San Diego because of the JFK matter and investigation. Again, I see it from one POV and you another... I do respect that. BUT, I do have a problem with how you interrupt things.. This is going nowhere. I'm the bad guy, because I do not agree with some and their interruption of events of which I was involved with.

This thread will go dead like many others. (and has) I will leave it at that. I accept; ".. I do not work well with others...". but I am not a damn xxxx, nor a CIA disinformation expert... in spite of what some have said in their "Private Emails"... of which I am very much aware of.

I have told you I have other interest than JFK, and the 'who done its', thereof. I am to the point I really care less what is done in that direction. I see clearly why John Stockwell, Gary Shaw, and a host of others, have done the same. The JFK investigation has become too convoluted and smelly for me to be of any help to anyone anymore.

I only stepped back into this mess because of something that was posted, and a friend directed me to it. I have attempted to correct that... but from my POV... its the same ole' same ole in fighting and BS and in the end leads nowhere or to any firm conclusions. You take care my friend. As you have said.., "... I am a very complex fellow".. We'll leave it at that and I'll just move on. You can keep the floor and tickle the ears..., I do not want no part of it anymore. Tosh

Edited March 1, 2010 by William Plumlee

[John Dolva]

A great pity, William. You probably remember the to and fro over locations etc of a couple of years ago. I approached it impartially and not only found, with the material available, that the sticks thrown at you were not deserved and that a shot from the south was indeed to be taken seriously, then Sherrys Blood Spatter Analysis, and now this infusion of new material to ponder.. (I've likewise explored many other possibilities, but this one I keep returning to, hoping apparently against hope that the missing bit of full quality Cancellare will emerge.) I agree about Al, he's a loss, and so is Tom, but one drove off the other. A pity. I also found three separate indications of a person crossing the rail at a time and place where you confirmed indirctly was possible. But they were only indications. If you had been given the same attention as say Moorman then many questions would have been answered. Afa PL goes, don't play with snakes.

[William Plumlee]

A great pity, William. You probably remember the to and fro over locations etc of a couple of years ago. I approached it impartially and not only found, with the material available, that the sticks thrown at you were not deserved and that a shot from the south was indeed to be taken seriously, then Sherrys Blood Spatter Analysis, and now this infusion of new material to ponder.. (I've likewise explored many other possibilities, but this one I keep returning to, hoping apparently against hope that the missing bit of full quality Cancellare will emerge.) I agree about Al, he's a loss, and so is Tom, but one drove off the other. A pity. I also found three separate indications of a person crossing the rail at a time and place where you confirmed indirctly was possible. But they were only indications. If you had been given the same attention as say Moorman then many questions would have been answered. Afa PL goes, don't play with snakes.

Yes John. I do remember those days of old. To me, it seemed every time I was getting somewhere in my, "Story", and trying to get into the evidence, some documented and some via preponderance of new evidence recently declassified, is when the, "flak", started and the infighting and drawing away from the discussions and the content thereof of the threads was trashed.

In my view it happened more than once. When I was getting into a chronologically recap of events as I recalled them, as well as a timeline of events, and attempting to answer some of the questions of which I thought I could answer, that is when the attacks and discredit started. I was forced into a defensive mode. This went on for a very long time and I did hang in there and I did tried to refocus some of the postings back to there original intent.

I remember you and your objectivity and that of a few others who did look at the material objectively and did support the threads to some degree and I do not mean by agreeing with everything I presented. I also remember some others who I believe had other motives. In time I was accused of faking my death and many secret emails were sent out as to my motives in doing that, of which I had not done. (You can not prove a negative) Soon after I was accused of deleting all my postings. My responds was of no value. It was said, "I was a 'publicity seeker",... "just wanting attention"... "refusing to answer the HARD questions". and etc. Yes I do remember those days. And I see those days coming back in reference to a few of the private emails that are circulation around today and how the threads drift into matters as silly as ?????. I can't fight EGOS and special interest and the so called experts. I cannot confirm or even answer some of the questions the way they are presented to me. Its a no win situation for me. The deck is stacked, and I believe I know the reasons.

("Do you still beat your mother?... answer simply yes, or no.")

Thanks for your post and interest. Forgive me for going off topic, but that seems to be the format nowadays.., in reference to the investigations into the JFK assassination. The Best to you; Tosh

Edited March 1, 2010 by William Plumlee

[John Dolva]

Thank you Tosh, for everything.

Peace

[Jamey Flanagan]

In the book The Lonestar Speaks they have identified a guy named Jim Bolden as the abort team member nicknamed Gator.

[Denny Zartman]

It's too bad that the pictures are no longer in this thread. It's also very interesting to read Tosh Plumlee's posts here.