JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[caz]

My apologies, Caz, but someone once advised me to reply to comments in bold in order to distinguish them, when placing answers within the body of the text being quoted.

I was not complaining about that practice, PI. In fact, I quoted one of your posts that was entirely in bold, to make my point. Entire posts of shouting are what I find rather off-putting, regardless of who is doing it.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

We’re still waiting for HS’ response to the Hoover claim that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City. Does he accept or reject Hoover’s claim?

We’re still waiting for HS’ explanation why the Pullman Car operator who said he saw nothing lived in fear thereafter.

I asked HS to name a better ‘patsy’ than Oswald (he had claimed every male in Dallas was such) and he answered ‘Frank Smith.’ I suspect this is what teachers call a ‘glib’ response since no Frank Smith was questioned by the Warren Commission or has ever surfaced in my readings on the JFK assassination. But if I do HS an injustice, his ‘Frank Smith’ has to have done the following: lived in a country considered hostile to the USA; been trained by the military as a marksman; visited either the Soviet or Cuban embassy to seek a visa; been employed either in the TSBD or a building on the motorcade route which would give the opportunity to shoot at the president. If Frank Smith meets these criteria then I concede HS has made his point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here we see a typical Sir HS post. Start with an insult.

Please point out the insult…..I’ve looked 3 times….let my brother have a look…..let my sister-in-law have a look……and none of us can see it. Give me another half and hour or so and my other brother will be here and I can take another opinion.

Present 3 witnesses testimony all saying that they saw a man "standing on the back of a Pullman dining car.". Deduce from these statements that the man was "behind the fence at the time of the murder." and saw nothing. Therefore, no assassin. Pause to await applause.

Brilliant deduction. Masterful logic. Except, how did a Pullman dining car manage to be behind the picket fence? Nearest railway seems to be over behind the control tower.

I thought that I was the horrible sarcastic person? Oh, I forgot…..it’s ok when you do it.


Lee Bowers was in the control tower that day at the time of the shooting, and said "there was some unusual occurrence, a flash of light or smoke or something that caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8H_...nel=montycombs

The Sir HS conclusion: "So we have no reason to doubt that Desroe was somewhere behind the fence at the time of the murder. His presence is confirmed by 2 people. And Desroe saw absolutely nothing. He couldn’t possibly have missed an assassin."

So Desroe, while standing at the back of the Pullman dining car he had pushed through the parking lot over to the picket fence, saw nothing. Game over, case closed.

Anyone able to read and understand the English language can see what was actually stated, but we have the inevitable manipulation and deceptive presentation.

This isn’t good is it St. George. Your powers of analysis are letting you down again. I have no information about Towner but I’d be prepared to bet that he wasn’t the kind of dimwit to suggest a railroad car in a car park (your witness Hofmann probably would though) So he went to the fence and then looked around the car park area as others did - remember? When they found no evidence of a gunman. You’ve heard of the Triple Underpass I assume? Guess what it carried…..a railway line. And where did it run? Around the left hand side of the car park. I’m guessing a walk from the fence of around 40-50 yards. What stands on railway lines? Trains or carriages or both. Would there have been a Pullman carriage standing there? Well we know that there were men working on the line on the overpass because Holland tells us so, so it’s quite possible that a Pullman carriage was stationary there awaiting an engine to pick it up when the line was repaired.

Bit of an there St. George.

You see, I prefer to look at witnesses properly rather than just assuming that they’re liars as you do when they don’t work in your favour.

So again…..we have Desroe (someone we have no reason for doubting as far as I’m aware) being seen near a Pullman car (he was a guard on a Pullman car by profession) by Towner (another man that we have no reason for doubting as far as I’m aware) And did anyone else see him…..well we have a Deputy Sheriff who saw a black man working the Pullman’s (like a Pullman guard would) And we have Desroe saying that he was moved from his position on the overpass by officials. And we know that there were officials on the overpass as confirmed by Holland.

So 2 men see apparently the same man in the area behind the picket fence and that man saw nothing at all suspicious. Do we just dismiss him and if so, on what grounds?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't written waffle.

I asked a simple question:

Are you really saying that when Ruby talked of The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in being in very high positions, he meant the Warren Commission?

If you won't answer it, there is only one possible explanation: you have no satisfactory response, because it is quite obvious that you have made a bad mistake in misinterpreting what Ruby said at the press conference.

Unlike you I don’t claim the ability to read the minds of dead people. Yes I am. He’s saying that they have a motive for wanting to prove that Ruby actually planned to kill Kennedy. But we have to realise how much Jack Ruby waffled and ranted. The psychiatrists diagnosis wasn’t favourable. But the point is AND THIS REALLY ID THE POINT PI - he EXPLICITLY stated that he wasn’t part of a conspiracy and passed a lie detector on the strength of it. It simply cannot be any clearer. I really don’t care how you choose to spin it. I will not keep commenting on the same points when you keep disputing what’s in black and white. You’ll have to discuss this point with someone else from this point on. I’m done with it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You can't be serious!?

Are you really saying that when Ruby talked of The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in being in very high positions, he meant the Warren Commission?

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 1348)


Yes I am. He’s saying that they have a motive for wanting to prove that Ruby actually planned to kill Kennedy.

(Herlock Shomes, # 1354)



What's wrong with Sherlock's reply?

The following:


(1) No-one ever tried to prove Ruby planned to kill Kennedy.

(2) The Warren Commission never tried to prove that Ruby planned to kill Oswald.

(3) No-one has ever suggested that the Warren Commission had a motive to prove that Ruby planned to kill Oswald.

(4) No-one has ever suggested that the Warren Commission had anything to gain.

(5) No-one has ever suggested that the Warren Commission had an ulterior motive for putting Ruby in the position he was in.


It is quite obvious that Ruby was not referring to the Warren Commission but to powerful people who had, at a time before the Warren Commission had even been formed, been responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy and the pressure he himself was put under to eliminate Oswald.

Anyone can see the interview by entering 'Jack Ruby interview Mick Lee' in a Google Search engine.

---

[cobalt]

I can see how the poor reactions of Roy Kellerman and William Greer when shots rang out in Dealey Plaza might appear suspicious but I think PI is going too far in accusing them of being part of a conspiracy. These men were in line of fire themselves. If part of a conspiracy, how could they be confident that a stray or deflected bullet might not hit them? In fact Kellerman and Greer might even have been have been targeted in order to silence them permanently.

From a security point of view the likely trouble spots were seen as Love Field Airport and the Trade Mart where it was feared anti-Kennedy demonstrators might gather. There were 200 police, headed by Captain Fritz, awaiting the president’s arrival at the Trade Mart. Given the hostile reception offered Adlai Stevenson in Dallas a month earlier it is slightly strange that no anti-Kennedy protests from extreme right wing elements seem to have been recorded, although such activity would have undermined the later narrative of a disturbed, lone gunman.

On turning into Elm Street and passing the TSBD the security services must have relaxed a little since bar the overpass (which should not have been occupied but had a policeman standing guard) they had a free run to the Trade Mart. Of course Greer should not have turned round - his job was to look at the road ahead. And no he should not have slowed the car almost to a halt. But I think Greer sensed he was in the middle of an ambush and although he swung away to the left, going forward towards the direction of gunfire was not an instinctive reaction. History has damned him for this.

Greer opted for the lone gunman theory before the Warren Commission whilst Kellerman was more circumspect, describing ‘a flurry of shells’ entering the vehicle. After their deaths the families of Greer, Kellerman and also Kennedy aide O’Donnell who was in the pilot car, said that in private these men believed there had been more than one gunman and that the attack was part of a conspiracy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can't be serious!?

Are you really saying that when Ruby talked of The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in being in very high positions, he meant the Warren Commission?

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 1348)


Yes I am. He’s saying that they have a motive for wanting to prove that Ruby actually planned to kill Kennedy.

(Herlock Shomes, # 1354)



What's wrong with Sherlock's reply?

The following:


(1) No-one ever tried to prove Ruby planned to kill Kennedy.

(2) The Warren Commission never tried to prove that Ruby planned to kill Oswald.

(3) No-one has ever suggested that the Warren Commission had a motive to prove that Ruby planned to kill Oswald.

(4) No-one has ever suggested that the Warren Commission had anything to gain.

(5) No-one has ever suggested that the Warren Commission had an ulterior motive for putting Ruby in the position he was in.


It is quite obvious that Ruby was not referring to the Warren Commission but to powerful people who had, at a time before the Warren Commission had even been formed, been responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy and the pressure he himself was put under to eliminate Oswald.

Anyone can see the interview by entering 'Jack Ruby interview Mick Lee' in a Google Search engine.

---

Read his testimony.

People with things to hide don’t volunteer for lie detectors or truth serums.

Thats the end of it.

All else is lies and manipulations by conspiracist fantasists.

[FrankO]

From when the president was first hit, he clutched at his throat and started falling/leaning to the left. I cannot see that he was motionless. Eventually he had leaned left to the point where he was in contact with Jackie and then started to move forward. This is visible in the Zapruder film.

Hi George,

Yes, first he sort of clutched at his throat and then seems to get numb, slowly slumping towards Jackie. In fact, from about frame 281 to 312 his body seems to be limp, in the same position, not moving.

Whether he was conscious or not, his body weight, and perhaps Jackie's hands were moving him. At frame 312 there is no visual evidence than he has been hit in the head. The 8mm camera used by Zapruder ran at 18 frames per second, so there is a loss of information between frames. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that a shot from the rear hit him between frames 312 and 313. My suggestion is that between those frames he had continued to fall forward that small amount and a head shot from the front occurred at 313.

I find that very unlikely, based on what I see in the frames mentioned above. By the time of frame 312, he’d already stopped moving or, as you put it, falling forward, and besides, between 312 and 313 only his head moved, not his body. All in all, I don’t find this explanation convincing, either.

I find myself unable to reconcile an exploding FMJ with my shooting and loading experience.

That's alright, I had no intention of trying to force you to change your mind.

I think that was from the Thompson video. He says in that article that the president was hit in the side of the head, not the top. He also said that the limousine stopped, as did many other witnesses, but which is not in the ZF. But that's a whole different can of worms.

I’m sure it can be, George. What I know is that there some witnesses who said that the limousine came to a complete stop, while others said it didn’t but slowed down, which is in line with what we see in at least the ZF. So, it’s a choice of who to believe. I, for one, try to stick as much as possible to the physical evidence, as presented by the photos and films and the evidence presented by the ones who had reason to professionally & personally examine it. All the rest only causes static. But that's just my opinion.

So after due consideration, you have come to close to the WC conclusion? I am inferring that you may have started from somewhere around there.

I’ve gone back and forth over the years, George, and I don’t profess to know the truth, but, for now, I’m close to the WC conclusion.

You nominate that the first fired shot hit some part of the traffic light and ricocheted to the manhole cover. Thompson said the mark on the manhole cover was still there when he examined it, and that is was a skid pointing to the NW corner of the records building roof where a cartridge case was found in a crack during renovations years later.

A straight line from the NW corner of the records building to the manhole cover would mean a shot that didn’t even come close to the limousine, so what or who is it supposed to have hit before ricocheting on to the manhole cover?

But let's go with another ricochet from a tree branch steering it to the manhole cover, then another off the kerb with fragments hitting Tague. I can accept that scenario as possible, but not all that likely.

Waiting for the limousine to disappear behind the oak tree seems a very unlikely scenario to me, too. I once thought the shot eventually wounding Tague might have come from the Dal-Tex Building, as at least that would have passed over part of Elm Street along the limousine’s route in more or less the middle of the street. That seems far more logical than a shot from the NW corner of the RB. BTW, Haag made me change my view of the first shot grazing the part of the traffic light assembly and then ricocheting on to the manhole cover, etc.

Your choice of path for that second bullet is what is causing the war to rage both here and in the world arena. I have yet to see a diagram or model showing how this worked without the initial entry wound being in the back of Kennedy's neck.

Okay, but you do see, then, that it worked with an entry wound in the back of his neck rather than slightly below it. That’s a start. Because, of course, the question of how high or low in the neck/back the president was hit is only answered by his posture the moment he got hit. Was he sitting straight up or, if not, to what extent was he bent forward or backward? What, of course, also has to be taken into account is the sloping of the street.

Looking at photos of the limousine taken in the minutes before the assassination, we can see he wasn’t sitting straight up but slightly bent forward and even if he was sitting straight up, he didn’t have a back that went in a straight line from his neck down, as the picture below clearly shows.


So, in my opinion, there should be no discussion about this and, therefore, the fact that his back and neck area were at least at some angle with a purely vertical line.

Anyway, my opinion is that Myers’s 3D reconstruction sufficiently shows that one bullet could have caused wounds in both men. That the bullet holes in the jacked and shirt were lower is sufficiently, to me anyway, shown by the fact that, at least, the president’s jacket was bulged up somewhat, as we can see in various photos made during the motorcade.

The head shot diagrammatic that I have seen shows the shot taking out skull fragments from the top of the head (I've searched for it with no success so far) along join lines. Looking at the Autopsy diagram above, Humes entry wound is approximately in the centre of the back of the skull. There are two marks on the diagram of the front that would be consistent with a descending angle exit wound. Which one is the exit wound? For a projectile travelling right to left in relation to the vehicle, logic would suggest the mark on the left. I'm just not seeing these type of wounds in the photos.

I have no idea what those two marks are supposed to represent, I’ve never come across an explanation for those. In fact, they’re odd as they’re not to be seen in any of the photos.

For the WC theory to work, all of the above evidence has to be abandoned to end up with this:

As I wrote before, I don’t concur with this drawing.

Finally, I don't know about what a re-enactment regarding the shells might have shown, but Roger Craig was one of the first at the sniper's nest (before Fritz) and he said the casings were lined up neatly next to each other:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TLH...ogerCraigStory

Expended shell cases don't line up in a neat row, they have to be placed in that position. I have read another officer's account of Fritz picking up one of the casings, examining it, and throwing it back on the floor.

As I said, I don’t remember where I saw it, but I remember seeing it together with this photo (the blue rectangles indicate the position of the bullets). I found it (among others) here: [Window on Sixth Floor of Texas School Book Depository] - The Portal to Texas History (unt.edu). As you can see, these shell cases didn’t line up in a neat row, but I guess the photo could have been faked, like so many things can.

All the best,
Frank

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.


I can see how the poor reactions of Roy Kellerman and William Greer when shots rang out in Dealey Plaza might appear suspicious but I think PI is going too far in accusing them of being part of a conspiracy.


Have you seen the film of what is now called the Secret Service Stand-down?

It shows Emory Roberts calling back Clint Hill and Don Lawton, who were about to mount the platforms at the back of the presidential limousine, seconds before the assassination.

If he had not done so, the assassination could hardly have been successful.

Do you not find that suspicious?



After their deaths the families of Greer, Kellerman and also Kennedy aide O’Donnell who was in the pilot car, said that in private these men believed there had been more than one gunman and that the attack was part of a conspiracy.




I was never one of those people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission’s report on the President’s death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O’Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy’s Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.

I was surprised to hear O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.

"That’s not what you told the Warren Commission," I said.

"You’re right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

"I can’t believe it," I said. "I wouldn’t have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth."

"Tip, you have to understand. The family—everybody wanted this thing behind them."

Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s.

(Man of the House, by Tip O'Neill, 1987)

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the above is typical of the unsubstantiated tosh that we’ve come to expect in this case. It’s is awash with this kind of stuff that you appear to swallow ever time. Isn’t it remarkable how these people suddenly remember that they have a story to tell; this one 24 years later . People in power are all complete liars unless they say something that you like. Why is that?

O’Donnell thought that he heard 2 shots that came from the fence - ok so he had such finely tuned hearing that he could pinpoint the exact spot where the shots came from? And he kept it quiet because he was pressured - why would he have been pressured when numerous witnesses thought that the shots came from the Knoll and all of them had spoken out.

These story’s are two-a-penny.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.


I can see how the poor reactions of Roy Kellerman and William Greer when shots rang out in Dealey Plaza might appear suspicious but I think PI is going too far in accusing them of being part of a conspiracy.


Have you seen the film of what is now called the Secret Service Stand-down?

It shows Emory Roberts calling back Clint Hill and Don Lawton, who were about to mount the platforms at the back of the presidential limousine, seconds before the assassination.

If he had not done so, the assassination could hardly have been successful.

Do you not find that suspicious?

Just for once PI, try looking at the world without the conspiracy goggles on. Just try it. Go through a day looking at things without deliberately trying to find things that are suspicious. Just tell yourself that even in the ripper case there are untold points that are up for dispute. There are untold errors and possible errors. There are discrepancies and evidence that clashes with other evidence. There are witnesses who some say we’re right and some say we’re wrong. We can’t count how many of these there are but it would be a fairly height number.

Now multiply that by a couple of hundred a you might, only might, start to approach the amount of similar occasions in the case of the assassination. So how many simple must there be; how many clashing witness testimonies and discrepancies. These are normal and will always occur when human beings are involved and will be multiplied when witnesses are seeing things that happen under extreme stress and trauma; and many of those things occurred in a very short space of time. These are normal things; things to be expected and they should be viewed with that in mind. But that’s not want conspiracy theorists do. They immediately take the view that there must be a sinister explanation. That every coincidence is evidence of a plot. It’s not that plots never happen, it’s about a mindset. And conspiracy theorists have a mindset. An assumption of the sinister. And I have to say that many of the do it absolutely on purpose.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi George,

Yes, first he sort of clutched at his throat and then seems to get numb, slowly slumping towards Jackie. In fact, from about frame 281 to 312 his body seems to be limp, in the same position, not moving.

I find that very unlikely, based on what I see in the frames mentioned above. By the time of frame 312, he’d already stopped moving or, as you put it, falling forward, and besides, between 312 and 313 only his head moved, not his body. All in all, I don’t find this explanation convincing, either.

That's alright, I had no intention of trying to force you to change your mind.


I’m sure it can be, George. What I know is that there some witnesses who said that the limousine came to a complete stop, while others said it didn’t but slowed down, which is in line with what we see in at least the ZF. So, it’s a choice of who to believe. I, for one, try to stick as much as possible to the physical evidence, as presented by the photos and films and the evidence presented by the ones who had reason to professionally & personally examine it. All the rest only causes static. But that's just my opinion.

I’ve gone back and forth over the years, George, and I don’t profess to know the truth, but, for now, I’m close to the WC conclusion.


A straight line from the NW corner of the records building to the manhole cover would mean a shot that didn’t even come close to the limousine, so what or who is it supposed to have hit before ricocheting on to the manhole cover?


Waiting for the limousine to disappear behind the oak tree seems a very unlikely scenario to me, too. I once thought the shot eventually wounding Tague might have come from the Dal-Tex Building, as at least that would have passed over part of Elm Street along the limousine’s route in more or less the middle of the street. That seems far more logical than a shot from the NW corner of the RB. BTW, Haag made me change my view of the first shot grazing the part of the traffic light assembly and then ricocheting on to the manhole cover, etc.


Okay, but you do see, then, that it worked with an entry wound in the back of his neck rather than slightly below it. That’s a start. Because, of course, the question of how high or low in the neck/back the president was hit is only answered by his posture the moment he got hit. Was he sitting straight up or, if not, to what extent was he bent forward or backward? What, of course, also has to be taken into account is the sloping of the street.

Looking at photos of the limousine taken in the minutes before the assassination, we can see he wasn’t sitting straight up but slightly bent forward and even if he was sitting straight up, he didn’t have a back that went in a straight line from his neck down, as the picture below clearly shows.


So, in my opinion, there should be no discussion about this and, therefore, the fact that his back and neck area were at least at some angle with a purely vertical line.

Anyway, my opinion is that Myers’s 3D reconstruction sufficiently shows that one bullet could have caused wounds in both men. That the bullet holes in the jacked and shirt were lower is sufficiently, to me anyway, shown by the fact that, at least, the president’s jacket was bulged up somewhat, as we can see in various photos made during the motorcade.




I have no idea what those two marks are supposed to represent, I’ve never come across an explanation for those. In fact, they’re odd as they’re not to be seen in any of the photos.



As I wrote before, I don’t concur with this drawing.


As I said, I don’t remember where I saw it, but I remember seeing it together with this photo (the blue rectangles indicate the position of the bullets). I found it (among others) here: [Window on Sixth Floor of Texas School Book Depository] - The Portal to Texas History (unt.edu). As you can see, these shell cases didn’t line up in a neat row, but I guess the photo could have been faked, like so many things can.

All the best,
Frank

Another good post Frank.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Just for once PI, try looking at the world without the conspiracy goggles on. Just try it. Go through a day looking at things without deliberately trying to find things that are suspicious. Just tell yourself that even in the ripper case there are untold points that are up for dispute. There are untold errors and possible errors. There are discrepancies and evidence that clashes with other evidence. There are witnesses who some say we’re right and some say we’re wrong. We can’t count how many of these there are but it would be a fairly height number.

Now multiply that by a couple of hundred a you might, only might, start to approach the amount of similar occasions in the case of the assassination. So how many simple must there be; how many clashing witness testimonies and discrepancies. These are normal and will always occur when human beings are involved and will be multiplied when witnesses are seeing things that happen under extreme stress and trauma; and many of those things occurred in a very short space of time. These are normal things; things to be expected and they should be viewed with that in mind. But that’s not want conspiracy theorists do. They immediately take the view that there must be a sinister explanation. That every coincidence is evidence of a plot. It’s not that plots never happen, it’s about a mindset. And conspiracy theorists have a mindset. An assumption of the sinister. And I have to say that many of the do it absolutely on purpose.

It is not that I am looking for a conspiracy where none existed, but rather that you are making a basic mistake about the conditions in which political assassinations often take place.

I mentioned previously that the assassinations of Kirov, Stalin, Rabin and King had a common factor: security was withdrawn or inadequate.

The lack of security allowed the assassination to take place in each case.

Anyone can research those four murders- in Stalin's case officially a death from natural causes - and see the security irregularities in each case.

That is what one should be on the lookout for in the case of a political murder.

You are not on the lookout for it because you dismiss people who are on the lookout for it as conspiracy theorists.

Stalin gave orders for reduced security for Kirov just before Kirov's murder; all Stalin's staff were ordered to take leave before he collapsed; Rabin's bodyguards left a nice gap for the alleged assassin to approach Rabin; the local police were ordered not to provide protection for King on the day of his murder.

Those are the kinds of irregularities you should be looking for, but you are not.

Anything that facilitated President Kennedy's assassination is ground for suspicion.

That includes the Secret Service Stand-down.

If Roberts had not called Hill and Lawton back, the assassination attempt would have failed.

If Greer had not slowed down the car almost to a halt - as reported by dozens of witnesses - the assassination might have failed.

Had Kellerman instructed Greer to accelerate instead of watching Kennedy's brains being blown out, Kennedy might have survived.

If Greer had himself decided to accelerate the vehicle instead of himself looking at Kennedy, Kennedy might have survived.

All of those actions provide grounds for suspicion.

Roberts' action is obviously very suspicious.

Hill and Lawton felt the need to be on the special platforms at the back of the Presidential limousine in order to be in a position to protect the President.

Roberts prevented them from doing so, to Lawton's obvious dismay.

That ought to make anyone suspicious.

[GBinOz]

This isn’t good is it St. George. Your powers of analysis are letting you down again. I have no information about Towner but I’d be prepared to bet that he wasn’t the kind of dimwit to suggest a railroad car in a car park (your witness Hofmann probably would though) So he went to the fence and then looked around the car park area as others did - remember? When they found no evidence of a gunman. You’ve heard of the Triple Underpass I assume? Guess what it carried…..a railway line. And where did it run? Around the left hand side of the car park. I’m guessing a walk from the fence of around 40-50 yards. What stands on railway lines? Trains or carriages or both. Would there have been a Pullman carriage standing there? Well we know that there were men working on the line on the overpass because Holland tells us so, so it’s quite possible that a Pullman carriage was stationary there awaiting an engine to pick it up when the line was repaired.

Bit of an there St. George.

You see, I prefer to look at witnesses properly rather than just assuming that they’re liars as you do when they don’t work in your favour.

So again…..we have Desroe (someone we have no reason for doubting as far as I’m aware) being seen near a Pullman car (he was a guard on a Pullman car by profession) by Towner (another man that we have no reason for doubting as far as I’m aware) And did anyone else see him…..well we have a Deputy Sheriff who saw a black man working the Pullman’s (like a Pullman guard would) And we have Desroe saying that he was moved from his position on the overpass by officials. And we know that there were officials on the overpass as confirmed by Holland.

So 2 men see apparently the same man in the area behind the picket fence and that man saw nothing at all suspicious. Do we just dismiss him and if so, on what grounds?

The master manipulator. "Standing on the back of a Pullman dining car" becomes "seen near a Pullman car". The Pullman car speculated to have been abandoned near the overpass with Mrs Desroe standing nearby, conveniently placed so that the guard could nip along the picket fence to see no assassins. Discount entirely that the Pullman car was most likely in the marshalling yard over at the end of the rail line, and Desroe was talking about not seeing anyone behind the TSBD.

I am not dismissing any of the witnesses, I am looking at what 3 witnesses actually said and dismissing your ridiculous assertion that the Pullman car was in the area behind the picket fence.

[cobalt]

The reluctance of Mr. Desroe and his wife to proclaim their having seen 'nobody' around the railroad and the picket fence might be explained by this article entitled: Last Train from Dealey Plaza.'

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/Newcomb%20Fred/Item%2028.pdf