The "Smoking Gun"... Literally

reply to post by 1ifbyland2ifbydebitcard

People see faces in clouds, too.

That's called Pareidolia - something I know about quite well. I've even wrote individual threads about the "phenomenon" on ATS in the past.. It's clear that the images I added to the OP, the ones you're talking about now, are not a result of Pareidolia.

And why do you think Arnold is "full of it"? Surely you have a valid reason and you don't feel that way simply because he gives us reason to suspect another shooter..

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


This happened 48 years ago, so the ammunition may not be the "modern" smokeless variety.
Would be interesting to superimpose officer Trippit's face on the badge man shooter and do some facial comparison/recognition tests. "Bones" would be able to do it, or the CSI Las Vegas team.

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
This happened 48 years ago, so the ammunition may not be the "modern" smokeless variety.

Not sure what you mean as 'modern' smokeless ammunition was invented in 19th Century. The formulas are relatively unchanged.

reply to post by Rising Against


Thank you for a well put together thread.

As I now live in Dallas I could not resist going the book depository.

The window that Oswald supposedly shot from is blocked by a "reconstruction" of boxes and the like as it would have been on the day of the assassination. All encased behind a glass wall.

You can however stand at the next window and as I did so, something became obvious. If you were going to shoot at the motorcade, the best, easiest, shot would be as it was coming toward you. You could even stand back away from the window and therefore out of sight of the street. Where as the shots that were taken were fired as the motorcade was moving away and to the right. Forcing the shooter to be right up against the window and in full view of the street. Not to mention an unnecessarily awkward shot.

If however you stood on the Grassy Knoll, then the motorcade would be moving toward you and you would have a full field of vision.

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

This happened 48 years ago, so the ammunition may not be the "modern" smokeless variety.
Would be interesting to superimpose officer Trippit's face on the badge man shooter and do some facial comparison/recognition tests. "Bones" would be able to do it, or the CSI Las Vegas team.

edit on 1-9-2011 by Sailor Sam because: corrected length of time since the assassination

Someone already did 12 years ago. Using more modern techniques would be interesting.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/80bf6a26007f.jpg[/atsimg]

Judge for yourself: Link

It's also worth pointing out that the well known British documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" concluded that the man in the picture wasn't a policeman at all, he was in fact a French professional assassin, one who was in disguise as a police officer, named as Lucien Sarti.

It's probably the most in-depth documentary ever made on the case and certainly worth a watch.

Another great link on Sarti can be found here: Spartacus.Schoolnet.co.uk - Lucien Sarti

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by Akasirus

 

Clearly your mind is made up so why did you post here. what you say makes little sense. A mellon is not a skull ,nore is it a reasonable substitute. Penn and Teller are very poor examples to demonstrate some one shooting. Are they expert marksmen? I don't think so. They fail to take into account the recoil of the gun and reaquiring the target after the shot. When these things are taken into account even expert marksmen have said that the shots cannot be made.

Not to mention that Oswald wasn't a very good shot. The weapon used was poorly maintained and did not function as smoothly as the one in the video.

My mind is not made up, quite the opposite in fact. I never said I believed the single shooter theory, or even thought it likely. I simply stated that it can't be ruled out based on those two misconceptions. It is not impossible to get three shots off in five seconds, nor is it impossible for the head to jerk towards the shooter from brain matter spraying out the exit wound. I wasn't trying to debunk anything, but presenting things as absolute proof when they aren't hinder progress more than they help it.

reply to post by Rising Against


Very good point about Lucien Sarti. He was also known to wear disguises on his "jobs". On the other hand, some place him in Dealey Plaza in front of the umbrella man supposedly talking on a "walkie talkie"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1658431921d0.jpg[/atsimg]

To me, this is way too fuzzy to tell. Also, if you look at his hairline above his forehead, it doesn't look like the badgeman's hairline...

A very interesting thread. OP is enthralling.

Yet you have this official story that never changes no matter how often it is refuted. Obviously this points to very poor debating skills from the official side.

This pattern then repeats in 9/11 where you have impossible official nonsense that still stands unchanged while public support of it vanishes. We will have to see how contradictions between retreating lies and advancing truth will work out. Only time will tell.

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


Here's one of the clearest images of DCM that I can find:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/055577979259.jpg[/atsimg]

It's obviously still not clear as he's facing away but It doesn't seem like Sarti, to me anyway. It looks more like Eladio Del Valle in fact - and I still wouldn't be confident saying it was him as well as the appearance of both men still doesn't quite fit together, although he certainly seems to be involved in the assassination still. Here's one of the only images of him:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc03c5f20eca.jpg[/atsimg]

For a long time I thought he was DCM, and many researchers seemingly still think he was, but as of late I've not been as confident about it, admittedly.

In regards to the possibility of him talking on a walkie talkie, well, the images speak for themselves really:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a25da34a48f1.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/06d8cc20e7da.jpg[/atsimg]

Certainly looks like a walkie talkie to me anyway. And in the first image he appears to be talking into it.

It's also worth pointing out that Lee Bowers in the rail yard behind the knoll claimed that that one of the participants driving around in the car park appeared to be talking on a walkie talkie.

A possible connection perhaps?

I discussed all of this in a bit more detail in this thread here: Lee Bowers - A Murdered Witness

Also, it's very convenient how exactly cropped the 'enhanced' photo is. If you take a look at the bigger picture it becomes clear there are probably not people there.

I took your photos from the original post, resized them so they were the same scale, and super-imposed them on top of each other. Taking a photo of Gordon, you can match up the top of the head, and the top of the shoulders, to get a sense of how tall he should be. Extending a line across to where his feet would be, you can see where his feet would be.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0ed092e3c68.jpg[/atsimg]

There isn't a perspective in which it makes sense for them to be appearing in that position behind the wall. If they were standing far enough away for their feet to be in that position, they wouldn't have been able to see far enough over the wall. They would literally be floating in midair.

If you zoom in on any other section of the tree so closely, you see blobs of high and low contrast and patterns tend to emerge. It's like seeing faces in clouds.

Please note, I'm not trying to 'deny' anything, nor is my mind already made up as some have claimed. I just think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of evidence if we are going to use it as concrete and factual information.

reply to post by Akasirus


RA may want to add to this, but what you see makes perfect sense. The two men on the right were behind the picket fence while Gordon Arnold was several feet in front of them at the wall. It would not make sense if they were the same height since two of the men were further away from the camera.

reply to post by Akasirus


But Gordon said he found a "mound of dirt to stand on" and the ground is rising there anyway. There are also other interesting things Gordon said, "The policemans hands were dirty" if that is a true statement, (and I'm not saying that it isn't) why should anybody's hands be dirty, or noticeably dirty, especially a marksmans unless it was costume. There could be a direct reason, 'Badgeman' could have been in the storm drain earlier with someone else hence the dirty hands, another shooter, and the puff of smoke seen in the picture looking toward the knoll could have just as likely come from the storm drain and just not seen directly after until it had risen somewhat.
The 'Storm drain bullet' could also explain the so called magic bullet effect, in that it would have had a more left-left effect on the president's head, than a bullet coming from the knoll. It could also explain the idea of five shots being heard on the open Mike of a policemans motor cycle, say two from the knoll, two from the storm drain, and one from elsewhere, like the depository. The two bullets from the storm drain could still be languishing somewhere, but not likely. Then there is the whole conspiracy thing itself, how many people? it's not enough to talk about the shooters, there had to be many more.

reply to BritofTexas

Welcome to Dallas BritofTexas The sixth floor museum is an interesting place to visit and i agree with you that a frontal shot is much more preferable than from the sixth floor window.

The limo was going downhill and curving to the right, from the intersection of Elm & Houston to the triple underpass Elm Street drops approximately 26 feet in elevation. A much clearer shot was available from the southwest corner of the Dal-Tex building (501 Elm Street)

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by 1ifbyland2ifbydebitcard

 

People see faces in clouds, too.

That's called Pareidolia - something I know about quite well. I've even wrote individual threads about the "phenomenon" on ATS in the past.. It's clear that the images I added to the OP, the ones you're talking about now, are not a result of Pareidolia.

And why do you think Arnold is "full of it"? Surely you have a valid reason and you don't feel that way simply because he gives us reason to suspect another shooter..

edit on 1-9-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)

Hi,
Upon re-reading my post it seemed like it was directed at you in a negative way, but I very much enjoyed reading your thread, so much so that I starred it. However, I disagree regarding the "badgeman" enlargements. I think those guys were just looking too hard... especially by the time we get to the third person who is supposedly standing there. I think when we look at the original photo without enlargement it becomes clear that if there's someone there we wouldn't be able to tell. Heck, if Jack White and the other researcher looked hard enough, I bet they could see some faces up in the trees, too.

As far as Arnold goes - I don't mind the idea that there was another shooter, but everything about his story stinks. You posted the very interview I'd seen before and that whole thing just smells of a guy who wants attention. That sort of thing is so rampant, we have to expect to see some of it in this case (the JFK assassination). From the beginning where he tells of his brush with the CIA agent when he was "young and frisky" or whatever he said and that "that was enough muscle" to make him leave, to the part where he's on the knoll following the gunshots and says something about the shooter to the effect of "the way he was crying I think I'd have done whatever he said" - that was where he lost all credibility with me. Listen to him tell that part and its clear he's just an old kook. The ending is just as bad with White and the other researcher showing him the badgeman shots with what is supposedly him in the photo's. His reaction was laughable. He suddenly "remembered" something about the case he had forgotten and goes on the say that he wouldn't have done the interview if he'd known about the photos, putting on that it touched him too much. Lots of little things like this add up to my opinion on him and that's why I say he's full of bologna. I don't have what would be considered a "valid reason", but he certainly sets my BS spidey sense a-tingling.

That being said, I'd like to add that your knowledge on this topic is very impressive and I always look forward to reading your threads. You know how ATS works, you don't post unless you disagree!! Lol.

Originally posted by Rising Against
It's also worth pointing out that the well known British documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" concluded that the man in the picture wasn't a policeman at all, he was in fact a French professional assassin, one who was in disguise as a police officer, named as Lucien Sarti.

It's probably the most in-depth documentary ever made on the case and certainly worth a watch.

Another great link on Sarti can be found here: Spartacus.Schoolnet.co.uk - Lucien Sarti

edit on 1-9-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)

"The Men Who Killed Kennedy" is available on Netflix streaming (save the last two parts for some reason) and is a terribly interesting watch. If there were other shooters, the explanation put forth in the documentary certainly seems the most plausible.

reply to post by Akasirus


Hey Akasirus, that's actually a really great point. I've been googling to try and come up with an answer and one of the best sources of information I can find on this, as I don't have an answer myself, can probably be found in this link here: (Source)

It's a link to a thread on "The Education Forum" on the topic of badgeman, one where even Jack white himself is posting as can be seen in this post. It's worth reading through.

One point I've come across from quite a few sources though is the images of badgeman were apparently tested by MIT at one point, in which they were "given the all clear" so to speak. Although I can't exactly verify that.

Edit: I sent you a PM yesterday btw, not sure if you got it?

Hey RA, I was going to PM you this follow-up question, but I thought your answer would fit well in this thread.. You said you don't think the Kennedy assassination could be solely the mafia's responsibility, why is that?

reply to post by 1ifbyland2ifbydebitcard

You said you don't think the Kennedy Assassination could be solely the mafia's responsibility, why is that?

Well, I don't feel as though they could have pulled it off by themselves really. As far as I'm aware, they were well known to be working with the CIA at the time on other operations, particularly in Cuba. I believe Johnny Roselli for example, someone well known to JFK researchers, was one of those working on both sides at the time. So It's not totally out of the question to suggest the CIA, or at least a apart of the CIA was involved in the JFK case as well, for which there appears to be a motive.

If you believe E. Howard Hunt then the CIA are already confirmed to be apart of the assassination, particularly Cord Meyers, the husband of Mary - someone well known to have had an affair with JFK.

After leaving the CIA in 1977 Cord Meyer wrote several books including an autobiography, Facing Reality: From World Federalism to the CIA. In the book Meyer commented on the murder of his wife: "I was satisfied by the conclusions of the police investigation that Mary had been the victim of a sexually motivated assault by a single individual and that she had been killed in her struggle to escape." Carol Delaney, the longtime personal assistant to Meyer, later admitted: "Mr. Meyer didn't for a minute think that Ray Crump had murdered his wife or that it had been an attempted rape. But, being an Agency man, he couldn't very well accuse the CIA of the crime, although the murder had all the markings of an in-house rubout."

In February, 2001, the writer, C. David Heymann, asked Cord Meyer about the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer: "My father died of a heart attack the same year Mary was killed, " he whispered. "It was a bad time." And what could he say about Mary Meyer? Who had committed such a heinous crime? "The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."

(Source)

The Failed Bay of pigs operation was said to have caused some of those in the CIA to becomed involved in the plot also, people like William Harvey for example. Here's an interesting source discussing him:

At a meeting of this committee at the White House on 4th November, 1961, it was decided to call this covert action program for sabotage and subversion against Cuba, Operation Mongoose. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy also decided that General Edward Lansdale (Staff Member of the President's Committee on Military Assistance) should be placed in charge of the operation.

The CIA JM/WAVE station in Miami served as operational headquarters for Operation Mongoose. The head of the station was Ted Shackley and over the next few months became very involved in the attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro. One of Lansdale's first decisions was to appoint Harvey as head of Task Force W. Harvey's brief was to organize a broad range of activities that would help to bring down Castro's government.

On 12th March, 1961, Harvey arranged for CIA operative, Jim O'Connell, to meet Sam Giancana, Santo Trafficante, Johnny Roselli and Robert Maheu at the Fontainebleau Hotel. During the meeting O'Connell gave poison pills and $10,000 to Rosselli to be used against Fidel Castro. As Richard D. Mahoney points out in his book: Sons and Brothers: "Late one evening, probably March 13, Rosselli passed the poison pills and the money to a small, reddish-haired Afro-Cuban by the name of Rafael "Macho" Gener in the Boom Boom Room, a location Giancana thought "stupid." Rosselli's purpose, however, was not just to assassinate Castro but to set up the Mafia's partner in crime, the United States government. Accordingly, he was laying a long, bright trail of evidence that unmistakably implicated the CIA in the Castro plot. This evidence, whose purpose was blackmail, would prove critical in the CIA's cover-up of the Kennedy assassination."

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert Kennedy instructed CIA director John McCone, to halt all covert operations aimed at Cuba. A few days later he discovered that Harvey had ignored this order and had dispatched three commando teams into Cuba to prepare for what he believed would be an inevitable invasion. Kennedy was furious and as soon as the Cuban Missile Crisis was over, Harvey was removed as commander of ZR/RIFLE. On 30th October, 1962, RFK terminated "all sabotage operations" against Cuba. As a result of President Kennedy's promise to Nikita Khrushchev that he would not invade Cuba, Operation Mongoose was disbanded.

Harvey was now sent to Italy where he became Chief of Station in Rome. Harvey knew that Robert Kennedy had been responsible for his demotion. A friend of Harvey's said that he "hated Bobby Kennedy's guts with a purple passion".

(Source)