Discussion:
JFK Assassination Black Dog Man(Woman)
(too old to reply)
claviger
2018-05-30 02:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
JFK Assassination Black Dog Man(Woman)

A modern theory & most likely a solution to the Blackdogman figure in Dealy Plaza
from Jeff Rollins & Robin Unger
1:29


The Venerable Bede
1 year ago (edited)

Without a doubt, two of the most intriguing eyewitnesses to the
assassination, as neither have ever been identified and have maintained
their silence for some 53 years now. God bless them! I know Mike
Brownlow claims to know who they are (Arthur and Evelyn King, who he
claims are brother and sister, not husband and wife). However, Brownlow's
credibility has been questioned repeatedly, and I don't really know what
to make of his statements. But if true, that Evelyn came forward a few
years ago to identify herself and tell Brownlow, a fellow
African-American, what she saw and what they were doing there, then it is
an amazing discovery on Brownlow's part. But again, Brownlow's
credibility is not the best, as he is regarded by many to be a con artist.

On the other hand, if they were actually the young black couple Marilyn
Sitzman said she saw sitting on the bench eating their lunch 15-20 minutes
before the motorcade turned onto Elm St. (and I believe they were, as all
the evidence points to this fact), then this makes for a much more
interesting story in my view, as they have yet to come forward and remain
unidentified to this day. I have no reason to doubt why they haven't come
forward to be identified. To me it makes perfect sense: they feared for
their lives. And who can blame them?

There is no doubt in my mind that this tall, young black man in a light
colored (beige?) jacket and dark trousers captured in the Darnell film
standing with the young black woman holding the baby behind the concrete
wall just minutes after the assassination is the same young, tall black
man that was standing on the steps next to Emmett Hudson and the other
(white) man in the red shirt whose name was F. Lee Mudd. Secret Service
agent Paul Landis identified this young man standing next to Hudson as "a
Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt." Landis saw
him turn and run up the stairs when the shots were fired. This young
black man's reaction to the shot that struck Kennedy in the head was to
turn immediately and run up the steps. His reaction is consistent with
someone whose concern was, evidently, for the loved ones he left sitting
on the bench at the top of the stairs behind him, which was probably his
young wife and child, if not his sister. The child appears to be about 6
months old. You can also see the lunch bag that was left on the bench
where they were apparently eating their lunch, as Sitzman said they were,
before the president's motorcade arrived.

The only logical deduction is that this young black man simply walked down
the steps a few minutes prior to the president's car turning onto Elm St.
in order to get a better view of the president. Hudson only mentioned the
man sitting next to him (the young black man) on the steps who he struck
up a conversation with, stating the young man was, he estimated, about in
his late twenties. He did not mention the other man, F. Lee Mudd, who was
the man in the red shirt standing a few steps down in front of them. The
reason is obvious. He did not know him and did not speak to him. He only
spoke to the young black man for a few minutes before the president's car
turned onto Elm St. Hudson said at that point they both stood (they were
sitting prior to that), and Hudson's attention was focused entirely on the
motorcade, not the young black man standing next to him who he had just
talked to. When the shots were fired, this young black man immediately
turned and ran up the steps, back in the direction of where the bench was
located, in fear that his young wife (or sister) and child were in harm's
way. They likely remained atop the knoll for 10-15 minutes, blending in
with the crowd. You can see in the Darnell film how the Dallas police
were moving people out of that area. They were clearing the area of
spectators and witnesses. The young black woman is later seen in another
photo (probably 15-20 minutes after the shooting) standing in front of the
entrance to the TSBD where a station had been set up by police to take
testimony from witnesses. She was standing in line holding this same
baby, evidently waiting to tell police what she saw. This young black
couple (whether husband and wife, or brother and sister) evidently walked
away after that and never came forward (understandably) to tell their
story and what they saw.

Again, God bless them both. I would give anything to talk to them and
have them tell their story. How brave they were to have kept silent all
these years and remain out of the spotlight. I can only imagine how
fearful they were after the events of that day. I hope nothing ever
happened to them and that they were able to live their lives in peace.
Although, what an amazing story theirs is, as it is very likely they saw
the shooter(s) behind the picket fence either before or immediately after
the shooting, and for fear for their lives they have never come
forward.


beaviselectron
3 years ago

Also, read Marilyn Sitzman's testimony to the Warren Commission. She was
standing on the concrete pergola with Zapruder, keeping him steady because
suffered from vertigo. She speaks of seeing the Negro couple behind the
"Black Dog Man" firing position. In April 1997 I went to Dealey Plaza and
had myself photographed in a high-contrast outfit (white shirt and black
pants) standing behind the wall, and had many photos taken from several
angles. I am 6'4" tall and the wall doesn't even come up to my belt
buckle as it can readily be seen in the photos. NO ONE could or should
use this as a firing position, or expect to escape if doing so. And the
image of the BDM is about how much of a human being of average height you
would see if you were looking at them. Black Dog Man has ZERO
credibility, and this is coming from a WC skeptic. I do NOT believe LHO
did it, or acted alone, but the answer is NOT Black Dog Man. I am a
professional investigator by trade and there is simply NO evidence that
supports this theory. All smoke and no fire.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-31 22:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
JFK Assassination Black Dog Man(Woman)
http://youtu.be/mIvo0_tr07M
A modern theory & most likely a solution to the Blackdogman figure in Dealy Plaza
from Jeff Rollins & Robin Unger
1:29
The Venerable Bede
1 year ago (edited)
Without a doubt, two of the most intriguing eyewitnesses to the
assassination, as neither have ever been identified and have maintained
their silence for some 53 years now. God bless them! I know Mike
Brownlow claims to know who they are (Arthur and Evelyn King, who he
claims are brother and sister, not husband and wife). However, Brownlow's
credibility has been questioned repeatedly, and I don't really know what
to make of his statements. But if true, that Evelyn came forward a few
years ago to identify herself and tell Brownlow, a fellow
African-American, what she saw and what they were doing there, then it is
an amazing discovery on Brownlow's part. But again, Brownlow's
credibility is not the best, as he is regarded by many to be a con artist.
On the other hand, if they were actually the young black couple Marilyn
Sitzman said she saw sitting on the bench eating their lunch 15-20 minutes
before the motorcade turned onto Elm St. (and I believe they were, as all
the evidence points to this fact), then this makes for a much more
interesting story in my view, as they have yet to come forward and remain
unidentified to this day. I have no reason to doubt why they haven't come
forward to be identified. To me it makes perfect sense: they feared for
their lives. And who can blame them?
There is no doubt in my mind that this tall, young black man in a light
colored (beige?) jacket and dark trousers captured in the Darnell film
standing with the young black woman holding the baby behind the concrete
wall just minutes after the assassination is the same young, tall black
man that was standing on the steps next to Emmett Hudson and the other
(white) man in the red shirt whose name was F. Lee Mudd. Secret Service
agent Paul Landis identified this young man standing next to Hudson as "a
Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt." Landis saw
him turn and run up the stairs when the shots were fired. This young
black man's reaction to the shot that struck Kennedy in the head was to
turn immediately and run up the steps. His reaction is consistent with
someone whose concern was, evidently, for the loved ones he left sitting
on the bench at the top of the stairs behind him, which was probably his
young wife and child, if not his sister. The child appears to be about 6
months old. You can also see the lunch bag that was left on the bench
where they were apparently eating their lunch, as Sitzman said they were,
before the president's motorcade arrived.
The only logical deduction is that this young black man simply walked down
the steps a few minutes prior to the president's car turning onto Elm St.
in order to get a better view of the president. Hudson only mentioned the
man sitting next to him (the young black man) on the steps who he struck
up a conversation with, stating the young man was, he estimated, about in
his late twenties. He did not mention the other man, F. Lee Mudd, who was
the man in the red shirt standing a few steps down in front of them. The
reason is obvious. He did not know him and did not speak to him. He only
spoke to the young black man for a few minutes before the president's car
turned onto Elm St. Hudson said at that point they both stood (they were
sitting prior to that), and Hudson's attention was focused entirely on the
motorcade, not the young black man standing next to him who he had just
talked to. When the shots were fired, this young black man immediately
turned and ran up the steps, back in the direction of where the bench was
located, in fear that his young wife (or sister) and child were in harm's
way. They likely remained atop the knoll for 10-15 minutes, blending in
with the crowd. You can see in the Darnell film how the Dallas police
were moving people out of that area. They were clearing the area of
spectators and witnesses. The young black woman is later seen in another
photo (probably 15-20 minutes after the shooting) standing in front of the
entrance to the TSBD where a station had been set up by police to take
testimony from witnesses. She was standing in line holding this same
baby, evidently waiting to tell police what she saw. This young black
couple (whether husband and wife, or brother and sister) evidently walked
away after that and never came forward (understandably) to tell their
story and what they saw.
Again, God bless them both. I would give anything to talk to them and
have them tell their story. How brave they were to have kept silent all
these years and remain out of the spotlight. I can only imagine how
fearful they were after the events of that day. I hope nothing ever
happened to them and that they were able to live their lives in peace.
Although, what an amazing story theirs is, as it is very likely they saw
the shooter(s) behind the picket fence either before or immediately after
the shooting, and for fear for their lives they have never come
forward.
beaviselectron
3 years ago
Also, read Marilyn Sitzman's testimony to the Warren Commission. She was
standing on the concrete pergola with Zapruder, keeping him steady because
suffered from vertigo. She speaks of seeing the Negro couple behind the
"Black Dog Man" firing position. In April 1997 I went to Dealey Plaza and
had myself photographed in a high-contrast outfit (white shirt and black
pants) standing behind the wall, and had many photos taken from several
angles. I am 6'4" tall and the wall doesn't even come up to my belt
buckle as it can readily be seen in the photos. NO ONE could or should
WTF do your personal opinions have to do with anything? BDM was leaning
against the retaining all, not standing up.
Post by claviger
use this as a firing position, or expect to escape if doing so. And the
image of the BDM is about how much of a human being of average height you
would see if you were looking at them. Black Dog Man has ZERO
credibility, and this is coming from a WC skeptic. I do NOT believe LHO
How can you say he has no credibility when you didn't even question him?
YOU have no credibility. And McAdams is taller than you.
Post by claviger
did it, or acted alone, but the answer is NOT Black Dog Man. I am a
professional investigator by trade and there is simply NO evidence that
supports this theory. All smoke and no fire.
You mean professional con man.
claviger
2018-06-02 21:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
JFK Assassination Black Dog Man(Woman)
http://youtu.be/mIvo0_tr07M
A modern theory & most likely a solution to the Blackdogman figure in Dealy Plaza
from Jeff Rollins & Robin Unger
1:29
The Venerable Bede
1 year ago (edited)
Without a doubt, two of the most intriguing eyewitnesses to the
assassination, as neither have ever been identified and have maintained
their silence for some 53 years now. God bless them! I know Mike
Brownlow claims to know who they are (Arthur and Evelyn King, who he
claims are brother and sister, not husband and wife). However, Brownlow's
credibility has been questioned repeatedly, and I don't really know what
to make of his statements. But if true, that Evelyn came forward a few
years ago to identify herself and tell Brownlow, a fellow
African-American, what she saw and what they were doing there, then it is
an amazing discovery on Brownlow's part. But again, Brownlow's
credibility is not the best, as he is regarded by many to be a con artist.
On the other hand, if they were actually the young black couple Marilyn
Sitzman said she saw sitting on the bench eating their lunch 15-20 minutes
before the motorcade turned onto Elm St. (and I believe they were, as all
the evidence points to this fact), then this makes for a much more
interesting story in my view, as they have yet to come forward and remain
unidentified to this day. I have no reason to doubt why they haven't come
forward to be identified. To me it makes perfect sense: they feared for
their lives. And who can blame them?
There is no doubt in my mind that this tall, young black man in a light
colored (beige?) jacket and dark trousers captured in the Darnell film
standing with the young black woman holding the baby behind the concrete
wall just minutes after the assassination is the same young, tall black
man that was standing on the steps next to Emmett Hudson and the other
(white) man in the red shirt whose name was F. Lee Mudd. Secret Service
agent Paul Landis identified this young man standing next to Hudson as "a
Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt." Landis saw
him turn and run up the stairs when the shots were fired. This young
black man's reaction to the shot that struck Kennedy in the head was to
turn immediately and run up the steps. His reaction is consistent with
someone whose concern was, evidently, for the loved ones he left sitting
on the bench at the top of the stairs behind him, which was probably his
young wife and child, if not his sister. The child appears to be about 6
months old. You can also see the lunch bag that was left on the bench
where they were apparently eating their lunch, as Sitzman said they were,
before the president's motorcade arrived.
The only logical deduction is that this young black man simply walked down
the steps a few minutes prior to the president's car turning onto Elm St.
in order to get a better view of the president. Hudson only mentioned the
man sitting next to him (the young black man) on the steps who he struck
up a conversation with, stating the young man was, he estimated, about in
his late twenties. He did not mention the other man, F. Lee Mudd, who was
the man in the red shirt standing a few steps down in front of them. The
reason is obvious. He did not know him and did not speak to him. He only
spoke to the young black man for a few minutes before the president's car
turned onto Elm St. Hudson said at that point they both stood (they were
sitting prior to that), and Hudson's attention was focused entirely on the
motorcade, not the young black man standing next to him who he had just
talked to. When the shots were fired, this young black man immediately
turned and ran up the steps, back in the direction of where the bench was
located, in fear that his young wife (or sister) and child were in harm's
way. They likely remained atop the knoll for 10-15 minutes, blending in
with the crowd. You can see in the Darnell film how the Dallas police
were moving people out of that area. They were clearing the area of
spectators and witnesses. The young black woman is later seen in another
photo (probably 15-20 minutes after the shooting) standing in front of the
entrance to the TSBD where a station had been set up by police to take
testimony from witnesses. She was standing in line holding this same
baby, evidently waiting to tell police what she saw. This young black
couple (whether husband and wife, or brother and sister) evidently walked
away after that and never came forward (understandably) to tell their
story and what they saw.
Again, God bless them both. I would give anything to talk to them and
have them tell their story. How brave they were to have kept silent all
these years and remain out of the spotlight. I can only imagine how
fearful they were after the events of that day. I hope nothing ever
happened to them and that they were able to live their lives in peace.
Although, what an amazing story theirs is, as it is very likely they saw
the shooter(s) behind the picket fence either before or immediately after
the shooting, and for fear for their lives they have never come
forward.
beaviselectron
3 years ago
Also, read Marilyn Sitzman's testimony to the Warren Commission. She was
standing on the concrete pergola with Zapruder, keeping him steady because
suffered from vertigo. She speaks of seeing the Negro couple behind the
"Black Dog Man" firing position. In April 1997 I went to Dealey Plaza and
had myself photographed in a high-contrast outfit (white shirt and black
pants) standing behind the wall, and had many photos taken from several
angles. I am 6'4" tall and the wall doesn't even come up to my belt
buckle as it can readily be seen in the photos. NO ONE could or should
WTF do your personal opinions have to do with anything? BDM was leaning
against the retaining all, not standing up.
Post by claviger
use this as a firing position, or expect to escape if doing so. And the
image of the BDM is about how much of a human being of average height you
would see if you were looking at them. Black Dog Man has ZERO
credibility, and this is coming from a WC skeptic. I do NOT believe LHO
How can you say he has no credibility when you didn't even question him?
YOU have no credibility. And McAdams is taller than you.
Post by claviger
did it, or acted alone, but the answer is NOT Black Dog Man. I am a
professional investigator by trade and there is simply NO evidence that
supports this theory. All smoke and no fire.
You mean professional con man.
When you write something like this is when we start to worry about you. I
didn't write this opinion you are reacting to. You are are responding to
an opinion by someone else who wrote this 3 years ago. So you need to
correct all your pronouns, otherwise you sound like a pet dog barking at a
TV screen.

The guy who wrote it is "Beaviselectron".

Your response sounds like "Butthead".
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 22:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
JFK Assassination Black Dog Man(Woman)
http://youtu.be/mIvo0_tr07M
A modern theory & most likely a solution to the Blackdogman figure in Dealy Plaza
from Jeff Rollins & Robin Unger
1:29
The Venerable Bede
1 year ago (edited)
Without a doubt, two of the most intriguing eyewitnesses to the
assassination, as neither have ever been identified and have maintained
their silence for some 53 years now. God bless them! I know Mike
Brownlow claims to know who they are (Arthur and Evelyn King, who he
claims are brother and sister, not husband and wife). However, Brownlow's
credibility has been questioned repeatedly, and I don't really know what
to make of his statements. But if true, that Evelyn came forward a few
years ago to identify herself and tell Brownlow, a fellow
African-American, what she saw and what they were doing there, then it is
an amazing discovery on Brownlow's part. But again, Brownlow's
credibility is not the best, as he is regarded by many to be a con artist.
On the other hand, if they were actually the young black couple Marilyn
Sitzman said she saw sitting on the bench eating their lunch 15-20 minutes
before the motorcade turned onto Elm St. (and I believe they were, as all
the evidence points to this fact), then this makes for a much more
interesting story in my view, as they have yet to come forward and remain
unidentified to this day. I have no reason to doubt why they haven't come
forward to be identified. To me it makes perfect sense: they feared for
their lives. And who can blame them?
There is no doubt in my mind that this tall, young black man in a light
colored (beige?) jacket and dark trousers captured in the Darnell film
standing with the young black woman holding the baby behind the concrete
wall just minutes after the assassination is the same young, tall black
man that was standing on the steps next to Emmett Hudson and the other
(white) man in the red shirt whose name was F. Lee Mudd. Secret Service
agent Paul Landis identified this young man standing next to Hudson as "a
Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt." Landis saw
him turn and run up the stairs when the shots were fired. This young
black man's reaction to the shot that struck Kennedy in the head was to
turn immediately and run up the steps. His reaction is consistent with
someone whose concern was, evidently, for the loved ones he left sitting
on the bench at the top of the stairs behind him, which was probably his
young wife and child, if not his sister. The child appears to be about 6
months old. You can also see the lunch bag that was left on the bench
where they were apparently eating their lunch, as Sitzman said they were,
before the president's motorcade arrived.
The only logical deduction is that this young black man simply walked down
the steps a few minutes prior to the president's car turning onto Elm St.
in order to get a better view of the president. Hudson only mentioned the
man sitting next to him (the young black man) on the steps who he struck
up a conversation with, stating the young man was, he estimated, about in
his late twenties. He did not mention the other man, F. Lee Mudd, who was
the man in the red shirt standing a few steps down in front of them. The
reason is obvious. He did not know him and did not speak to him. He only
spoke to the young black man for a few minutes before the president's car
turned onto Elm St. Hudson said at that point they both stood (they were
sitting prior to that), and Hudson's attention was focused entirely on the
motorcade, not the young black man standing next to him who he had just
talked to. When the shots were fired, this young black man immediately
turned and ran up the steps, back in the direction of where the bench was
located, in fear that his young wife (or sister) and child were in harm's
way. They likely remained atop the knoll for 10-15 minutes, blending in
with the crowd. You can see in the Darnell film how the Dallas police
were moving people out of that area. They were clearing the area of
spectators and witnesses. The young black woman is later seen in another
photo (probably 15-20 minutes after the shooting) standing in front of the
entrance to the TSBD where a station had been set up by police to take
testimony from witnesses. She was standing in line holding this same
baby, evidently waiting to tell police what she saw. This young black
couple (whether husband and wife, or brother and sister) evidently walked
away after that and never came forward (understandably) to tell their
story and what they saw.
Again, God bless them both. I would give anything to talk to them and
have them tell their story. How brave they were to have kept silent all
these years and remain out of the spotlight. I can only imagine how
fearful they were after the events of that day. I hope nothing ever
happened to them and that they were able to live their lives in peace.
Although, what an amazing story theirs is, as it is very likely they saw
the shooter(s) behind the picket fence either before or immediately after
the shooting, and for fear for their lives they have never come
forward.???
beaviselectron
3 years ago
Also, read Marilyn Sitzman's testimony to the Warren Commission. She was
standing on the concrete pergola with Zapruder, keeping him steady because
suffered from vertigo. She speaks of seeing the Negro couple behind the
"Black Dog Man" firing position. In April 1997 I went to Dealey Plaza and
had myself photographed in a high-contrast outfit (white shirt and black
pants) standing behind the wall, and had many photos taken from several
angles. I am 6'4" tall and the wall doesn't even come up to my belt
buckle as it can readily be seen in the photos. NO ONE could or should
WTF do your personal opinions have to do with anything? BDM was leaning
against the retaining all, not standing up.
Post by claviger
use this as a firing position, or expect to escape if doing so. And the
image of the BDM is about how much of a human being of average height you
would see if you were looking at them. Black Dog Man has ZERO
credibility, and this is coming from a WC skeptic. I do NOT believe LHO
How can you say he has no credibility when you didn't even question him?
YOU have no credibility. And McAdams is taller than you.
Post by claviger
did it, or acted alone, but the answer is NOT Black Dog Man. I am a
professional investigator by trade and there is simply NO evidence that
supports this theory. All smoke and no fire.???
You mean professional con man.
When you write something like this is when we start to worry about you. I
didn't write this opinion you are reacting to. You are are responding to
an opinion by someone else who wrote this 3 years ago. So you need to
FYI,the messages from 3 years ago have expired so there it no way for me
to dig up the old message and reply to it. This is a called a thread so I
can reply to something even from 20 years ago.
Post by claviger
correct all your pronouns, otherwise you sound like a pet dog barking at a
TV screen.
Don't be a grammar Nazi. People who use a glass screen should not throw
crap at it.
Post by claviger
The guy who wrote it is "Beaviselectron".
zzi don't even want to know who he really is and how he made up that name.
Post by claviger
Your response sounds like "Butthead".
claviger
2018-06-03 18:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
JFK Assassination Black Dog Man(Woman)
http://youtu.be/mIvo0_tr07M
A modern theory & most likely a solution to the Blackdogman figure in Dealy Plaza
from Jeff Rollins & Robin Unger
1:29
The Venerable Bede
1 year ago (edited)
Without a doubt, two of the most intriguing eyewitnesses to the
assassination, as neither have ever been identified and have maintained
their silence for some 53 years now. God bless them! I know Mike
Brownlow claims to know who they are (Arthur and Evelyn King, who he
claims are brother and sister, not husband and wife). However, Brownlow's
credibility has been questioned repeatedly, and I don't really know what
to make of his statements. But if true, that Evelyn came forward a few
years ago to identify herself and tell Brownlow, a fellow
African-American, what she saw and what they were doing there, then it is
an amazing discovery on Brownlow's part. But again, Brownlow's
credibility is not the best, as he is regarded by many to be a con artist.
On the other hand, if they were actually the young black couple Marilyn
Sitzman said she saw sitting on the bench eating their lunch 15-20 minutes
before the motorcade turned onto Elm St. (and I believe they were, as all
the evidence points to this fact), then this makes for a much more
interesting story in my view, as they have yet to come forward and remain
unidentified to this day. I have no reason to doubt why they haven't come
forward to be identified. To me it makes perfect sense: they feared for
their lives. And who can blame them?
There is no doubt in my mind that this tall, young black man in a light
colored (beige?) jacket and dark trousers captured in the Darnell film
standing with the young black woman holding the baby behind the concrete
wall just minutes after the assassination is the same young, tall black
man that was standing on the steps next to Emmett Hudson and the other
(white) man in the red shirt whose name was F. Lee Mudd. Secret Service
agent Paul Landis identified this young man standing next to Hudson as "a
Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt." Landis saw
him turn and run up the stairs when the shots were fired. This young
black man's reaction to the shot that struck Kennedy in the head was to
turn immediately and run up the steps. His reaction is consistent with
someone whose concern was, evidently, for the loved ones he left sitting
on the bench at the top of the stairs behind him, which was probably his
young wife and child, if not his sister. The child appears to be about 6
months old. You can also see the lunch bag that was left on the bench
where they were apparently eating their lunch, as Sitzman said they were,
before the president's motorcade arrived.
The only logical deduction is that this young black man simply walked
down the steps a few minutes prior to the president's car turning onto Elm St.
in order to get a better view of the president. Hudson only mentioned the
man sitting next to him (the young black man) on the steps who he struck
up a conversation with, stating the young man was, he estimated, about in
his late twenties. He did not mention the other man, F. Lee Mudd, who was
the man in the red shirt standing a few steps down in front of them. The
reason is obvious. He did not know him and did not speak to him. He only
spoke to the young black man for a few minutes before the president's car
turned onto Elm St. Hudson said at that point they both stood (they were
sitting prior to that), and Hudson's attention was focused entirely on the
motorcade, not the young black man standing next to him who he had just
talked to. When the shots were fired, this young black man immediately
turned and ran up the steps, back in the direction of where the bench was
located, in fear that his young wife (or sister) and child were in harm's
way. They likely remained atop the knoll for 10-15 minutes, blending in
with the crowd. You can see in the Darnell film how the Dallas police
were moving people out of that area. They were clearing the area of
spectators and witnesses. The young black woman is later seen in another
photo (probably 15-20 minutes after the shooting) standing in front of the
entrance to the TSBD where a station had been set up by police to take
testimony from witnesses. She was standing in line holding this same
baby, evidently waiting to tell police what she saw. This young black
couple (whether husband and wife, or brother and sister) evidently
walked away after that and never came forward (understandably)
to tell their story and what they saw.
Again, God bless them both. I would give anything to talk to them
and have them tell their story. How brave they were to have kept silent
all these years and remain out of the spotlight. I can only imagine how
fearful they were after the events of that day. I hope nothing ever
happened to them and that they were able to live their lives in peace.
Although, what an amazing story theirs is, as it is very likely they saw
the shooter(s) behind the picket fence either before or immediately
after the shooting, and for fear for their lives they have never come
forward.
beaviselectron
3 years ago
Also, read Marilyn Sitzman's testimony to the Warren Commission. She was
standing on the concrete pergola with Zapruder, keeping him steady because
suffered from vertigo. She speaks of seeing the Negro couple behind the
"Black Dog Man" firing position. In April 1997 I went to Dealey Plaza and
had myself photographed in a high-contrast outfit (white shirt and black
pants) standing behind the wall, and had many photos taken from several
angles. I am 6'4" tall and the wall doesn't even come up to my belt
buckle as it can readily be seen in the photos. NO ONE could or should
WTF do your personal opinions have to do with anything? BDM was leaning
against the retaining all, not standing up.
Post by claviger
use this as a firing position, or expect to escape if doing so. And the
image of the BDM is about how much of a human being of average height you
would see if you were looking at them. Black Dog Man has ZERO
credibility, and this is coming from a WC skeptic. I do NOT believe LHO
How can you say he has no credibility when you didn't even question him?
YOU have no credibility. And McAdams is taller than you.
Post by claviger
did it, or acted alone, but the answer is NOT Black Dog Man. I am a
professional investigator by trade and there is simply NO evidence that
supports this theory. All smoke and no fire.
You mean professional con man.
When you write something like this is when we start to worry about you. I
didn't write this opinion you are reacting to. You are responding to an
opinion by someone else who wrote this 3 years ago. So you need to
correct all your pronouns, otherwise you sound like a pet dog barking at a
TV screen.

The guy who wrote it is "Beaviselectron".
Your response sounds like "Butthead".

Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-04 19:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
JFK Assassination Black Dog Man(Woman)
http://youtu.be/mIvo0_tr07M
A modern theory & most likely a solution to the Blackdogman figure in Dealy Plaza
from Jeff Rollins & Robin Unger
1:29
The Venerable Bede
1 year ago (edited)
Without a doubt, two of the most intriguing eyewitnesses to the
assassination, as neither have ever been identified and have maintained
their silence for some 53 years now. God bless them! I know Mike
Brownlow claims to know who they are (Arthur and Evelyn King, who he
claims are brother and sister, not husband and wife). However, Brownlow's
credibility has been questioned repeatedly, and I don't really know what
to make of his statements. But if true, that Evelyn came forward a few
years ago to identify herself and tell Brownlow, a fellow
African-American, what she saw and what they were doing there, then it is
an amazing discovery on Brownlow's part. But again, Brownlow's
credibility is not the best, as he is regarded by many to be a con artist.
On the other hand, if they were actually the young black couple Marilyn
Sitzman said she saw sitting on the bench eating their lunch 15-20 minutes
before the motorcade turned onto Elm St. (and I believe they were, as all
the evidence points to this fact), then this makes for a much more
interesting story in my view, as they have yet to come forward and remain
unidentified to this day. I have no reason to doubt why they haven't come
forward to be identified. To me it makes perfect sense: they feared for
their lives. And who can blame them?
There is no doubt in my mind that this tall, young black man in a light
colored (beige?) jacket and dark trousers captured in the Darnell film
standing with the young black woman holding the baby behind the concrete
wall just minutes after the assassination is the same young, tall black
man that was standing on the steps next to Emmett Hudson and the other
(white) man in the red shirt whose name was F. Lee Mudd. Secret Service
agent Paul Landis identified this young man standing next to Hudson as "a
Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt." Landis saw
him turn and run up the stairs when the shots were fired. This young
black man's reaction to the shot that struck Kennedy in the head was to
turn immediately and run up the steps. His reaction is consistent with
someone whose concern was, evidently, for the loved ones he left sitting
on the bench at the top of the stairs behind him, which was probably his
young wife and child, if not his sister. The child appears to be about 6
months old. You can also see the lunch bag that was left on the bench
where they were apparently eating their lunch, as Sitzman said they were,
before the president's motorcade arrived.
The only logical deduction is that this young black man simply walked
down the steps a few minutes prior to the president's car turning onto Elm St.
in order to get a better view of the president. Hudson only mentioned the
man sitting next to him (the young black man) on the steps who he struck
up a conversation with, stating the young man was, he estimated, about in
his late twenties. He did not mention the other man, F. Lee Mudd, who was
the man in the red shirt standing a few steps down in front of them. The
reason is obvious. He did not know him and did not speak to him. He only
spoke to the young black man for a few minutes before the president's car
turned onto Elm St. Hudson said at that point they both stood (they were
sitting prior to that), and Hudson's attention was focused entirely on the
motorcade, not the young black man standing next to him who he had just
talked to. When the shots were fired, this young black man immediately
turned and ran up the steps, back in the direction of where the bench was
located, in fear that his young wife (or sister) and child were in harm's
way. They likely remained atop the knoll for 10-15 minutes, blending in
with the crowd. You can see in the Darnell film how the Dallas police
were moving people out of that area. They were clearing the area of
spectators and witnesses. The young black woman is later seen in another
photo (probably 15-20 minutes after the shooting) standing in front of the
entrance to the TSBD where a station had been set up by police to take
testimony from witnesses. She was standing in line holding this same
baby, evidently waiting to tell police what she saw. This young black
couple (whether husband and wife, or brother and sister) evidently
walked away after that and never came forward (understandably)
to tell their story and what they saw.
Again, God bless them both. I would give anything to talk to them
and have them tell their story. How brave they were to have kept silent
all these years and remain out of the spotlight. I can only imagine how
fearful they were after the events of that day. I hope nothing ever
happened to them and that they were able to live their lives in peace.
Although, what an amazing story theirs is, as it is very likely they saw
the shooter(s) behind the picket fence either before or immediately
after the shooting, and for fear for their lives they have never come
forward.???
beaviselectron
3 years ago
Also, read Marilyn Sitzman's testimony to the Warren Commission. She was
standing on the concrete pergola with Zapruder, keeping him steady because
suffered from vertigo. She speaks of seeing the Negro couple behind the
"Black Dog Man" firing position. In April 1997 I went to Dealey Plaza and
had myself photographed in a high-contrast outfit (white shirt and black
pants) standing behind the wall, and had many photos taken from several
angles. I am 6'4" tall and the wall doesn't even come up to my belt
buckle as it can readily be seen in the photos. NO ONE could or should
WTF do your personal opinions have to do with anything? BDM was leaning
against the retaining all, not standing up.
Post by claviger
use this as a firing position, or expect to escape if doing so. And the
image of the BDM is about how much of a human being of average height you
would see if you were looking at them. Black Dog Man has ZERO
credibility, and this is coming from a WC skeptic. I do NOT believe LHO
How can you say he has no credibility when you didn't even question him?
YOU have no credibility. And McAdams is taller than you.
Post by claviger
did it, or acted alone, but the answer is NOT Black Dog Man. I am a
professional investigator by trade and there is simply NO evidence that
supports this theory. All smoke and no fire.???
You mean professional con man.
When you write something like this is when we start to worry about you. I
didn't write this opinion you are reacting to. You are responding to an
opinion by someone else who wrote this 3 years ago. So you need to
correct all your pronouns, otherwise you sound like a pet dog barking at a
TV screen.
The guy who wrote it is "Beaviselectron".
Your response sounds like "Butthead".
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
I don't know what you are talking about. I know nothing about that kook
theory, but it doesn't make much sense. I have nothing against dressing in
all black, but it doesn't make any sense to blend in as a spectator or
pretend to be a SS agent. I see sci-fi shows where they like to dress up
as a Ninja, but it makes no sense for a sniper.
claviger
2018-06-06 00:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.

Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?

Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-07 13:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that. What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man? How about Bigfoot?
claviger
2018-06-08 21:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-11 01:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
There was no FILM taken in Bethesda. Did you mean PHOTO?
Maybe there was, but the SS knocked the camera out of his hands and
ripped out the negative.
No one is allowed to mention his name.
claviger
2018-06-12 02:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
There was no FILM taken in Bethesda.
How do you know? Just because you never saw any?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you mean PHOTO?
Is there a photo of UGOTAR?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe there was, but the SS knocked the camera out of his hands and
ripped out the negative.
Knocked out of whose hand? Name please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
No one is allowed to mention his name.
There were loyal Kennedy men observing the autopsy.
No UGOTAR in the operating room.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 19:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
There was no FILM taken in Bethesda.
How do you know? Just because you never saw any?
Silly. Because no one testified to that and the FBI agents did not see
any film camera.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you mean PHOTO?
Is there a photo of UGOTAR?
English please.
There should be some TOP SECRET people who should not have been
photographed, thus the SS ripping out the film.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe there was, but the SS knocked the camera out of his hands and
ripped out the negative.
Knocked out of whose hand? Name please.
Get up to speed.

Reibe.

Moreover, Baden was wrong to suggest that JFK???s photographer had never
photographed an autopsy before. Stringer was an experienced practitioner
and teacher. Humes once described Stringer as ???one of the best medical
photographers in the world.???[328] And, as the Review Board learned,
Stringer was acknowledged by his peers as such a master of the craft that
the Navy routinely sent men to Stringer to learn the tricks of
medical/autopsy photography under the master???s exacting tutelage.[329]

Baden???s story was not entirely without foundation, however. Some film
was confiscated by authorities during the autopsy. Baden was probably
thinking of a similar episode, one in which an un unauthorized
corpsman???s film was removed from his camera by the Secret Service, not
the FBI. That corpsman was apparently Floyd Reibe who, though he was
Stringer???s assistant, was not the man who usually took autopsy
photographs. [Although the Secret Service had confiscated some of his
film, Reibe apparently did in fact play a role in photographing some
aspects of the autopsy.] As Humes correctly pointed out in JAMA, ???no one
from the FBI even had a camera, let alone the intention to take autopsy
photos.???[330]

In Baden???s defense, though, it is only fair to note that ten years had
passed between Baden???s official duties and the writing of his book. So,
one might argue, 1960s evidence for Stringer???s role might not have
loomed very large in the late 1980s.

What should have perhaps loomed a bit larger is the work of the HSCA
forensics panel. The Panel???s report, which Baden, as chairman, must have
at least glanced at, (though he did not actually write it[331]) occupies
the greater portion of volume 7. On page 10 of that volume, one reads:

???Stringer and Reibe took the autopsy photographs under the direction of
Dr. Humes ??? Stringer also stated that a federal agent took a camera from
Reibe and exposed the film. This apparently occurred because the agent
felt Stringer was the only person authorized to photograph the body and
that Reibe was only to assist Stringer and not take photographs on his own
initiative.??? [It is not clear, however, that all the images Reibe took
were destroyed. Both the HSCA and ARRB developed evidence that even though
some of his pictures were confiscated, he may have taken others that were
not.]

Thus, Baden had good reason to know that the man who usually took autopsy
photographs at Bethesda was the same man who actually took JFK???s, and
that the FBI had not replaced him with someone of their own choosing.
Intriguingly, two pages later, the HSCA???s forensics report drew Stringer
into a controversy the HSCA never really explored:

???Stringer, one of the photographers, stated that [besides Humes] he also
thought he had taken some interior photographs of the President???s
chest.???[332]

There is a particular irony to this observation. In this HSCA passage, the
forensics panel cited Stringer as corroborating Humes???s assertions that
now-missing interior body photographs were in fact taken. In his book, by
contrast, Baden had written that ???photographs of the body???s interior
were out of focus.??? But Stringer???s and Humes???s point was that in the
official inventory there are no photographs of the interior of JFK???s
body ??? in or out of focus. Since Baden had seen the inventory himself,
and since he had heard Stringer???s and Humes???s testimonies, the
forensics chairman had reason to know this fact, too.

The question of missing images was one that the HSCA would have done well
to have addressed. Because, as previously explored, it wasn???t just Humes
and Stringer who had said that photographs that were taken on the night of
the autopsy are missing, so also had the assistant photographer, Reibe,
and three other physicians ??? Boswell, Finck and Karnei.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
No one is allowed to mention his name.
There were loyal Kennedy men observing the autopsy.
No UGOTAR in the operating room.
No, some were just military men.
claviger
2018-06-15 00:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
There was no FILM taken in Bethesda.
Post by claviger
How do you know? Just because you never saw any?
Silly. Because no one testified to that and the FBI agents did not see
any film camera.
Why would there be a movie film camera at the autopsy?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you mean PHOTO?
Is there a photo of UGOTAR?
English please.
There should be some TOP SECRET people who should not have been
photographed, thus the SS ripping out the film.
Why would there be a movie film camera at the autopsy?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe there was, but the SS knocked the camera out of his hands and
ripped out the negative.
Knocked out of whose hand? Name please.
Get up to speed.
Reibe.
Moreover, Baden was wrong to suggest that JFK???s photographer had never
photographed an autopsy before. Stringer was an experienced practitioner
and teacher. Humes once described Stringer as ???one of the best medical
photographers in the world.???[328] And, as the Review Board learned,
Stringer was acknowledged by his peers as such a master of the craft that
the Navy routinely sent men to Stringer to learn the tricks of
medical/autopsy photography under the master???s exacting tutelage.[329]
Baden???s story was not entirely without foundation, however. Some film
was confiscated by authorities during the autopsy. Baden was probably
thinking of a similar episode, one in which an un unauthorized
corpsman???s film was removed from his camera by the Secret Service, not
the FBI. That corpsman was apparently Floyd Reibe who, though he was
Stringer???s assistant, was not the man who usually took autopsy
photographs. [Although the Secret Service had confiscated some of his
film, Reibe apparently did in fact play a role in photographing some
aspects of the autopsy.] As Humes correctly pointed out in JAMA, ???no one
from the FBI even had a camera, let alone the intention to take autopsy
photos.???[330]
In Baden???s defense, though, it is only fair to note that ten years had
passed between Baden???s official duties and the writing of his book. So,
one might argue, 1960s evidence for Stringer???s role might not have
loomed very large in the late 1980s.
What should have perhaps loomed a bit larger is the work of the HSCA
forensics panel. The Panel???s report, which Baden, as chairman, must have
at least glanced at, (though he did not actually write it[331]) occupies
???Stringer and Reibe took the autopsy photographs under the direction of
Dr. Humes ??? Stringer also stated that a federal agent took a camera from
Reibe and exposed the film. This apparently occurred because the agent
felt Stringer was the only person authorized to photograph the body and
that Reibe was only to assist Stringer and not take photographs on his own
initiative.??? [It is not clear, however, that all the images Reibe took
were destroyed. Both the HSCA and ARRB developed evidence that even though
some of his pictures were confiscated, he may have taken others that were
not.]
Thus, Baden had good reason to know that the man who usually took autopsy
photographs at Bethesda was the same man who actually took JFK???s, and
that the FBI had not replaced him with someone of their own choosing.
Intriguingly, two pages later, the HSCA???s forensics report drew Stringer
???Stringer, one of the photographers, stated that [besides Humes] he also
thought he had taken some interior photographs of the President???s
chest.???[332]
There is a particular irony to this observation. In this HSCA passage, the
forensics panel cited Stringer as corroborating Humes???s assertions that
now-missing interior body photographs were in fact taken. In his book, by
contrast, Baden had written that ???photographs of the body???s interior
were out of focus.??? But Stringer???s and Humes???s point was that in the
official inventory there are no photographs of the interior of JFK???s
body ??? in or out of focus. Since Baden had seen the inventory himself,
and since he had heard Stringer???s and Humes???s testimonies, the
forensics chairman had reason to know this fact, too.
The question of missing images was one that the HSCA would have done well
to have addressed. Because, as previously explored, it wasn???t just Humes
and Stringer who had said that photographs that were taken on the night of
the autopsy are missing, so also had the assistant photographer, Reibe,
and three other physicians ??? Boswell, Finck and Karnei.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
No one is allowed to mention his name.
There were loyal Kennedy men observing the autopsy.
No UGOTAR in the operating room.
No, some were just military men.
Why would there be a movie film camera at the autopsy?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 05:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
There was no FILM taken in Bethesda.
Post by claviger
How do you know? Just because you never saw any?
Silly. Because no one testified to that and the FBI agents did not see
any film camera.
Why would there be a movie film camera at the autopsy?
Exactly my point. It makes no sense.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you mean PHOTO?
Is there a photo of UGOTAR?
English please.
There should be some TOP SECRET people who should not have been
photographed, thus the SS ripping out the film.
Why would there be a movie film camera at the autopsy?
THAT's what I said.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe there was, but the SS knocked the camera out of his hands and
ripped out the negative.
Knocked out of whose hand? Name please.
Get up to speed.
Reibe.
Moreover, Baden was wrong to suggest that JFK???s photographer had never
photographed an autopsy before. Stringer was an experienced practitioner
and teacher. Humes once described Stringer as ???one of the best medical
photographers in the world.???[328] And, as the Review Board learned,
Stringer was acknowledged by his peers as such a master of the craft that
the Navy routinely sent men to Stringer to learn the tricks of
medical/autopsy photography under the master???s exacting tutelage.[329]
Baden???s story was not entirely without foundation, however. Some film
was confiscated by authorities during the autopsy. Baden was probably
thinking of a similar episode, one in which an un unauthorized
corpsman???s film was removed from his camera by the Secret Service, not
the FBI. That corpsman was apparently Floyd Reibe who, though he was
Stringer???s assistant, was not the man who usually took autopsy
photographs. [Although the Secret Service had confiscated some of his
film, Reibe apparently did in fact play a role in photographing some
aspects of the autopsy.] As Humes correctly pointed out in JAMA, ???no one
from the FBI even had a camera, let alone the intention to take autopsy
photos.???[330]
In Baden???s defense, though, it is only fair to note that ten years had
passed between Baden???s official duties and the writing of his book. So,
one might argue, 1960s evidence for Stringer???s role might not have
loomed very large in the late 1980s.
What should have perhaps loomed a bit larger is the work of the HSCA
forensics panel. The Panel???s report, which Baden, as chairman, must have
at least glanced at, (though he did not actually write it[331]) occupies
???Stringer and Reibe took the autopsy photographs under the direction of
Dr. Humes ??? Stringer also stated that a federal agent took a camera from
Reibe and exposed the film. This apparently occurred because the agent
felt Stringer was the only person authorized to photograph the body and
that Reibe was only to assist Stringer and not take photographs on his own
initiative.??? [It is not clear, however, that all the images Reibe took
were destroyed. Both the HSCA and ARRB developed evidence that even though
some of his pictures were confiscated, he may have taken others that were
not.]
Thus, Baden had good reason to know that the man who usually took autopsy
photographs at Bethesda was the same man who actually took JFK???s, and
that the FBI had not replaced him with someone of their own choosing.
Intriguingly, two pages later, the HSCA???s forensics report drew Stringer
???Stringer, one of the photographers, stated that [besides Humes] he also
thought he had taken some interior photographs of the President???s
chest.???[332]
There is a particular irony to this observation. In this HSCA passage, the
forensics panel cited Stringer as corroborating Humes???s assertions that
now-missing interior body photographs were in fact taken. In his book, by
contrast, Baden had written that ???photographs of the body???s interior
were out of focus.??? But Stringer???s and Humes???s point was that in the
official inventory there are no photographs of the interior of JFK???s
body ??? in or out of focus. Since Baden had seen the inventory himself,
and since he had heard Stringer???s and Humes???s testimonies, the
forensics chairman had reason to know this fact, too.
The question of missing images was one that the HSCA would have done well
to have addressed. Because, as previously explored, it wasn???t just Humes
and Stringer who had said that photographs that were taken on the night of
the autopsy are missing, so also had the assistant photographer, Reibe,
and three other physicians ??? Boswell, Finck and Karnei.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
No one is allowed to mention his name.
There were loyal Kennedy men observing the autopsy.
No UGOTAR in the operating room.
No, some were just military men.
Why would there be a movie film camera at the autopsy?
It's a silly idea.
claviger
2018-06-12 12:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
There was no FILM taken in Bethesda. Did you mean PHOTO?
What part of:
"No film of the scary General barking orders and terrorizing everyone
in the Operating Room" did you not understand?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe there was, but the SS knocked the camera out of his hands
and ripped out the negative.
Are you talking about the unauthorized guy with a camera they
kicked out of the hospital?
Post by Anthony Marsh
No one is allowed to mention his name.
Some young guy with a camera was bounced out. He was never
inside the operation room.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 14:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
There was no FILM taken in Bethesda. Did you mean PHOTO?
"No film of the scary General barking orders and terrorizing everyone
in the Operating Room" did you not understand?
We don;t need a film. We have testimony. There was no film taken inside
Bethesda.

Finck testified:

20 Q Was Dr. Humes running the show?
21 A Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that -- he said,
22 "Who is in charge here?" and I heard an
23 Army General, I don't remember his name,
24 stating, I am." You must understand that
25 in those circumstances, there were law
Page 49
1 enforcement officers, military people with
2 various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate
3 the operation according to directions.
4 Q But you were one of the three qualified
5 pathologists standing at that autopsy
6 table, were you not, Doctor?
7 A Yes, I am.
8 Q Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?
9 A No.
10 Q Was he a doctor?
11 A No, not to my knowledge.
12 Q Can you give me his name, Colonel?
13 A No, I can't. I don't remember.
__________________________________________
6 Q Did you have an occasion to dissect the track
7 of that particular bullet in the victim as
8 it lay on the autopsy table?
9 A I did not dissect the track in the neck.
10 Q Why?
11 A This leads us into the disclosure of medical
12 records.
13 MR. OSER:
14 Your Honor, I would like an answer from the
15 Colonel and I would as the Court so
16 to direct.
17 THE COURT:
18 That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.
19 THE WITNESS:
20 We didn't remove the organs of the neck.
21 BY MR. OSER:
22 Q Why not, Doctor?
23 A For the reason that we were told to examine the
24 head wounds and that the --
25 Q Are you saying someone told you not to dissect
Page 116
1 the track?
2 THE COURT:
3 Let him finish his answer.
4 THE WITNESS:
5 I was told that the family wanted an exam-
6 ination of the head, as I recall, the
7 head and chest, but the prosectors
8 in this autopsy didn't remove the
9 organs of the neck, to my recollec-
10 tion.
11 BY MR. OSER:
12 Q You have said they did not, I want to know why
13 didn't you as an autopsy pathologist at-
14 tempt to ascertain the track through the
15 body which you had on the autopsy table
16 in trying to ascertain the cause or causes
17 of death? Why?
18 A I had the cause of death.
19 Q Why did you not trace the track of the wound?
20 A As I recall I didn't remove these organs from
21 the neck.
22 Q I didn't hear you.
23 A I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the
24 organs of the neck.
25 Q You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why
Page 117
1 didn't do this as a pathologist?
2 A From what I recall I looked at the trachea,
3 there was a tracheotomy wound the best I
4 can remember, but I didn't dissect or
5 remove these organs.
6 MR. OSER:
7 Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to
8 direct the witness to answer my
9 question.
10 BY MR. OSER:
11 Q I will ask you the question one more time:
12 Why did you not dissect the track of the
13 bullet wound that you have described today
14 and you saw at the time of the autopsy at
15 the time you examined the body? Why? I
16 ask you to answer that question.
17 A As I recall I was told not to, but I don't
18 remember by whom.
19 Q You were told not to but you don't remember by
20 whom?
21 A Right.
22 Q Could it have been one of the Admirals or one
23 of the Generals in the room?
24 A I don't recall.
25 Q Do you have any particular reason why you cannot
Page 118
1 recall at this time?
2 A Because we were told to examine the head and
3 the chest cavity, and that doesn't include
4 the removal of the organs of the neck.
5 Q You are one of the three autopsy specialist
6 and pathologists at the time, and you
7 saw what you described as an entrance
8 wound in the neck area of the President of
9 the United States who had just been
10 assassinated, and you were only interested
11 in the other wound but not interested in
12 the track through his neck, is that what
13 you are telling me?
14 A I was interested in the track and I had observed
15 the conditions of bruising between the
16 point of entry in the back of the neck and
17 the point of exit at the front of the
18 neck, which is entirely compatible with
19 the bullet path.
20 Q But you were told not to go into the area of
21 the neck, si that your testimony?
22 A From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember
23 by whom.
24 Q Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back
25 of the neck?
Page 119
1 A I did.
2 Q With what?
3 A With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed
4 in probing from the entry in the back of
5 the neck in any direction and I can explain
6 this. This was due to the contraction of
7 muscles preventing the passage of an instrument,
8 and if I had forced the probe through the
9 neck I may have created a false passage.
10 Q Isn't this good enough reason to you as a
11 pathologist to go further and dissect this
12 area in an attempt to ascertain whether or
13 not there is a passageway here as a result of
14 a bullet?
15 A I did not consider a dissection of the path.
16 Q How far did the probe go into the back of the
17 neck?
18 A Repeat the question.
19 Q How far did the probe go into this wound?
20 A I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended
21 depth. I tried and I can give explanations
22 why. At times you cannot probe a path,
23 this is because of the contraction of
24 muscles and different layers.
25
Page 120
1 It is not like a pipe, like a channel.
2 It may be extremely difficult to probe
3 a wound through muscle.
4 Q Can you give me approximately how far in this
5 probe went?
6 A The first fraction of an inch.
7 Q If you had dissected this area, Doctor,
8 wouldn't you have been able to ascertain
9 what the track was, as you have described
10 in this courtroom, without dissecting it?
11 A I don't know.
12 Q You don't know?
13 A I don't know. Wounds are different in one
14 case from another, and I did not dissect --
15 Q Let me ask you this, Doctor: Let me ask you
16 whether or not in dealing with this
17 particular back of the neck wound, as you
18 describe it, whether you dissected the
19 skin area, took a cross-section of the
20 skin, submitted that to microscopic
21 examination, to ascertain whether or not
22 there was any singed area or burnt area
23 as a result of a high speed bullet pass-
24 ing through the skin? Did you or did you
25 not do that?
Page 121
1 A I remember removing skin at the entry at the
2 back of the neck, or I was present when
3 this was done, and microscopic examination
4 was made of this wound of entry.
5 Q Is the result of that microscopic examination
6 in this autopsy report?
7 A No. I think it is part of the supplementary
8 report where Dr. Humes describes the
9 microscopic appearance of the wound
10 of entry. I made a positive identifica-
11 tion of entry in the back of the neck
12 based on naked eye examination. I
13 examined that very closely and it had the
14 gross characteristics of the wound o
15 entry.
16 Q Isn't it the more accepted pathological pro-
17 cedure at an autopsy to submit a wound
18 area such as this, or a cross-section of
19 it, to microscopic examination to
20 ascertain whether there is a scorch area
21 or burn area of the skin to see if there
22 was a high speed bullet passing through
23 the skin?
24 MR. DYMOND:
25 I would ask Counsel to confine his
Page 122
1 questions to one at a time.
2 THE COURT:
3 Break the question down, Mr. Oser.
4 BY MR. OSER:
5 Q Is it not better pathological practice to
6 dissect a skin wound area and submit this
7 cross-section to microscopic examination
8 to determine whether or not there was any
9 burn or signed area as a result of a
10 high speed bullet passing through this
11 area as opposed to a naked eye observation?
12 A The microscopic examination of a wound is a
13 supplementary examination which I have
14 done many times, but in this case the
15 gross characteristics were sufficient to
16 me to make a positive identification of
17 a wound of entry in the back of the neck.
18 I think I saw microscopic sections. I was
19 in the office of Dr. Humes, but again I
20 don't remember the time of the examination
21 of these microscopic sections.
22
23
24
25
Page 123
1 Q How about the results?
2 A I don't remember the timing of the results
3 of the microscopic sections.
4 Q I am not asking you for the timing of the re-
5 sults, I am asking you for the results,
6 Colonel.
7 A From what I recall, Dr. Humes described
8 alteration of the tissue at the level
9 of the wound of entry. Do you have that
10 supplementary report?
11 Q I don't have it, that is why I am asking you
12 if you have your notes here.
13 A I don't have this microscopic report with me.
14 Q You didn't burn your notes also, did you?
15 A No.
16 Q Colonel, you said you remember Agent Kellerman
17 being in the autopsy room. Do you re-
18 member having a conversation with Agent
19 Kellerman at the time you were examining
20 this wound of the President, and talking
21 about that particular wound you said to
22 the Agent that there were no lanes for
23 an outlet of the shoulder wound? Do you
24 remember telling him that, sir?
25 A I remember stating that at the time I examined
Page 124
1 the wound of entry in the back I didn't
2 find an exit corresponding to this entry.
3 I don't remember to whom it was, it may
4 have been Mr. Kellerman, it may have been
5 one of the two FBI Agents.
6 Q My question was, do you recall categorizing it
7 as a shoulder wound as opposed to a neck
8 wound to this person in the autopsy room?
9 A I don't recall mentioning a shoulder wound. I
10 am referring to a wound in the neck, in,
11 the back of the neck, and a wound in the
12 back of the head.
13 Q If I told you, Colonel, that Agent Kellerman
14 in his testimony --
15 MR. DYMOND:
16 I object to this, Your Honor: "If I told
17 you Agent Kellerman's testimony."
18 THE COURT:
19 You cannot ask one witness to decide the
20 credibility of another witness. I
21 think you will have to do it a
22 different way. The objection is sus-
23 tained.
24 BY MR. OSER:
25 Q Colonel, in talking about the wound in the back
Page 125
1 of the President, can you tell me
2 whether or not in hit any bone?
3 THE COURT:
4 Why don't you identify which wound you
5 are talking about.
6 BY MR. OSER:
7 Q State Exhibit 69, this one right here. Can
8 you tell me whether that hit any bone
9 in his neck?
10 A From the X-rays it was determined that this
11 bullet entering in the back of the neck,
12 coming out in the front of the neck, did
13 not strike major bones.
14 Q Did it strike any bones?
15 A There was no evidence of bone injury from the
16 X-ray, and the X-ray is the basis to refer
17 to to answer such a question.
18 Q Now, since I asked you before about whether or
19 not President Kennedy could have spoken,
20 what was your opinion as to whether or not
21 he could have said any words after receiving
22 the wound in his back as described and de-
23 picted in S-69?
24 MR. DYMOND:
25 Your Honor, I think this is repetitious.
Page 126
1 The Doctor has already testified --
2 MR. OSER:
3 Your Honor, what I am doing is --
4 THE COURT:
5 When one person makes an objection will
6 the other person let him finish be-
7 fore he starts speaking.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe there was, but the SS knocked the camera out of his hands
and ripped out the negative.
Are you talking about the unauthorized guy with a camera they
kicked out of the hospital?
You don't know his name? Yes, that figures.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
No one is allowed to mention his name.
Some young guy with a camera was bounced out. He was never
inside the operation room.
False. He was an assistant. Read the ARRB.
claviger
2018-06-14 19:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
There was no FILM taken in Bethesda. Did you mean PHOTO?
"No film of the scary General barking orders and terrorizing everyone
in the Operating Room" did you not understand?
We don;t need a film. We have testimony. There was no film taken inside
Bethesda.
There were several Photos and X-rays taken at Bethesda N H.
I'm not aware of a USN PH with a movie camera inside the OR.
Why would there be?
We've been over the Finck testimony several times before and
you lose every time.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe there was, but the SS knocked the camera out of his hands
and ripped out the negative.
Are you talking about the unauthorized guy with a camera they
kicked out of the hospital?
You don't know his name? Yes, that figures.
Name please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
No one is allowed to mention his name.
Some young guy with a camera was bounced out. He was never
inside the operation room.
False. He was an assistant. Read the ARRB.
Cite please.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-15 21:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Are you really claiming a sniper dressed in all black would fire on
the Motorcade from an open patio with no cover when there was
a 5 foot tall wooden fence close by to shield his getaway? Why
would anyone in their right mind make such a dumb mistake?
The answer is: yes your are. So you have placed two snipers on
the GK. One behind a wooden fence. That makes sense. Another
out in the open dressed in Black standing close to a Mother with
a Baby. That makes no sense at all.
Did the BDM change clothes to look like a SSA? If so, where did
he do that? If not, then anyone dressed in black with a rifle would
stand out and draw attention, but that didn't happen did it?
Both BDM and UGOTAR are scary monsters you conjure up to tell
ghost stories around a campfire late at night to scare kids and try
to impress anybody who will listen. We're not impressed.
I never believed that Black Dog Man was a shooter. Only a few people
believed that.
Then who was Black Dog Man and why does he not show up
in any other photos?
Post by Anthony Marsh
What about UGOTAR? WHo is that? Why would he be scarier
that Black Dog Man?
Unnamed General Of The Autopsy Room.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about Bigfoot?
The difference, Bigfoot is real and caught on film walking down
a creek bed in Northern California. No film of the scary General
barking orders and terrorizing everyone in the Operating Room
of a US Naval Hospital. It never happened.
There was no FILM taken in Bethesda. Did you mean PHOTO?
"No film of the scary General barking orders and terrorizing everyone
in the Operating Room" did you not understand?
We don;t need a film. We have testimony. There was no film taken inside
Bethesda.
There were several Photos and X-rays taken at Bethesda N H.
I'm not aware of a USN PH with a movie camera inside the OR.
Why would there be?
We've been over the Finck testimony several times before and
you lose every time.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe there was, but the SS knocked the camera out of his hands
and ripped out the negative.
Are you talking about the unauthorized guy with a camera they
kicked out of the hospital?
You don't know his name? Yes, that figures.
Name please.
I already answered that before.
Is McAdams censoring my messsages so that you can't find out?
Reibe.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
No one is allowed to mention his name.
Some young guy with a camera was bounced out. He was never
inside the operation room.
False. He was an assistant. Read the ARRB.
Cite please.
I did. McAdams must be protecting you.
Loading...