General Category > Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination

The continue... the nearing of Sherry's "triangle"

(1/4) > >>

YellowBirch1:
With forensic evidence in hand that the headshot @ z313 came from within a "triangle" perimeter the south knoll direction of Dealey Plaza and the story told to me that Roger Craig described a drain located at the south end of the concrete section of the triple overpass, I bring further evidence of obfuscation regarding this matter.

Some of you may remember I posted shortly after the release of Sherry's book, a story told to me a year before the book became public, an aspect of a conversation I had when, for the first ever attempted by anyone, a timeline of the movements of Roger Craig through Dealey Plaza from a starting point where he stood on Houston Street when the shots began. I saw this timeline as an important part of a better understanding of November22, 1963 because Roger Craig saw and investigated many things, not only within Dealey Plaza but also in the area of the parking lot above and behind the Grassy knoll, detention of a Chevrolet exiting this parking lot on Elm Street Extention shortly after the shooting, observations within the TSBD which began with entrance into the building with DPD Mooney before 1pm and several other events there after and all aspects of conversations with and the meeting he had with DPD Will Fritz at the DPD police station. I believe, based upon many years of studying this case that no other man could tell have told us more about this critical time period than Roger Craig.

It becomes necessary, because of all the controversy that surrounded this man, to get a better understanding of whether he was truthful in the things he said or was there obfuscation relating to his words and what he told as a further to cover up the possibility of a conspiracy regarding the larger whole of this case itself. Based upon my long study of this case and the intersection of other information relating also to time and the documentation as we know it today, there is something quite wrong. I believe he was an honest man. This leads me to believe other information not directly told or had been placed into record, several events were not actually as they occurred or were on that day.

As an example of this, I persued thought of the story told to me regarding Roger Craig's knowledge of a drainage system under and past the south side of the triple overpass which could be a possible place for a well concealed, with safe exit from and excellent shot at the motorcade as it came down Elm Street through Dealey Plaza. He told of a storm drain with great vantage that offered plenty of room to take aim, shoot without notice and escape from through a tunnel big enough for a man to walk those exit was into an area to the southwest, not near Commerce Street.

I offer today comparison through two photos. The top photo is from the Cancellare, cropped and shows the area I circled originally in red that I placed in a previous thread to this forum. Below it is a picture taken from standing above that area, looking down on to the concrete with the grass of the south knoll below it. It is very clear that concrete has been used to fill a rectangular area, small in dimension. I submit to all, this area was originally the drain that Roger Craig spoke of and is in the same exact location related it to me two years ago. I will also offer to you that I have not been to Dallas but one time and absolutely not within the last two years.


So, what do we have here? Should this be further examined? Should we question photography and schematics offered as existence that this drain never existed and that Roger Craig is a liar?

David C:
Wow,

I for one have never considered a drain on that side of the bridge.

When I walked the plaza I never made it over to that side as most of my attention was directed to the grassy knoll position.
 
Now there is also a drain on the other side of the bridge which was a point of speculation, but the shooter would have been in plain sight of people standing on the bridge, and the fence in front of the the drain did not show any holes, given the pictures of that area right after the shooting, missing slats, etc. where one could stick his gun through. I have an old newpaper someone was handing out down there showing this position and discussing the sewer system below Dealy Plaza.

I have found no reason to not believe Roger Craig, and I speculate that the person who shot him in the head, did not either.

echelon:

--- Quote from: YellowBirch1 on January 05, 2014, 05:32:48 PM ---With forensic evidence in hand that the headshot @ z313 came from within a "triangle" perimeter the south knoll direction of Dealey Plaza and the story told to me that Roger Craig described a drain located at the south end of the concrete section of the triple overpass, I bring further evidence of obfuscation regarding this matter.

Some of you may remember I posted shortly after the release of Sherry's book, a story told to me a year before the book became public, an aspect of a conversation I had when, for the first ever attempted by anyone, a timeline of the movements of Roger Craig through Dealey Plaza from a starting point where he stood on Houston Street when the shots began.

[...]

As an example of this, I persued thought of the story told to me regarding Roger Craig's knowledge of a drainage system under and past the south side of the triple overpass which could be a possible place for a well concealed, with safe exit from and excellent shot at the motorcade as it came down Elm Street through Dealey Plaza. He told of a storm drain with great vantage that offered plenty of room to take aim, shoot without notice and escape from through a tunnel big enough for a man to walk those exit was into an area to the southwest, not near Commerce Street.


--- End quote ---

Umm.

It's very difficult to respond effectively to a post such as this, given that there is so much "he said/she said" going on.  Do we presume that the "I" and "me" referred to above is you, YB?  If not, please provide a citation.  If so, there would be (at least) three further pieces of information we would need to have a meaningful follow-up discussion on the points you raise:

1.  Who is this other person who told you the information and how did this exchange of information take place?

2.  How did this other person obtain the information in the first place?

3.  Are there any other corroborating sources (i.e. documents, affidavits, witness statements, maps of DP) that can lend validation and credence to the information being offered?

Otherwise, it all just seems like a load of hearsay to me.

Welcome back BTW - its nice to see you posting again YB.

YellowBirch1:

--- Quote from: echelon on January 06, 2014, 10:40:51 AM ---It's very difficult to respond effectively to a post such as this
--- End quote ---

Then why post anything

echelon:

You asked the question "Should this be further examined?"

Silly me - I wrongly presumed that you wanted an answer.

My answer is to ask you to define "this" in terms that are more than hearsay.

If you have no evidence to back up any of your claims, then just say so.  I won't bother you again.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page