JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
That Is Not Officer Haygood = Conspiracy! Prove Me Wrong Challenge
Zeon Mason:
I’ve never seen anybody who carries one glove rolled up like JohnM showed, but I guess it’s possible. Maybe I need to get out and about more often and observe police officers in action. I should have been able seen this in 65 years and I’ve seen a lot of motorcycle riders in my area maybe I wasn’t paying attention and missed the rolled up glove detail.
Those other barehanded cops, is there any indication where on their person they are carrying their pair of gloves? Probably the side pants pocket budging would be an indication the gloves were in the pocket which is most likely place.
So One Glove Cop taking one glove off the hand so he could more quickly remove his revolver from holster, if necessary , may be a plausable explanation , however the firing of the revolver as trained in cop school would be to use both hands , so its sort of odd to carry around the glove rolled up the other hand when it would have been easier to just put it in a pants pocket, thus no possible interference.
I’m not sure if this particular cop followed the standard police 2 handed method of shooting or if he was a Clint Eastwood fan and practiced to shoot with just one hand.
Until JohnM can find another cop with one glove off ( and rolled up ) and one glove on, Royell still gets credit for discovering at least an interesting phenomenon ( along with the mystery car parked in the no parking spot).
Without CTs, ( and Skeptics ) it would get rather dull here at JFK Forum just agreeing all the time with LNs lol.
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Royell Storing on April 10, 2026, 04:40:50 PM --- My mind is "open". But I do need fact(s). The Officer Haygood making an on foot 2nd trip back inside the Railroad Yard has absolutely Nothing to support it. Nothing. And on top of that, Haygood himself Never testified, said, or wrote that he went back inside the Railroad Yard a 2nd time AFTER he returned to his motorcycle parked at the Elm St curb. The Haygood 2nd trip stuff has no factual foundation.
--- End quote ---
You thinking is bassackwards. Just because there is no evidence Haygood went back for a second trip to the rail yard (other than the film in question) you conclude he didn't go back. Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason he didn't testify to going back was he was not asked about it. There is a principle you need to understand. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's an important principle.
Royell Storing:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on April 10, 2026, 08:05:28 PM ---You thinking is bassackwards. Just because there is no evidence Haygood went back for a second trip to the rail yard (other than the film in question) you conclude he didn't go back. Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason he didn't testify to going back was he was not asked about it. There is a principle you need to understand. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's an important principle.
--- End quote ---
The only reason the Haygood 2nd trip through the train yard was suddenly dreamed up after 62+ years, is because I conclusively proved that the Darnell film segment showing Haygood with Officer Harkness and Buddy Walters had a timestamp of 12:38 PM. With Haygood having made a 12:35 transmission from his motorcycle, this made Haygood being with Harkness and Walters impossible. This mandated that Haygood 2nd trip into the train yard. Like I said previously, if Haygood was making that 2nd trip into the trainyard in order to reach the TSBD Houston St loading dock, why did he go all the way back to the string of passenger train cars? When we 1st see this cop on the Darnell Film, he is deeper inside the train yard than Roger Craig and Buddy Walthers. He is even at the very end of the train cars. And if you look at a good copy of the Darnell film, this cop is moving DOWNWARD/toward Elm St from that string of train cars. This is how extremely close to that string of train cars this alleged cop is when we see him for the very 1st time. If this motorcycle cop is heading for the TSBD Houston St loading dock as is claimed, he did not need to go this extremely deep into the train yard. That string of train cars is well above the TSBD. And why didn't this cop just use his motorcycle to arrive at the TSBD Houston St loading dock? Why? Because this "cop" did Not have a motorcycle. "That Ain't Haygood".
Royell Storing:
--- Quote from: Zeon Mason on April 10, 2026, 07:47:47 PM ---I’ve never seen anybody who carries one glove rolled up like JohnM showed, but I guess it’s possible. Maybe I need to get out and about more often and observe police officers in action. I should have been able seen this in 65 years and I’ve seen a lot of motorcycle riders in my area maybe I wasn’t paying attention and missed the rolled up glove detail.
Those other barehanded cops, is there any indication where on their person they are carrying their pair of gloves? Probably the side pants pocket budging would be an indication the gloves were in the pocket which is most likely place.
So One Glove Cop taking one glove off the hand so he could more quickly remove his revolver from holster, if necessary , may be a plausable explanation , however the firing of the revolver as trained in cop school would be to use both hands , so its sort of odd to carry around the glove rolled up the other hand when it would have been easier to just put it in a pants pocket, thus no possible interference.
I’m not sure if this particular cop followed the standard police 2 handed method of shooting or if he was a Clint Eastwood fan and practiced to shoot with just one hand.
Until JohnM can find another cop with one glove off ( and rolled up ) and one glove on, Royell still gets credit for discovering at least an interesting phenomenon ( along with the mystery car parked in the no parking spot).
Without CTs, ( and Skeptics ) it would get rather dull here at JFK Forum just agreeing all the time with LNs lol.
--- End quote ---
Zeon - Thanks again. In my opinion, that's no glove the alleged cop is carrying in his (L) hand. It's not close to being long enough to be a motorcycle glove. And where is there any trace of the fingers on this alleged glove? I think people are looking at low definition copies of the Darnell film. This low definition blurs the object the cop is holding. Better definition Darnell film copies show the object to flat/blunt on both ends. And maybe 6 inches long max. That object is definitely not a motorcycle cop's glove.
Tommy Shanks:
--- Quote from: Royell Storing on April 10, 2026, 09:52:56 PM ---That object is definitely not a motorcycle cop's glove.
--- End quote ---
And you're definitely not a researcher whose crazy theories hold any water whatsoever! But keep telling yourself otherwise..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version