That Is Not Officer Haygood = Conspiracy! Prove Me Wrong Challenge

[Royell Storing]

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.

   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]

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.

  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]

That object is definitely not a motorcycle cop's glove.

And you're definitely not a researcher whose crazy theories hold any water whatsoever! But keep telling yourself otherwise..

[Royell Storing]

And you're definitely not a researcher whose crazy theories hold any water whatsoever! But keep telling yourself otherwise..

   "Hold any water"? Why do you think the Officer Haygood making a 2nd trip into the railroad yard was suddenly cooked up after 62+ years? It is in response to my have attached a rock solid 12:38 PM Timeline to the Darnell still frame showing Officer Harkness, + Buddy Walthers, + The Alleged Officer Haygood. I have been banging away at the "That Ain't Haygood" issue for 2 yrs now. My recent discoveries of the documented Officer Harkness 12:36 radio transmission, and Inspector Sawyer NOT arriving at the TSBD until 12:35 PM, are the straws that broke this camel's back. "That Ain't Haygood" = Conspiracy has 'em scrambling.   

[John Corbett]

   "Hold any water"? Why do you think the Officer Haygood making a 2nd trip into the railroad yard was suddenly cooked up after 62+ years? It is in response to my have attached a rock solid 12:38 PM Timeline to the Darnell still frame showing Officer Harkness, + Buddy Walthers, + The Alleged Officer Haygood. I have been banging away at the "That Ain't Haygood" issue for 2 yrs now. My recent discoveries of the documented Officer Harkness 12:36 radio transmission, and Inspector Sawyer NOT arriving at the TSBD until 12:35 PM, are the straws that broke this camel's back. "That Ain't Haygood" = Conspiracy has 'em scrambling.

In 35 years of dealing with conspiracy hobbyists, your the first one who I've ever come across who even made an issue about Haygood. What reason would anyone else have had to cook up an explanation for Haygood's movements. You are a cult of one with your fixation about this. Nobody else cares. And nobody else ever will.

[Royell Storing]

In 35 years of dealing with conspiracy hobbyists, your the first one who I've ever come across who even made an issue about Haygood. What reason would anyone else have had to cook up an explanation for Haygood's movements. You are a cult of one with your fixation about this. Nobody else cares. And nobody else ever will.

   You just saw how important, "That Ain't Haygood", is with the baseless claim now being made that Haygood made a 2nd trip into the railroad yard and that 2nd trip is what Darnell filmed. And you also fail to comprehend the ramifications of an Unknown Motorcycle Cop roaming across the railroad yard immediately after the kill shot.  The entirely baseless claim of Haygood making a 2nd trip into the railroad yard is indicative of a Defcon 1 setting. LN's understand that the fact proven "That Ain't Haygood" discovery is seismic. 

[John Corbett]

   You just saw how important, "That Ain't Haygood",

Because you say so.

is with the baseless claim now being made that Haygood made a 2nd trip into the railroad yard and that 2nd trip is what Darnell filmed.

You take the silly position that if we can't prove the officer in the Darnell film is Haygood, then it couldn't have been Haygood. If there is no proof who the officer is in the Darnell film, then it is illogical to conclude that it is not Haygood. Your "evidence" is that Haygood is seen earlier with two gloves on and the officer in the Darnell film only has one glove on. As if that establishes it could not be Haygood. As if Haygood would have had no reason to take one of his gloves off. If you are going to demand we prove why Haygood would have taken a glove off, don't you need a reason for the officer in the Darnell film to have taken one of his gloves off? Why does one need proof and not the other?

And you also fail to comprehend the ramifications of an Unknown Motorcycle Cop roaming across the railroad yard immediately after the kill shot.  The entirely baseless claim of Haygood making a 2nd trip into the railroad yard is indicative of a Defcon 1 setting. LN's understand that the fact proven "That Ain't Haygood" discovery is seismic.

You have proven nothing but your own inability to understand what constitutes proof. You have not proven that officer is not Haygood. At best, you have established that the officer's identity is an open question which means it might or might not be Haygood. Even if it is not Haygood, it just means that some other unidentified cop went into the rail yard. That is a long way from being proof of a conspiracy, but since you have no real evidence of a conspiracy, you latch on to nonsense such as this.