Who Were the Two Men Heading *Down* the Stairs at NLT 12:50?

[Royell Storing]

RS:  I am talking about the dirt road portion of the Elm St Extension.

So why did you bring up the limo turn and traffic signal in the Wegman film?

there are NO BOLLARDS between Officer Harkness and this alleged motorcycle cop.

Yes there are! Not only can you see many of them in the Darnell film, others are made obvious when the motorcycle cop walks behind them.

Here, bollards are outlined in red. Note that one is in Harkness' shadow:


Here, "B" marks where the line of bollards is. You can see that two of them are silhouetted by the MC as he walks behind them:


Here he is a half step later:

    Above, we see the "Masquerading Motorcycle Cop". He is quickly moving past Officer Harkness, as Harkness looks to the (L). This impostor is avoiding making eye contact with Harkness.

[Tom Graves]

Above, we see the "Masquerading Motorcycle Cop". He is quickly moving past Officer Harkness, as Harkness looks to the (L). This impostor is avoiding making eye contact with Harkness.

Dear Royell,

Did Peter Dale Scott's, Oliver Stone's, and Alex Jones' evil, evil "Deep State" kill JFK, or did Alex Jones' (sic), Steve Bannon's, and Donald Trump's evil, evil "Administrative State" kill him?

-- Tom

[John Corbett]

     After 62+ yrs, I have proven there was an impostor masquerading as a motorcycle cop inside the railroad yard immediately after the kill shot.

You've proved it to your satisfaction which is a rather low bar. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that is not Officer Haygood. That's a long way from proving conspiracy. You would first need to prove who it is and that it is not a DPD officer. Then you would have to prove that this person was working with the assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. You've got some work to do.
 

And you ask, "What difference does that make"? Are you aware of anyone that on 11/22/63, had a DPD motorcycle cop uniform just laying around and decided to wear it inside Dealey Plaza?

I don't have to be aware of any such thing. The burden is on you to prove your hypothesis. You apparently have proved it to your satisfaction, but if you expect anyone to take you seriously, you'll have to do better than that.

And then, after the kill shot, for whatever reason, decided to race back deep inside the railroad yard? Getting back inside there BEFORE anyone connected to law enforcement managed to get back there? That Phony Motorcycle Cop was in costume, back inside the railroad yard before the kill shot. The proof of this Masquerading Motorcycle Cop proves a conspiracy. This is right in line with the Rob Reiner presentation.
   

Your approach is typical of what I have seen in 35 years of engaging with conspiracy hobbyists. You treat every anomaly, every unexplained event as proof of a conspiracy. It isn't enough to raise questions. You need to find answers if you want to prove your case. You don't get to say, we don't know the answer to these questions so the answer must be that there was a conspiracy. Sorry, but conspiracy is not the default answer for every unexplained question raised. You need to prove that the cop in question is not a DPD cop and that he was a co-conspirator in the assassination of JFK. But that is a step conspiracy hobbyists never take and few even bother to try. You don't prove anything simply by raising questions. You have to prove the answers to the questions you raise. You haven't even come close.

[Royell Storing]

You've proved it to your satisfaction which is a rather low bar. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that is not Officer Haygood. That's a long way from proving conspiracy. You would first need to prove who it is and that it is not a DPD officer. Then you would have to prove that this person was working with the assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. You've got some work to do.
 
I don't have to be aware of any such thing. The burden is on you to prove your hypothesis. You apparently have proved it to your satisfaction, but if you expect anyone to take you seriously, you'll have to do better than that.

Your approach is typical of what I have seen in 35 years of engaging with conspiracy hobbyists. You treat every anomaly, every unexplained event as proof of a conspiracy. It isn't enough to raise questions. You need to find answers if you want to prove your case. You don't get to say, we don't know the answer to these questions so the answer must be that there was a conspiracy. Sorry, but conspiracy is not the default answer for every unexplained question raised. You need to prove that the cop in question is not a DPD cop and that he was a co-conspirator in the assassination of JFK. But that is a step conspiracy hobbyists never take and few even bother to try. You don't prove anything simply by raising questions. You have to prove the answers to the questions you raise. You haven't even come close.

    Let me get this straight. After 62+ years, NO MOTORCYCLE COP, (including Haygood), has EVER identified themselves as being the "One Glove Cop" filmed by Darnell? And you want to cavalierly describe this as being a mere "anomaly"? Again, Haygood was the ONLY MOTORCYCLE COP back inside the  railroad yard immediately after the kill shot. That makes this "One Glove Cop" filmed by Darnell an impostor. And, when we last see this out-of-uniform, no motorcycle cop, he is heading Directly toward the TSBD. 1+1 = Conspiracy.     

[John Corbett]

    Let me get this straight. After 62+ years, NO MOTORCYCLE COP, (including Haygood), has EVER identified themselves as being the "One Glove Cop" filmed by Darnell? And you want to cavalierly describe this as being a mere "anomaly"? Again, Haygood was the ONLY MOTORCYCLE COP back inside the  railroad yard immediately after the kill shot. That makes this "One Glove Cop" filmed by Darnell an impostor. And, when we last see this out-of-uniform, no motorcycle cop, he is heading Directly toward the TSBD. 1+1 = Conspiracy.   

Your position is completely illogical, which is also typical for conspiracy hobbyists. The fact that the officer in question cannot be positively identified is not proof that it was not a DPD officer. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If we accept your "proof" that it is not Officer Haygood, that in no way proves it is not a DPD officer. The rest of your thought process completely escapes me. I see no semblance of logical thinking in your conclusion that "1 +1 = conspiracy". You continue to assert things you are unable to prove.

Do not misconstrue my comments that I have accepted your premise that the Officer in question is NOT Officer Haygood. From my perspective, it might or might not be Haygood. I don't have proof positive one way or another although if I were to place a bet on this issue, i would bet it is Officer Haygood and your argument that it is not is as illogical as all your other conclusions. Conspiracy hobbyists tend to gravitate toward their preconceived belief of a conspiracy. Their line of thinking goes something like this:

If A is true, B must be true.

If B is true, C must be true.

If C is true, there must have been a conspiracy.

They arbitrarily dismiss other plausible explanations of B and do the same with other plausible explanations for C. That doesn't make for a very compelling argument.

[Jack Nessan]

  Please stop with all the cops here, there, and everywhere. Everybody and Anybody with even a somewhat limited knowledge of the JFK Assassination KNOWS that Officer Haygood was the only MOTORCYCLE, (White Helmet), Cop back inside the rail road yard immediately after the kill shot. This is and never has been in dispute. Now, if you want to ID this alleged Motorcycle Cop that is filmed at the same time as Walthers, Roger Craig, and Harkness back inside the rail road yard, I would seriously be very interested in seeing a Name attached to this alleged motorcycle cop. This is why I consistently ask, "where is his motorcycle"? He has no motorcycle. Why? Because he is an impostor.

If only that was true. Then you would actually have a point to make, but it isn't so you do not. There were all types of cops present in Dealey Plaza, which is really unfortunate for this off-the-wall theory.

In two years of your advanced research skills, you would have thought you would have taken the time to read what DPD Harkness had to report. DPD Harkness is the one person whose testimony you should have paid the most attention to. DPD Harkness was in charge of a number of Motorcycle cops from the Airport to Dealey Plaza. He establishes the fact that motorcycle cops were present in many locations and especially were already behind the TSBD as he asked for additional personnel. 

Thinking DPD Haygood was the only motorcycle cop in Dealey Plaza is delusional based on the desire to make some kind of bizarre contribution to the JFKA. 

How about loose the conspiracy desperation and familiarize yourself with the people who were there. When you read their testimonies, an entirely different picture emerges than the one you are promoting.

So as not to confuse, I will just post the basic info that shows there were cops of all types all over the area. Basing anything on an isolated picture and declaring that it represents the whole of event is ridiculous.

Mr. HARKNESS - Supervising the traffic officers from Main and Field along the parade route to Elm and Houston

Mr. BELIN - Had the building been sealed off at that time?
Mr. HARKNESS - Not to my knowledge. There were several officers around it, but I don't know whether it had been sealed off or not.

Mr. WALTHERS. And at that time I heard the shots as well as everybody else, but as we got over this fence, and a lot of officers and people were just rummaging through the train yards back in this parking area.

[Royell Storing]

Your position is completely illogical, which is also typical for conspiracy hobbyists. The fact that the officer in question cannot be positively identified is not proof that it was not a DPD officer. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If we accept your "proof" that it is not Officer Haygood, that in no way proves it is not a DPD officer. The rest of your thought process completely escapes me. I see no semblance of logical thinking in your conclusion that "1 +1 = conspiracy". You continue to assert things you are unable to prove.

Do not misconstrue my comments that I have accepted your premise that the Officer in question is NOT Officer Haygood. From my perspective, it might or might not be Haygood. I don't have proof positive one way or another although if I were to place a bet on this issue, i would bet it is Officer Haygood and your argument that it is not is as illogical as all your other conclusions. Conspiracy hobbyists tend to gravitate toward their preconceived belief of a conspiracy. Their line of thinking goes something like this:

If A is true, B must be true.

If B is true, C must be true.

If C is true, there must have been a conspiracy.

They arbitrarily dismiss other plausible explanations of B and do the same with other plausible explanations for C. That doesn't make for a very compelling argument.

    How about separating yourself from the rank-n-file and expanding your currently limited JFK Assassination knowledge?  If you look at Haygood's WC Testimony, his description of what he did inside the railroad yard do Not come close to matching what we see that Counterfeit Motorcycle Cop doing on the Darnell Film. After that, take a look at the Cancellare Photo of Haygood standing atop the Triple Underpass. This pic was snapped Before Haygood jumped down into the railroad yard. Haygood is clearly wearing 2 gloves in that photo. When we 1st see the Counterfeit Cop on the Darnell Film, he is wearing only 1 Glove. The distance between the top of the triple underpass and where we see the counterfeit cop for the very 1st time is only about 40 yds. About the same distance as from a MLB Home Plate to 2nd Base. What would cause Haygood to remove 1 glove over the course of that extremely limited distance? Nothing would. We are seeing 2 different people in the Cancellare Photo and the Darnell Film. And when you get done reading the Haygood WC testimony, take a look at Tague's WC Testimony. He had a very good view of Haygood from the point of his dumping his motorcycle at the Elm St. curb, to Haygood returning back to his motorcycle. Again, do the research. Raise your bar.   

[John Corbett]

    How about separating yourself from the rank-n-file and expanding your currently limited JFK Assassination knowledge?  If you look at Haygood's WC Testimony, his description of what he did inside the railroad yard do Not come close to matching what we see that Counterfeit Motorcycle Cop doing on the Darnell Film. After that, take a look at the Cancellare Photo of Haygood standing atop the Triple Underpass. This pic was snapped Before Haygood jumped down into the railroad yard. Haygood is clearly wearing 2 gloves in that photo. When we 1st see the Counterfeit Cop on the Darnell Film, he is wearing only 1 Glove. The distance between the top of the triple underpass and where we see the counterfeit cop for the very 1st time is only about 40 yds. About the same distance as from a MLB Home Plate to 2nd Base.

You continue to assert, without evidence, that the cop in the Darnell film was "Counterfeit".

FYI: The distance between the back point of home plate and the center of second base is roughly 127' 3". I say roughly because the actual distance is an irrational number. If we are talking about from the front of home plate to the nearest point on second base, subtract 38 inches. Again, an irrationals number.

What would cause Haygood to remove 1 glove over the course of that extremely limited distance? Nothing would. We are seeing 2 different people in the Cancellare Photo and the Darnell Film. And when you get done reading the Haygood WC testimony, take a look at Tague's WC Testimony. He had a very good view of Haygood from the point of his dumping his motorcycle at the Elm St. curb, to Haygood returning back to his motorcycle. Again, do the research. Raise your bar.   

Here is a perfect example of one of your illogical assumptions. Because you can't think of a reason Haygood would have taken off his glove, you assume he didn't take off his glove. The possibilities are not limited by your inability to think of any.

Your call for me to "do the research" is simply you attempting to shift the burden of proof to me when it is you who are proposing the hypothesis. When you propose a hypothesis, the burden is on you to provide the proof. No one else has the burden of disproving it. You've never seemed to understand that.