JFK Assassination Forum

Life Magazine's Interview with George Davis

George Davis was another one of the railroad men who watched the motorcade on November 22nd from the triple overpass.

Here is his FBI report:



In 1966, Life Magazine briefly started investigating the JFK assassination and they looked into the issue of smoke on the grassy knoll. As part of their investigation, Holland McCombs, one of their reporters, interviewed George Davis:





Davis says that "one of the policemen that was riding in the rear of the President's car on the motorcycle took off up the embankment -- headed north right up the slope and as I remember he went almost to the top of it -- and the motorcycle was putting out blue smoke as it was going us this embankment. He got off of it and kinda laid the motorcycle on its side still puffing, blue smoke still coming up."


Now, this did not happen but Officer Haygood did stop his motorcycle at the edge of the embankment. This must have been what Davis saw -- and I should add that both S. M. Holland and Lee Bowers also say they saw a motorcycle go up the embankment. They were all wrong.


Officer Haygood said he tried to jump the curb, but had trouble -- and this maneuver may have contributed to excessive throttle and might have caused smoke. And blue smoke from a Harley-Davidson motorcycle in 1963 was not uncommon.


In addition, as the motorcade began to accelerate toward the Triple Underpass after the shots were fired, officers gunned their engines to catch up. A sharp twist of the throttle on a 1963 Panhead frequently caused a "burp" of blue-white oil smoke.


On November 22, the wind was quite strong and was blowing generally from the southwest/west. This could carry the exhaust smoke from the motorcycles on Elm Street toward the very trees on the Grassy Knoll where witnesses reported seeing "puffs."


I don't want to make the claim the railroad men saw exhaust smoke, but it's a possibility.  Holland, Bowers and Davis all thought they saw Haygood's motorcycle go up the embankment, and so, while they were all wrong, they were still watching what was going on on Elm Street. The exhaust smoke could have melded in Holland's memory about what he had just witnessed.


Testimony of S. M. Holland




From Mark Lane's interview with S.M. Holland. The Secret Service agent with a sub-machine gun was not in the Presidential limousine. George Hickey, in the follow-up car, drew his AR-15.




Davis says that "Mr. Bowers would have seen a man with gun of any kind standing there. He said there was no human being on the north side of the fence. I think that pretty well clears that thing up."



Davis says the smoke lasted a "minute, minute and a half at most." Smoke from a rifle wouldn't linger for that period of time.





The railroad workers came up with a variety of explanations for the smoke -- some thought it was steam; some thought it was motorcycle exhaust; and some thought it might have been from cigarettes.


There is no reason to believe it came from a rifle shot.


One last word about memory, and this comes from Stephen White's book, Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?: (pages 61 - 62)


The fact is that it is never simple to tell where shots have come from. A person directly in line with a shot, or very nearly in line, will usually have a reasonably good notion; a person off to either side will be forced to guess, and only a trained observer is likely to guess accurately. Echoes and reverberations make it especially difficult, and Dealey Plaza, a small bowl surrounded by building and by concrete structures, might have been designed to create echoes and reverberations.


It is a further fact that no one in Dealey Plaza was ever able to report what he had heard, at least in a certain sense of the word, but was forced instead to fall back upon what he thought he heard. To some extend, one hears what one wishes to hear, as anyone who commonly conducts conversations in crowded rooms. The unexpected noise takes some time to make a conscious impression, particularly upon those whose attention is fixed elsewhere. It is probably that most of those in the Plaza were never conscious of gunshots while the gunshots themselves were reverberating, that only after the gunshots faded away was there any general realization that gunshots had been heard. Recollections even after a few seconds, is subject to gross error, for it is almost always affected by the whole environment. Those who, upon their realization that they heard gunshots, saw officers rushing up the grassy knoll, would instinctively couple the two events. Completely outside any conscious interference -- indeed, beyond the possibility of conscious interference -- recollection would do the rest by merging the two perceptions: They would honestly and sincerely recall that they had "heard" gunshots from the grassy knoll. It is remarkable how many witnesses who report hearing shots from that direction couple their account with the memory of policemen rushing in that direction. They believe that in that manner they reinforce the validity of their recollection; in point of fact, they cast grave doubt upon it.


Among those in the best position to know -- the occupants of the Presidential car, at whom the shotes were directed and who were therefore directly in the trajectory -- the recollection is unambiguous. The Governor, his wife, the driver, and the accompanying Secret Service man recollect clearly that the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository. So do the occupants of the following car.

Thanks, Mark.

I appreciate your posting of the Copilot second opinion.

We have had some interesting analyses of AI history posts on the Education Forum.

The consensus is that some of these AI programs have a lot to learn-- especially about military and intelligence black ops.

AI is good at "augmenting" human analysis, but it will be interesting to see what else it might be able to bring to the table regarding the JFKA.

Btw and Fwiw, my little Copilot friend is a better man than most of us who post here. It finds it counterproductive to call other people "crackpots" and prefers to say that they tend to gravitate toward unconventional claims and become more committed when those claims are questioned.

So, are you denying that the vast majority of JFK-influenced tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists believe Oswald was "patsied" Mr. Rhetorical?

So, you don't really want to have a conversation and are merely trolling.

I'm not wasting my time on your nonsense. Bye!

So . . . we have to disregard all testimony and witnesses whose evidence conflicts with the WC and accept all the testimony from other wideness who were also looking at "spring loaded clocks"? 

Well!  That was easy! 

Next!

Dear Marty,

The vast majority of KGB-influenced tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists are adamant that Oswald was "patsied," that there was more than one shooter, that evidence was planted, that photos, films and X-rays were altered, and that the "coverup" is continuing!

Aren't you?

-- Tom

The vast majority of KGB-influenced tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists are adamant that Oswald was "patsied,"

Are they?

So, you just figured you could generalize it?

Are you one of those silly people who actually believes that if somebody doesn't instantly and superficially accepts the BS you believe in, must be a "conspiracy theorist" (whatever that means)?

If you want to have a conversation with me, why don't you simply answer my questions and we'll take it from there.