JFK Assassination Forum

   Funny to see you floundering around because you do Not know who took the photo and when it was taken. You continue exposing your lack of a sound JFK Assassination Foundation. Take the time and do the research. You are currently, "naked as a Jaybird". Not pretty.

Royell, to put this as politely as possible: SHUT THE F UP. You're a mentally ill moron who has made a complete fool of yourself six ways from Sunday in literally every post on every single thread. I don't know what sort of home you're in, but see if they can up your meds.

The seller informs me that he visited Haygood several years before Haygood's death, at which time Haygood signed all the photos, and that his understanding is that Haygood is the standing officer. His understanding is that the officer still on the motorcycle is the Imposter Haygood; OK, I made that part up, but it's what you were going to say anyway. It would appear that the Babushka Lady had an excellent perspective on this and may even have some photos. Let's ask her!

   Funny to see you floundering around because you do Not know who took the photo and when it was taken. You continue exposing your lack of a sound JFK Assassination Foundation. Take the time and do the research. You are currently, "naked as a Jaybird". Not pretty.

After leaving the RR yard Murray stood on the grassy knoll and photographed the crowd gathered on N Elm, including the area near the parked motorcycle of Clyde Haygood. His helmet is visible in the photo near his bike. Murray also caught the north peristyle wall with an advancing shadow moving southward about 3-4” per minute. Modeling this wall shadow allows an estimation of the time as 12:36.


My original posting on this technique can be found in this forum here.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2013.msg54679.html#google_vignette

     Those of you agreeing with the 12:36 time stamping of the photo above, are also then buying into traffic freely flowing down Elm St at 12:36. This would only be 6 minutes after the Kill Shot and would provide a quick/direct exit path from the TSBD to the Stemmons Freeway. This would especially be true for a "getaway" car already parked alongside the Island and facing Elm St.

   YOU Claimed this car was "RELEASED" by DPD. Are you standing by YOUR DECLARATION? If DPD did formally "RELEASE" this car, there should be paperwork connected to this alleged "RELEASE". That RELEASE would include a license plate # and name(s) attached to the car. So, are YOU also claiming there was/is DPD paperwork directly connected to this car?
   This car: (1) Was traveling down the Elm St Extension while the Kill Shot was being fired, (2) Parked inside a clearly posted, "NO PARKING At Any Time" zone alongside the Island, (3) Back from the corner and unable to be seen from Elm St, (4) Across from the "wide open" Huge Gates which granted access/exit to the TSBD, (5) Was rendered Immobile by DPD, (6) Had a DPD Cop guarding it, and (7) Then sat there for at least 3+ Hours. I believe the covert actions and ultimate parked position of this car overwhelmingly proves it was an intended "getaway" car. Obviously, DPD thought the very same thing. DPD was all over this car both short and long term.

Really? What is your evidence the DPD "was all over this car" in the long term? For that matter, what is your evidence they were all over it in the short term? What is your evidence the car had been immobilized? What is your evidence that a cop was guarding this car with a shotgun. I have seen plenty of footage and still pictures of cops with shotguns surrounding the TSBD following the shooting. Just because one of these cops might have been  standing near this car with a shotgun is not evidence he was guarding the car. So far you have produced not evidence the car was immobilized by the DPD or had any interest in it. All we have are your unsubstantiated claims.

As is your usual practice, you have tried to shift the burden to move of proving the car was NOT a getaway car. You have completely failed in your efforts to prove this car WAS a getaway car. As usual, your claims are pure assumptions on your part with no supporting evidence.

Where I believe these little thought exercises are useful is not that we're going to figure out exactly what Oswald was thinking but that they do tend to eliminate some possibilities.

One of the more popular theories is that Oswald was heading to a rendezvous - at Jack Ruby's, at a safe house in Oak Cliff, at the Texas Theater, at the Redbird Airport. To me, it is inconceivable that "a pit stop at Beckley to grab his revolver" would have been part of any such plan. It simply makes no sense. Those who favor rendezvous theories are stuck with this scenario, but it simply makes no sense.

He realized he was a patsy and went home to get his gun for protection: OK. Far-fetched for a host of reasons, but at least not irrational.

He was astounded to find himself outside the TSBD, had no plan at all, his mind was racing, and he went home to get his revolver because it might come in handy for whatever the hell might happen next: Yes, fits pretty well, it seems to me.

The first two paragraphs imply he had accomplices for which the is zero credible evidence. The third paragraph makes perfect sense. It involves no one else.