Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 11, 2024 20:08:34 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn.videos.rollcall.com/blogs/sites/2/2015/08/Attic-Assassinations-22-091910.jpg
i.ytimg.com/vi/YVXZdGINiYI/maxresdefault.jpg
rense.com/general96/GrassyKnollSmoke.jpg
i150.photobucket.com/albums/s115/milesscull/smoke.jpg
After the Zapruder film was finally shown on television for the American public to view, there was an outcry for another investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). This outcry would lead to the United States Congress setting up the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to look into the events of November 22, 1963, in greater detail than the Warren Commission (WC) did in 1964.
The HSCA would have the time to look into areas that the WC either spent very little time on or ignored all together. One of these was the issue of smoke being seen near the area that became known as the grassy knoll (GK). The WC did not want to deal with this and even prevented one of the best witnesses for this issue, Lee Bowers, from mentioning it in his testimony before them.
Why were they afraid of discussing smoke being seen in and around the GK area? Because they claimed the ONLY shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO), was up on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building! Clearly, if the only shooter was up there then no one on the lower level of Dealey Plaza (DP) should have seen or smelled any smoke or gunpowder. But, they did.
The HSCA Says...Smoke On Dealey Plaza.
*********************************************
This issue, and the missed shots issue, are so vital and important that John McAdams' online listing of WC and HSCA evidence leaves out both from their volume XII listing. Then WC defenders claim that McAdams was telling the truth. Sure.
The first witness that the HSCA addressed was Austin Miller. Here is what they wrote about him.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014a.gif
Dallas Sheriff Department's Affidavit:
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0252a.gif
(127) In a Dallas County Sheriff's Department notarized statement dated on November 22, 1963, Austin Lawrence Miller stated that at the time he heard three shots and saw people in the Presidential limousine react, he saw "something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the railroad tracks." At that time, Miller was standing on the bridge of the triple underpass. Miller said he did not see anyone in the area of the railroad tracks.
(128) Miller testified before the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964. At that time, Miller was not asked about his prior statement to the sheriff's department and did not give information about the smoke he had earlier reported.
(129) The committee was unable to locate Austin Miller. (HSCA XII, p. 23)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0014a.htm
Quote off
Can you imagine the WC doing this IF he had said he saw LHO shooting JFK? Of course not. This is why the whole "WC defender camp" is just ridiculous to me as the WC didn't even do the job that a small-town District Attorney's office would have done, and yet, they continually claim that they reached the correct conclusion. How do you reach the correct conclusion when you ignore, omit, edit and use evidence that isn't really evidence?
So, Miller's important statement was never entered into the WC's official "evidence" bin, and this shows that they were most definitely NOT searching for the truth. What was this smoke from IF not from a rifle? I know, the WC defenders claim it came from a "pipe", but of course they never showed that a pipe located there emitted smoke. Furthermore, if one did, why wasn't smoke seen all the time in DP then? As far as I know, the ONLY time smoke was seen was on November 22, 1963, when some shooting was going on. Call me silly, and the WC defenders have, and much worse, but that seems like too much of a coincidence to me.
The next witness is Clemon Johnson.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0433b.gif
(130) In an FBI interview on March 17, 1964, Clemon Earl Johnson, of Dallas, stated that he saw smoke near the pavilion at the time of the shots. According to the FBI report, Johnson told the FBI that he believed the smoke came from a motorcycle, which was abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman. At the time of the shots, Johnson was located on the Elm Street viaduct overlooking the Presidential motorcade.
(131) Johnson was not called to testify before the Warren Commission, and he was not located by the committee. (Ibid.; WC Exhibit No. 1422, p. 75)
Quote off
Unfortunately, we have NOTHING else to compare this comment with since he too was NOT called by the WC. Why? Given the track record of the FBI in this area we have to at least leave open the option of him NOT being quoted properly. If the WC was really out for the truth, why did they IGNORE so many witnesses? Was the smoke Johnson saw from a motorcycle or was it from a rifle(s)? A real investigation would not leave such important questions left unanswered.
Another important question is, why couldn't the HSCA find so many witnesses when they had the best resources available to them? This seems odd.
The next witness who said they saw smoke on November 22, 1963, was Sam Holland.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014a.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.gif
(132) In testimony before the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, S.M. Holland stated that he was employed by Union Terminal Railroad at the time of the assassination and was located in the middle of the overpass at the time of the Presidential motorcade.
Holland stated that between the third and fourth shots, he saw smoke rising from the trees located at the top of the knoll:
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
(133) In a report to the sheriff's department on November 22, 1963, Holland had also reported seeing the puff of smoke at the time of the shots. Nevertheless, in that statement, Holland placed the time of the puff of smoke as coinciding [with] the first "noise":
***when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a firecracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. (Ibid., p. 24)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.htm
Quote off
So, Holland saw smoke in the area of the trees on the GK also. The HSCA would employ their own deceptive tactic too in this area. Notice how they made it sound like he ONLY saw smoke after the "first shot", but not after the next three. They edited the affidavit to make it appear that he saw smoke after the first shot, but in reality, he saw smoke after ONE shot, and it seems like it was the HEAD SHOT. Here is the rest of his affidavit.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0249b.gif
...After the first shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After the first shot the secret service (sic) man raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off... (Sam Holland Affidavit, November 22, 1963, Decker Exhibit 5323, p. 480)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0249b.htm
Quote off
We don't know for sure if Holland was confused or if the Sheriff's Office altered what he said, but the sequence he describes is seen in the Zapruder AFTER THE HEAD SHOT, and not the first shot. We have to remember also that everything was based on the incorrect "three shot" scenario, but clearly there were more shots fired that day than three. Whether he meant the first, third, tenth or fifteenth shot, what he is describing was seen after JFK was hit in the head.
Jackie did not jump up until the head shot occurred. That is a fact. Where is the Secret Service (SS) man raising up with a machine gun in the Zapruder film? Was this removed? Was this what killed JFK? I am just asking based on his statement. The HSCA was wrong to make it seem like he meant the very first shot when the actions he described indicate he meant the third shot (officially) and then to edit his statement so people wouldn't catch on. Shame on them.
The main point is that Holland too saw smoke in the trees of the GK and this would not have been so IF the only shots came from the sixth floor of the TSBD.
The next witness was James Simmons.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.gif
(134) James L. Simmons, of Dallas, reported to the FBI that from his location on the Commerce Street viaduct he saw "exhaust fumes or smoke" near the embankment in front of the depository building... (HSCA XII, p. 24)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.htm
Quote off
The HSCA would also try to make it seem like he was not sure if the smoke was from a shot or a police motorcycle. It was also implied that Simmons felt the shots had come from the TSBD and that is where the fumes or smoke was, but is this correct? Also, keep in mind, he was facing towards the plaza so smoke emitting from the GK could appear to be headed to the TSBD, but even so, LHO was supposed to be six stories up so it couldn't be from his rifle if you believe the official fairytale.
Luckily for us, in March 1966, Simmons granted Mark Lane an interview and allowed him to film it. In the filmed interview he would say the following to Mr. Lane and he would write about it in his landmark book, Rush To Judgment (RTJ).
Quote on
In filmed interviews, both James L. Simmons and Richard C Dodd told me that they had seen smoke NEAR THE BUSHES AND TREES at the corner of the WOODEN FENCE. Simmons said the sound of the shots “came from the left and in front of us, toward the WOODEN FENCE, and there was a PUFF OF SMOKE that came underneath the trees at the embankment.” (Emphasis mine) (Rush To Judgement, p. 40)
Quote off
On another page Mark Lane would write this concerning what Simmons said in his filmed interview.
Quote on
He said he saw “footprints in the mud around the fence, and there were footprints on the wooden two-by-four railing on the fence.” -- (Ibid., p. 34)
Quote off
So who is correct here, the FBI or Mark Lane? We can’t go to his testimony in the twenty-six volumes because the WC did NOT see fit to call Simmons before them.
Fortunately though, he was called as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial. Simmons was standing on top of the triple overpass; thus, he had a great view of the whole plaza. Here is what he said at the Shaw trial.
Q: Now at the time you heard the second and third shot did you notice anything unusual in the area of the grassy knoll?
A: Well, after I heard the shots I looked to see if I could see where they were coming from and underneath the trees up on the grassy knoll by the fence I detected what appeared to be a puff of smoke or wisp of smoke.
Q: From which direction did these noises appear to come from?
A: In front and the left.
Q: Were -- will you step down and point out on the aerial photograph the location in which you heard the shots coming from and the area in which you saw the puff of smoke?
A: I was facing this way and the sound appeared to come from this general direction over along here, and there is a row of trees along the fence and towards the end of the fence there is a small building and just this side of it a few feet is where I saw the smoke.
This testimony SUPPORTS the statements attributed to him by Mark Lane in his book, and NOT what the FBI claimed he said. Let’s continue with his testimony. [Note. Keep in mind this was given in a REAL COURT with real powers of perjury too.]
Q: Will you step back, please. After having heard these shots and seeing a puff of smoke, what if anything did you do?
A: I went around -- there is a fence like I say here, and I went around the railing on top the overpass and walked around behind the fence.
Q: And when you got behind the fence did you see anything unusual to you?
A: Well, I was one of the first ones there and uh, when we got there there was no one there but it had rained that morning and there were several footprints back and forth along the fence.
Q: What drew your attention to these particular footprints, Mr. Simmons?
A: Well, 'cause there were so many of them.
Q: Did you see any footprints in any other area but this area?
A: On the fence, on the fence. On the fence there was a wooden brace or rail and there were muddy footprints on it.
Again, we see this testimony CORROBORATES what Mark Lane said but DIFFERS from what the FBI claimed he said. We see clearly that Simmons believed the shots came from the GK areas (front and left of where he was standing), and NOT the TSBD as the WC, via the FBI, claimed. Also, he saw a puff of smoke that was NOT from the exhaust of a motorcycle as the WC, via the FBI, claimed. IF LHO really shot JFK as claimed, why would they need to misrepresent what was said like this?
The next witness was standing with Simmons at the time of the assassination.
Quote on
(135) ...In an FBI interview on March 17, 1964, Potter said that he heard three shots, saw the President slump over in his car, and that he also saw smoke in front of the depository, which was rising from the trees. Potter gave no other details about the smoke. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Again, from Nolan Potter's angle it could seem that smoke emitting from the trees in the GK area was really in front of the TSBD. If not, then that opens another possibility as perhaps someone fired from in front of the TSBD where the pool of blood was located. Just a thought.
Needless to say, neither Simmons nor Potter was called to testify before the WC about what they saw so that confirms for me that they were not sure about the smoke coming from the TSBD area either.
The HSCA wrapped up this section in the following way.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0015a.gif
(137) Based on the statements of these witnesses, if the smoke they reported was in fact the result of gunfire, it would have originated in the area of the top of the grassy knoll. There is no way of determining what type of ammunition was used in that "gunfire" so that it can be stated conclusively whether the smoke seen by the witnesses is consistent with smoke produced by the type of ammunition used in any gunfire from the knoll. Nevertheless, a firearms expert engaged by the committee explained that irrespective of the exact type of ammunition used, it would be possible for witnesses to have seen smoke if a gun had been fired from that area.
According to the expert, both "smokeless" and smoke-producing ammunition may leave a trace of smoke that would be visible to the eye in sunlight... (Ibid., pp. 24-25)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.htm
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0015a.htm
Quote off
This was confirmed by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) in a letter to the WC’s General Counsel J. Lee Rankin concerning the alleged murder weapon, the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, and it shows that the rifle in question did emit smoke.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pages/WH_Vol26_0424a.gif
Dear Mr. Rankin:
In your letter dated September 19, 1964, you inquired as to whether any flame was visible at the muzzle of the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, Serial No. C2766 when this rifle was fired under daylight conditions.
The rifle was fired both in direct sunlight and in full shade and no flame was visible. A small amount of smoke was visible; however, the pale orange flame from burning gases emitted from the muzzle would be visible only at night or in a darkened room.
The results of these tests were furnished by telephone to Mr. Norman Redlich of the Commission staff on September 21, 1964.
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoover (CE 3133, p. 811)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0424a.htm
Quote off
This shows that the rifle in question, the alleged murder weapon, emitted a small amount of white smoke, therefore, why couldn’t other rifles do the same thing? Especially if they were of higher power and larger caliber.
There were other witnesses that saw smoke that the HSCA did not cover, but I did in a "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" article.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0266b.gif
I rushed towards the park and saw people running towards the railroad yards beyond Elm Street and I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area. (Report of Deputy Sheriff A.D. McCurley, Decker Exhibit 5323, p. 514)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0266b.htm
Quote off
This was corroborated by Deputy Sheriff J.L. Oxford in his report which said that when they reached the picket fence area there was a man “who told us that he had seen smoke up in the corner of the fence.” (Decker Exhibit 5323, p. 530)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0274b.gif
Perhaps Holland said it best when he told the Associated Press in November 1966 that "four or five of us saw it, the smoke... one of my employees even saw the muzzle flash. The way the Warren Commission published my testimony, it was kind of watered down some." (The New York Times, November 23, 1966, p. 25.)
This shows that the WC, FBI, Dallas Police Department (DPD) and the Sheriff's Department would all "water down" statements that did NOT agree with the official fairytale -- i.e., LHO did it all by himself.
What do you think? Was this smoke from a weapon or weapons? Or was it from a "pipe" or motorcycle?
cdn.videos.rollcall.com/blogs/sites/2/2015/08/Attic-Assassinations-22-091910.jpg
i.ytimg.com/vi/YVXZdGINiYI/maxresdefault.jpg
rense.com/general96/GrassyKnollSmoke.jpg
i150.photobucket.com/albums/s115/milesscull/smoke.jpg
After the Zapruder film was finally shown on television for the American public to view, there was an outcry for another investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). This outcry would lead to the United States Congress setting up the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to look into the events of November 22, 1963, in greater detail than the Warren Commission (WC) did in 1964.
The HSCA would have the time to look into areas that the WC either spent very little time on or ignored all together. One of these was the issue of smoke being seen near the area that became known as the grassy knoll (GK). The WC did not want to deal with this and even prevented one of the best witnesses for this issue, Lee Bowers, from mentioning it in his testimony before them.
Why were they afraid of discussing smoke being seen in and around the GK area? Because they claimed the ONLY shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO), was up on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building! Clearly, if the only shooter was up there then no one on the lower level of Dealey Plaza (DP) should have seen or smelled any smoke or gunpowder. But, they did.
The HSCA Says...Smoke On Dealey Plaza.
*********************************************
This issue, and the missed shots issue, are so vital and important that John McAdams' online listing of WC and HSCA evidence leaves out both from their volume XII listing. Then WC defenders claim that McAdams was telling the truth. Sure.
The first witness that the HSCA addressed was Austin Miller. Here is what they wrote about him.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014a.gif
Dallas Sheriff Department's Affidavit:
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0252a.gif
(127) In a Dallas County Sheriff's Department notarized statement dated on November 22, 1963, Austin Lawrence Miller stated that at the time he heard three shots and saw people in the Presidential limousine react, he saw "something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the railroad tracks." At that time, Miller was standing on the bridge of the triple underpass. Miller said he did not see anyone in the area of the railroad tracks.
(128) Miller testified before the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964. At that time, Miller was not asked about his prior statement to the sheriff's department and did not give information about the smoke he had earlier reported.
(129) The committee was unable to locate Austin Miller. (HSCA XII, p. 23)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0014a.htm
Quote off
Can you imagine the WC doing this IF he had said he saw LHO shooting JFK? Of course not. This is why the whole "WC defender camp" is just ridiculous to me as the WC didn't even do the job that a small-town District Attorney's office would have done, and yet, they continually claim that they reached the correct conclusion. How do you reach the correct conclusion when you ignore, omit, edit and use evidence that isn't really evidence?
So, Miller's important statement was never entered into the WC's official "evidence" bin, and this shows that they were most definitely NOT searching for the truth. What was this smoke from IF not from a rifle? I know, the WC defenders claim it came from a "pipe", but of course they never showed that a pipe located there emitted smoke. Furthermore, if one did, why wasn't smoke seen all the time in DP then? As far as I know, the ONLY time smoke was seen was on November 22, 1963, when some shooting was going on. Call me silly, and the WC defenders have, and much worse, but that seems like too much of a coincidence to me.
The next witness is Clemon Johnson.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0433b.gif
(130) In an FBI interview on March 17, 1964, Clemon Earl Johnson, of Dallas, stated that he saw smoke near the pavilion at the time of the shots. According to the FBI report, Johnson told the FBI that he believed the smoke came from a motorcycle, which was abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman. At the time of the shots, Johnson was located on the Elm Street viaduct overlooking the Presidential motorcade.
(131) Johnson was not called to testify before the Warren Commission, and he was not located by the committee. (Ibid.; WC Exhibit No. 1422, p. 75)
Quote off
Unfortunately, we have NOTHING else to compare this comment with since he too was NOT called by the WC. Why? Given the track record of the FBI in this area we have to at least leave open the option of him NOT being quoted properly. If the WC was really out for the truth, why did they IGNORE so many witnesses? Was the smoke Johnson saw from a motorcycle or was it from a rifle(s)? A real investigation would not leave such important questions left unanswered.
Another important question is, why couldn't the HSCA find so many witnesses when they had the best resources available to them? This seems odd.
The next witness who said they saw smoke on November 22, 1963, was Sam Holland.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014a.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.gif
(132) In testimony before the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, S.M. Holland stated that he was employed by Union Terminal Railroad at the time of the assassination and was located in the middle of the overpass at the time of the Presidential motorcade.
Holland stated that between the third and fourth shots, he saw smoke rising from the trees located at the top of the knoll:
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
(133) In a report to the sheriff's department on November 22, 1963, Holland had also reported seeing the puff of smoke at the time of the shots. Nevertheless, in that statement, Holland placed the time of the puff of smoke as coinciding [with] the first "noise":
***when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a firecracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. (Ibid., p. 24)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.htm
Quote off
So, Holland saw smoke in the area of the trees on the GK also. The HSCA would employ their own deceptive tactic too in this area. Notice how they made it sound like he ONLY saw smoke after the "first shot", but not after the next three. They edited the affidavit to make it appear that he saw smoke after the first shot, but in reality, he saw smoke after ONE shot, and it seems like it was the HEAD SHOT. Here is the rest of his affidavit.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0249b.gif
...After the first shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After the first shot the secret service (sic) man raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off... (Sam Holland Affidavit, November 22, 1963, Decker Exhibit 5323, p. 480)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0249b.htm
Quote off
We don't know for sure if Holland was confused or if the Sheriff's Office altered what he said, but the sequence he describes is seen in the Zapruder AFTER THE HEAD SHOT, and not the first shot. We have to remember also that everything was based on the incorrect "three shot" scenario, but clearly there were more shots fired that day than three. Whether he meant the first, third, tenth or fifteenth shot, what he is describing was seen after JFK was hit in the head.
Jackie did not jump up until the head shot occurred. That is a fact. Where is the Secret Service (SS) man raising up with a machine gun in the Zapruder film? Was this removed? Was this what killed JFK? I am just asking based on his statement. The HSCA was wrong to make it seem like he meant the very first shot when the actions he described indicate he meant the third shot (officially) and then to edit his statement so people wouldn't catch on. Shame on them.
The main point is that Holland too saw smoke in the trees of the GK and this would not have been so IF the only shots came from the sixth floor of the TSBD.
The next witness was James Simmons.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.gif
(134) James L. Simmons, of Dallas, reported to the FBI that from his location on the Commerce Street viaduct he saw "exhaust fumes or smoke" near the embankment in front of the depository building... (HSCA XII, p. 24)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.htm
Quote off
The HSCA would also try to make it seem like he was not sure if the smoke was from a shot or a police motorcycle. It was also implied that Simmons felt the shots had come from the TSBD and that is where the fumes or smoke was, but is this correct? Also, keep in mind, he was facing towards the plaza so smoke emitting from the GK could appear to be headed to the TSBD, but even so, LHO was supposed to be six stories up so it couldn't be from his rifle if you believe the official fairytale.
Luckily for us, in March 1966, Simmons granted Mark Lane an interview and allowed him to film it. In the filmed interview he would say the following to Mr. Lane and he would write about it in his landmark book, Rush To Judgment (RTJ).
Quote on
In filmed interviews, both James L. Simmons and Richard C Dodd told me that they had seen smoke NEAR THE BUSHES AND TREES at the corner of the WOODEN FENCE. Simmons said the sound of the shots “came from the left and in front of us, toward the WOODEN FENCE, and there was a PUFF OF SMOKE that came underneath the trees at the embankment.” (Emphasis mine) (Rush To Judgement, p. 40)
Quote off
On another page Mark Lane would write this concerning what Simmons said in his filmed interview.
Quote on
He said he saw “footprints in the mud around the fence, and there were footprints on the wooden two-by-four railing on the fence.” -- (Ibid., p. 34)
Quote off
So who is correct here, the FBI or Mark Lane? We can’t go to his testimony in the twenty-six volumes because the WC did NOT see fit to call Simmons before them.
Fortunately though, he was called as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial. Simmons was standing on top of the triple overpass; thus, he had a great view of the whole plaza. Here is what he said at the Shaw trial.
Q: Now at the time you heard the second and third shot did you notice anything unusual in the area of the grassy knoll?
A: Well, after I heard the shots I looked to see if I could see where they were coming from and underneath the trees up on the grassy knoll by the fence I detected what appeared to be a puff of smoke or wisp of smoke.
Q: From which direction did these noises appear to come from?
A: In front and the left.
Q: Were -- will you step down and point out on the aerial photograph the location in which you heard the shots coming from and the area in which you saw the puff of smoke?
A: I was facing this way and the sound appeared to come from this general direction over along here, and there is a row of trees along the fence and towards the end of the fence there is a small building and just this side of it a few feet is where I saw the smoke.
This testimony SUPPORTS the statements attributed to him by Mark Lane in his book, and NOT what the FBI claimed he said. Let’s continue with his testimony. [Note. Keep in mind this was given in a REAL COURT with real powers of perjury too.]
Q: Will you step back, please. After having heard these shots and seeing a puff of smoke, what if anything did you do?
A: I went around -- there is a fence like I say here, and I went around the railing on top the overpass and walked around behind the fence.
Q: And when you got behind the fence did you see anything unusual to you?
A: Well, I was one of the first ones there and uh, when we got there there was no one there but it had rained that morning and there were several footprints back and forth along the fence.
Q: What drew your attention to these particular footprints, Mr. Simmons?
A: Well, 'cause there were so many of them.
Q: Did you see any footprints in any other area but this area?
A: On the fence, on the fence. On the fence there was a wooden brace or rail and there were muddy footprints on it.
Again, we see this testimony CORROBORATES what Mark Lane said but DIFFERS from what the FBI claimed he said. We see clearly that Simmons believed the shots came from the GK areas (front and left of where he was standing), and NOT the TSBD as the WC, via the FBI, claimed. Also, he saw a puff of smoke that was NOT from the exhaust of a motorcycle as the WC, via the FBI, claimed. IF LHO really shot JFK as claimed, why would they need to misrepresent what was said like this?
The next witness was standing with Simmons at the time of the assassination.
Quote on
(135) ...In an FBI interview on March 17, 1964, Potter said that he heard three shots, saw the President slump over in his car, and that he also saw smoke in front of the depository, which was rising from the trees. Potter gave no other details about the smoke. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Again, from Nolan Potter's angle it could seem that smoke emitting from the trees in the GK area was really in front of the TSBD. If not, then that opens another possibility as perhaps someone fired from in front of the TSBD where the pool of blood was located. Just a thought.
Needless to say, neither Simmons nor Potter was called to testify before the WC about what they saw so that confirms for me that they were not sure about the smoke coming from the TSBD area either.
The HSCA wrapped up this section in the following way.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pages/HSCA_Vol12_0015a.gif
(137) Based on the statements of these witnesses, if the smoke they reported was in fact the result of gunfire, it would have originated in the area of the top of the grassy knoll. There is no way of determining what type of ammunition was used in that "gunfire" so that it can be stated conclusively whether the smoke seen by the witnesses is consistent with smoke produced by the type of ammunition used in any gunfire from the knoll. Nevertheless, a firearms expert engaged by the committee explained that irrespective of the exact type of ammunition used, it would be possible for witnesses to have seen smoke if a gun had been fired from that area.
According to the expert, both "smokeless" and smoke-producing ammunition may leave a trace of smoke that would be visible to the eye in sunlight... (Ibid., pp. 24-25)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0014b.htm
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0015a.htm
Quote off
This was confirmed by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) in a letter to the WC’s General Counsel J. Lee Rankin concerning the alleged murder weapon, the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, and it shows that the rifle in question did emit smoke.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pages/WH_Vol26_0424a.gif
Dear Mr. Rankin:
In your letter dated September 19, 1964, you inquired as to whether any flame was visible at the muzzle of the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, Serial No. C2766 when this rifle was fired under daylight conditions.
The rifle was fired both in direct sunlight and in full shade and no flame was visible. A small amount of smoke was visible; however, the pale orange flame from burning gases emitted from the muzzle would be visible only at night or in a darkened room.
The results of these tests were furnished by telephone to Mr. Norman Redlich of the Commission staff on September 21, 1964.
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoover (CE 3133, p. 811)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0424a.htm
Quote off
This shows that the rifle in question, the alleged murder weapon, emitted a small amount of white smoke, therefore, why couldn’t other rifles do the same thing? Especially if they were of higher power and larger caliber.
There were other witnesses that saw smoke that the HSCA did not cover, but I did in a "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" article.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0266b.gif
I rushed towards the park and saw people running towards the railroad yards beyond Elm Street and I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area. (Report of Deputy Sheriff A.D. McCurley, Decker Exhibit 5323, p. 514)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0266b.htm
Quote off
This was corroborated by Deputy Sheriff J.L. Oxford in his report which said that when they reached the picket fence area there was a man “who told us that he had seen smoke up in the corner of the fence.” (Decker Exhibit 5323, p. 530)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0274b.gif
Perhaps Holland said it best when he told the Associated Press in November 1966 that "four or five of us saw it, the smoke... one of my employees even saw the muzzle flash. The way the Warren Commission published my testimony, it was kind of watered down some." (The New York Times, November 23, 1966, p. 25.)
This shows that the WC, FBI, Dallas Police Department (DPD) and the Sheriff's Department would all "water down" statements that did NOT agree with the official fairytale -- i.e., LHO did it all by himself.
What do you think? Was this smoke from a weapon or weapons? Or was it from a "pipe" or motorcycle?