Dealey Plaza eyewitness: ‘People were running to the grassy knoll’


As a thirteen year old girl, Tina Towner went to Dealey Plaza with her parents on November 22, 1963 to see President Kennedy . She filmed the motorcade with a movie camera as it turned on to Elm Street.  Here’s what she recorded.

 

36 comments

  1. The Towner film should be reviewed closely as it contains clear views of the TSBD steps and may include “Prayer Man” and could shed some light on his identity.

    Although I previously discounted all photo and film as clear and convincing evidence, the recent use of photos and films of the flag raising at Iowa Jima convinced the official USMC Historians to recognize they had previously misidentified one of the men and corrected their record, so there is some substance to photo forensics that could be applied to this film.

    It may also show JFK’s reaction to the first shot, though its disturbing that the FBI removed seven key frames. Someone should file a FOIA request for them to learn what became of them, though I would imagine they went into the black memory hole with the AF1 tapes, the Harper fragment and the other lost evidence.

    Who is the narrator in this video? Having investigated Jim Braden thoroughly I am quite confident he was not a shooter, as there is no other act of violence in his entire career as a con artist though he is quite a shady character.

    • Avinash says:

      Prayer Man is none other than Oswald.

      • Jean Davison says:

        Not according to Oswald.

        • Avinash says:

          Who in your opinion is Prayer Man?

          • Jean Davison says:

            When a reporter asked Oswald, “Did you shoot the president?” he replied, “I work in that building.”

            Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?

            Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.”

            Oswald couldn’t very well deny being in the building since we was seen near the 2nd floor stairs c. 2 minutes after the shooting by witnesses Truly, Baker, and Reid.

            Since “Prayer Man” wasn’t Oswald, IMO it doesn’t matter who it was.

          • J.D. says:

            Oswald also said “I did not do it. I did not shoot anyone.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            He also said he was arrested (“taken in”) because he had lived in the Soviet Union, another lie.

            Oswald was seen near the back stairs during the same time reenactments showed the shooter would’ve been there if he’d come downstairs immediately. Since the freight elevators weren’t working, the stairs were the killer’s only escape route.

            Do you think that was just a coincidence?

          • J.D. says:

            Your double standard is duly noted: If Oswald says something you can use to prop up the official story, he’s reliable. If he says something that contradicts it, he’s a liar.

            By the way, it’s wrong to say that Oswald was seen “two minutes after the shooting.” The reenactments done for the Warren Commission concluded that the second-floor happened between 75 and 90 seconds after the shooting.

          • John Rowell says:

            Jean, I’ve answered your question before: No, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Oswald was sighted close to that staircase. I think it’s eminently commonly sensible that Oswald was found in the lunchroom of the building where he worked during the lunch hour.

            Avinash, the identity of Prayer Man is unknown to me. I do not, however, think its Oswald. I understand all the arguments in favor, but I just don’t have enough evidence to agree.

            I do, however, believe the second floor lunchroom encounter occurred. The sole reason for this being the fact that that testimony comes from the investigating agencies, who had absolutely no interest in placing Oswald so far away from the crime scene so soon after the crime itself.

          • Jean Davison says:

            It’s no double standard, J.D. The evidence suggests that Oswald lied about some things and not others.

            Baker testified that he thought he took a little longer to reach the lunchroom on 11/22 and a researcher who studied the timing of the film showing Baker running toward the building agreed with that estimate. Whether it was 90 seconds or “c. two minutes,” Oswald was seen near the killer’s escape route during the same time frame a shooter leaving the sixth-floor window would’ve been there, according to the reenactments.

            So far the only scenario that explains this strange circumstance appears to be the “official story.” Would anyone here like to suggest another explanation for why Oswald was in that location at that particular time?

          • John Rowell says:

            J.D. you keep on keepin’ on. Can’t disagree with a word you write.

            Jean, in my opinion, you’re wrong to say Oswald is lying when he replies “they’ve taken me in because I lived in the Soviet Union.” You have no idea what prompted him to state that OPINION. One of the arresting officers might’ve said something that led him to draw that CONCLUSION. To think that every word uttered by the officers made it into a report is hopelessly naive. Furthermore, Oswald may have just ASSUMED it was true, given the Cold War biases he no doubt had encountered in the past.

          • RonnieWayne says:

            Jean, after all these years reading your comments I feel compelled to quote the grateful dead, what a long strange trip it’s been. I still wonder, do you Not think Bakers statements and testimony were influenced by his superiors at the DPD, the Secret Service, FBI, and ultimately the CIA in relation to all?

          • J.D. says:

            Yes, it is a double standard: You dismissed someone’s opinion with “Not according to Oswald,” which implies that Oswald’s word is to be taken seriously, and then turned around and argued that Oswald was an habitual liar. Furthermore, when it comes to matters as important as this, lying is a zero-sum matter: If somebody “lies about some things and not others,” it suggests that their word is not to be trusted in general. I don’t, however, accept the notion that Oswald was a liar, since the example of a “lie” you provide is ludicrous.

            Baker did not say that he “took a little longer to reach the lunchroom.” He said that the reenactments represented the “minimum” amount of time it took him to reach the lunchroom, as opposed to the “maximum.” But he also said he “ran” to the building and up the stairs, and other witnesses said he was running. According to Truly: “He ran right by me. And he was pushing people out of the way.” It’s hardly plausible that it took him anywhere close to two minutes to get to the second floor.

            Oswald was at the Coke machine because he wanted a Coke. He was in the lunchroom because it was his lunch break. What is “strange” about that?

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39#relPageId=261
            https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html

          • Bogman says:

            Jean – And your opinion of the demonstrable lies by Helms, Angleton, Phillips et al to Congressional investigators in the 70s regarding the CIA’s relationship with the DRE and pre-assassination knowledge of Oswald is… what exactly?

            So you believe Oswald was a lying, murderous scumbag. So his behavior should not cause you shock and outrage. But the behavior of the CIA in this case sure as hell should.

          • Bogman says:

            “He also said he was arrested (“taken in”) because he had lived in the Soviet Union, another lie.”

            He also said he was a patsy. So what is obvious is that he believes his communist past is the reason he was framed.

          • Jean Davison says:

            J.D., Unless you think Prayer Man was “inside the building,” Oswald wasn’t “prayer man,” according to Oswald. I concluded he was telling the truth about that not because I consider him reliable but because he had every reason to claim he was outside and because three witnesses put him at the rear of the building very shortly after the shooting. Telling the truth about that doesn’t at all mean that Oswald’s word should be “taken seriously.” Nobody’s word should be taken seriously if by that you mean automatically accepted as true,
            and that includes anything said by Earl Warren, Hoover, or anyone else.

            Baker did in fact say, “and this [90 seconds] would be the minimum, because I am sure that I, you know, it took me a little longer.”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39&relPageId=260&search=

            Whatever the exact timing, Oswald happened to be where a fleeing sniper would’ve been — and yet that apparently arouses no suspicion among conspiracy theorists. If a different worker had been spotted in that location right after the shooting would the attitude be the same, I wonder, especially if the rifle upstairs turned out to be linked to him?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “….So what is obvious is that he believes his communist past is the reason he was framed.”

            Unless he wasn’t framed and he’s playing the martyr.

            Oswald seemed to imply that it was the police who were trying to frame him when he said, “They’ve taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”

            When he was shown one of the backyard photos he claimed that the police had superimposed a photo of his head on someone else’s body. Not, “it was planted by the CIA.” This is where someone says there’s no tape so we don’t know what he said. Except that this was reported by Fritz and both an FBI and a Secret Service agent who were there. If they’re going to get together and lie, why not just claim he confessed?

            Oswald was arrested when an Oak Cliff shoe salesman noticed him apparently trying to duck the police who were swarming the area looking for Tippit’s killer. So far as I know there’s no evidence they knew Oswald’s name or anything about him.

          • J.D. says:

            If one reads the next few lines of Baker’s testimony, one finds this:

            Mr. DULLES: I want to get clear in my mind and for the record, it started at the first shot and when did it terminate, when you saw Oswald?
            Mr. BAKER: When we saw Oswald. …
            Mr. DULLES: And that time is how much?
            Mr. BAKER: The first run would be a minute and 30 seconds, and then we did it over, and we did it in a minute and 15 seconds.
            Mr. BELIN: Were we walking or running when we did this?
            Mr. BAKER: The first time we did it a little bit slower, and the second time we hurried it up a little bit.

            In other words, Baker thought that the real time was between a minute and 15 seconds and a minute and 30 seconds. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does he even hint that it took him anywhere close to “two minutes.” We’re talking about a difference of 15 seconds or fewer.

            Incidentally, a “fleeing sniper” would presumably have rushed right out of the building, rather than waiting around to be caught at a Coke machine.

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            If Baker saw Oswald near the 2nd floor stairway that day why doesn’t he mention it in his 1st day affidavit?

            Baker notes in his WC report that he saw Oswald at the DPD HQ before he signed his affidavit.

            So why doesn’t Baker ID Oswald as the man he saw on the 2nd floor in his 1st day affidavit?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Moderator,

            Could you please tell me why my post of Dec. 30 has not appeared? Thanks.

            QUOTE:
            Bogman: “And your opinion of the demonstrable lies by Helms, Angleton, Phillips et al to Congressional investigators in the 70s regarding the CIA’s relationship with the DRE and pre-assassination knowledge of Oswald is… what exactly?”

            Give me a specific quote, please. What was the CIA’s pre-assassination knowledge of Oswald, e.g.?

          • Jean Davison says:

            J.D., Oswald wasn’t “caught at a Coke machine.” Baker saw him in a foyer next to the stairs “walking east” toward the lunchroom door (top left on this chart):

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=238&tab=page

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm

            Having a Coke in his hand as he walked toward the front of the building would give him a visible “excuse” for being near the back stairs. Rushing outside would only attract attention.

          • Paulf says:

            Jean, you wonder why those who think Oswald was a patsy are not suspicious about him being in the vicinity. And that’s easy to answer. It’s because there is no other credible evidence linking him to the shooting.

            There were a lot of people in the vicinity. W don’t look on most of them with suspicion because there is no other evidence (or motive) linking them to the crime. The physical evidence against Oswald is non-existent and he has no motive. That’s why his presence is not suspicious as to whether he was a shooter.

            I do think there is evidence that he was mixed up with the anti-Castro Cubans and rogue intelligence officers who did have the expertise and motive to commit such a crime. There were a lot of people who hated JFK with a passion, but Oswald has no record of thinking that way. He had no particular expertise as a gunman. He was killed before he could defend himself. All the pattern of a patsy. And lo and behold, that’s what he said.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jeff,

            If you won’t allow my response to Bogman it may well appear to him and others that I have ducked his question. I asked him to be more specific. What’s wrong with that?

            I’m writing now because I won’t be here for the next two days and by Jan. 5 this page may have moved on.

          • jeffmorley says:

            Jean, i didn’t suprress your comment. I got inunadated with Spam for a couple of weeks and couldn’t find it.

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            The coke and the coke machine also make no appearance in Baker’s 1st day affidavit. They do appear in Baker’s WC evidence 4 months later.

            Why is there no mention of the crucial coke machine (located in the 2nd floor lunchroom) in Baker’s 1st day affidavit?

          • ed connor says:

            Paulf:

            “The physical evidence against Oswald is non-existent,” you write.

            There is a photo of him holding a 6.5mm Manlicher Carcano rifle. His wife claims she took it.
            There is a sales receipt showing that he ordered and paid for a 6.5 Manlicher Carcano rifle from Spiegel’s in Chicago before the assassination.
            There is a 6.5 Manlicher Carcano recovered from the 6th floor.
            There are 3 bullets or bullet fragments identified by ballistics experts as having been fired by one specific Manlicher Carcano rifle: the one owned by LHO.
            That is enough “physical evidence” to get you convicted in any court I have practiced in.
            The question is whether LHO is responsible for the shooting, or whether this significant evidence was planted in order to convict a “patsy.” But to deny the existence of this evidence, whatever its origins, is not accurate.

          • J.D. says:

            Jean: I pointed out how peculiar it is that a presidential assassin would stop at a Coke machine while (presumably) trying to escape the scene of the crime, and you countered that by saying that Oswald wasn’t literally standing in front of the machine when he was sighted. That is of course true, and I stand corrected. The links you provide are much appreciated. But it doesn’t answer my point: What was Oswald doing hanging around the second-floor lunchroom, in plain sight, instead of trying to escape — or, at the very least, hide?

            You elide this problem by stating that “Oswald happened to be where a fleeing sniper would’ve been.” This is simply not the case. A “fleeing sniper,” by definition, would have been on the stairs trying to escape the building. He would not have gone down to the second floor, gotten himself a bottle of Coke, and wandered away from the stairs — in no apparent hurry. This seems to have been what Oswald did, but it is not at all “where a fleeing sniper would’ve been,” and your speculation about Oswald’s reasons for stopping for a Coke is just that: speculation. If Oswald was using the Coke as a decoy, why didn’t he buy it before the shooting? Why did he stop at the second floor, which offered no opportunity of quick escape, instead of going down to the first floor (which also had a soda machine)?

          • Jean Davison says:

            J.D.,

            You said that Oswald was “waiting around to be caught at a Coke machine.” I wonder where you got that idea? Have you read Baker’s testimony?

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htmn?

            Baker was asked, “Did he seem to be hurrying, anything of that kind?
            Mr. BAKER – Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was running, and I ran on over here to this door.
            Mr. BELIN – What door number on that?
            Mr. BAKER – This would be 23 [shown here]

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=238&tab=page

            Mr. BAKER – And at that position there he was already down here some 20 feet away from me.”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm

            Oswald may’ve heard the two men hurrying up the stairs and ducked into the foyer to avoid being seen. Isn’t that what a fleeing sniper would’ve done?

            “If Oswald was using the Coke as a decoy, why didn’t he buy it before the shooting?”

            All these “why didn’t he” questions that conspiracy theorists come up with are pointless. Any answer can only be a guess. It doesn’t matter why. We don’t have to know what any murderer was thinking, we only have to establish that he committed the crime.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Ronnie,
            What evidence is there that Baker’s statements were influenced by “his superiors at the DPD, the Secret Service, FBI, and ultimately the CIA”? Do you have any, or is this just suspicion?

            A big weakness in the “Oswald was framed” view is that the plotters can supposedly influence multiple witnesses to lie to frame an innocent man in an important case like this one, and they can change, plant, or destroy the physical evidence against Oswald. In other words, they supposedly have almost godlike powers to control events. And yet they do many stupid things, like not having Baker’s original statement refer to the second-floor lunchroom and identify Oswald in his affidavit. The scenario doesn’t make sense.

            That’s why you’ll never see a narrative showing how “they” could have framed Oswald, step by step. It’s ridiculous.

          • J.D. says:

            If Oswald stopped for even 10 seconds to get himself a Coke, he was, by definition, “waiting around to be caught at a Coke machine.”

            Here’s part of that testimony you chose not to quote, perhaps because it undermines your case:

            Representative BOGGS -When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he appear to have been running or what?
            Mr. BAKER – It didn’t appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
            Representative BOGGS -Was he calm and collected?
            Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. He never did say a word or nothing. In fact, he didn’t change his expression one bit.

            Does that sound like somebody who was “hurrying”?

        • RonnieWayne says:

          “Out with Bill Shelly in front”

          http://oswald-innocent.com/wrap.html

  2. Randy Robertson says:

    The First Shot is one of the most pathetic explanations I have ever seen for the timing of the first shot. Possibly rivaling Max Holland’s if that is possible. Harris conveniently does not take into account the Zapruder film which shows JFK smiling and waving to the crowd supposedly after he has been shot. Without any eyewitness or photographic substantiation he claims that JFK leaned to his left and then returned to an upright position during the missing 7 frames. These missing 7 frames amounts to only .4 seconds(7 frames/18 frames/second = .39 seconds).

    The only thing Harris gets right is that the first shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building although I have serious questions on his choice of the third story window. The Zapruder film and the DPD DictaBelt synchronize to within one Zapruder frame and it can be determined mathematically that the first shot was fired at Z-199 to strike JFK in the back at Z-201. There are two individuals with cameras who documented this. The first is Willis who was approximately 180 feet from the Dal-Tex building or 3 Zapruder frames ( 180 feet/ 1123 feet per second = .16 seconds .16 seconds/ ,o54 frames per second = 3 Zapruder frames). Willis took his photo, determined by the FBI at Z-202, simultaneous with hearing the first shot (Z-199 +3= Z-202). The other was Abraham Zapruder who blurred his film in a downward direction at Z-207. Zapruder was 6 frames acoustically distant from the Dal-Tex building(367 feet/ 1123 feet per second=.33 seconds .33 seconds/ ,054 frames per second= 6 frames). His involuntary startle reaction time is 1.5 Zapruder frames so Z-199 +6+ 1.5= Z-206.5 and the film is blurred at Z-207. Don’t take my word for it just do the math. Both Willis and Zapruder and the DPD DictaBelt are cross corroborative that the first shot arose from the Dal-Tex building at Z-199. It is no wonder that some find the timing of the shots confusing and some think that it is to the point of hopelessness. You will only be hopelessly confused if you listen to eyewitness conflicting and at times inaccurate testimony. Worse yet are the misguided, inaccurate and misleading conjectures of the likes of Harris and Holland. Why doesn’t Holland just say it was a fragment of the head shot which struck the curb and injured Tague rather than putting forth a ridiculous argument that an errant shot went off a lamppost? Why? Because he is forced to at least attempt to back the just as ridiculous conclusions of the Warren Commission which would then have us believe that all the occupants of the rear of the limo simultaneously hallucinated hearing a shot prior to Connally’s wounding. Such is the Sysiphean task of supporters of a single gunman theory.

  3. Paul Turner says:

    By the time she was first asked about the assassination, by LIFE Magazine in 1967, as she recalled in the clip here, doubts of the WC report had already begun, and they never ended.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more