Where was Jean Hill and Mary Moorman when the assassination happened?

[John Butler]

It's obvious you fellows don't have a sense of humor even though you claim you do.  Can you spell ad hominem?  Do you need me to provide you with a definition?  If you can stomach it stayed tuned for more "silliness".  Or, you can simply ignore this post.  Or, is what I am saying somehow threatening to you?  Here's one to ponder.

The Elsie Dorman film and the Zapruder film show different things.  It is as if some kind of Man In The High Castle has sent two different versions of reality for us to look at.

 

[David Von Pein]

7 minutes ago, John Butler said:

It's obvious you fellows don't have a sense of humor...

Oh, I guess that means you were just kidding throughout this whole thread, huh? That's good.

[John Butler]

Are there any photos or film frames that help with the issue of the different appearances show in the triptych?  Yes, there are two.  The first is a crop from a Cancellare photo.

As we can see here Mary has things on and carrying something that we do not see in Zapruder frames 287 to 317.  These are high heels and a purse.

A good question at this point is have you ever seen a full length photo of Mary or Jean at the Sheriff’s Office?  All I have seen are photos that show the two women from the waist up.  It’s a minor point but one my sense of peculiar things keeps bringing this up.

The next photo (I don’t know whose this is) has parts of Jean Hill available to view.  Particularly, her leg is visible.  We can see her black shoes with white soles and her bare leg.  Her bare leg?

In this photo we see the Babushka Lady blocking our view of Jean with her coat flared open in the wind.  Meanwhile, Mary Moorman’s coat is not flaring in the wind.  What gives there?  By the way, does Mary Moorman have some sort of shoulder affliction that causes her to hunch her shoulders which always lifts her lower coat edge above the level shown in her Polaroid?

The whole photo is a hoot.  The shadows in the bottom part are at a different angle than the shadows in the upper part.  This indicates two photos taken at different times.  The boy in the front is a black cutout.  In the street is a man just to the left (photo right) of the motor bike who is buried in the asphalt up to his knees. Or, it could be he simply has really, really short legs.

Sigh, another piece of photo evidence flushed down the drain.

[David Von Pein]

Looks like John Butler is shooting for a new "outer fringe" record here.

Nice going, John. You and Ralph Cinque ought to start dating. A match made in heaven.

Edited January 13, 2017 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Edited January 13, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Bill Miller]

22 hours ago, John Butler said:

Thanks, Robin.  It is time to go back to some serious research.  Or, you can always chalk it up to the "worst photo analysis ever".  I really don't see how you move from directly across the street from the SW corner of the TSBD to half way down to the overpass.  Maybe, that's the serious research you speak of.  It was as serious as the Oswald photo post in which you digitally smoothed the photo and cropped the photo to hide the weird, amputated shoulder. Yep, go back to serious research.

 

John,

I started reading this thread after reading the last several post - first and then going back to post number one and going from there. I am stopping here as you have too many errors in your accounting of what occurred for me to waste a lot of time on it. I will however address a few of your observations.

Howard Brennan was across the street from the alleged snipers window which is at the SE corner of the TSBD. The SW corner of the building was across the street from Charles Brehm. So in actuality, Jean Hill was across the street from the SW portion of TSBD. It takes one to start splitting hairs to find fault with the description of Jean Hill being across the street from the TSBD. And with Jean Hill's location being seen in no less than four film and/or photo sources .... there is no doubt where Jean stood. The only variances concerning Jean's location are derived from the interpretations pertaining to the wording used.

Robin has demonstrated with Muchmore's film that Jean Hill looked towards the President at the time of the fatal shot. Jean's  head turn is also seen occurring between Z307 - Z309 as well, thus allowing her to possibly observe any muzzle flash and/or movement seen at the fence.

I can only advise that when listening to witnesses describing what they recall - try to give a little leeway as any two people can witness the same event and remember it differently. For instance, Jean said that she saw the President grab his chest - when her interview was filmed .... she crossed her arms in front of her which isn't really grabbing ones chest. And Jean wasn't the only one who thought this was what the President had done while others interpreted JFK as clutching his throat .... when he actually had brought his hands up to his mouth as if you cough like if to dislodge something in his throat. In times of sudden shock or surprise - our minds minds-record that recorded the event will then over time attempt to analyze what we remembered seeing by filling in the blanks which that too can cause us to morph our recollection of an event.

Elsewhere you mentioned Jack White's 'mannequin' observation with some of the witnesses. I recall posting a stabilized view of those women and they were moving .... Jack just didn't look hard enough. That was a claim he made later on in his research when he was claiming everything was altered and grabbing onto any word or phrase that he could find to support the theory and stopping there. In that case - a still image doesn't allow one to see movement like an actual film clip will do.   

Edited January 13, 2017 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

15 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

 

In this photo we see the Babushka Lady blocking our view of Jean with her coat flared open in the wind.  Meanwhile, Mary Moorman’s coat is not flaring in the wind.  What gives there?  By the way, does Mary Moorman have some sort of shoulder affliction that causes her to hunch her shoulders which always lifts her lower coat edge above the level shown in her Polaroid?

The whole photo is a hoot.  The shadows in the bottom part are at a different angle than the shadows in the upper part.  This indicates two photos taken at different times.  The boy in the front is a black cutout.  In the street is a man just to the left (photo right) of the motor bike who is buried in the asphalt up to his knees. Or, it could be he simply has really, really short legs.

Sigh, another piece of photo evidence flushed down the drain.

John,

With all due respect - you are grossly mis-reading these images.

The reason the Babushka lady's coat is flaring and Mary's is not is due to the way one woman is turned in conjunction with the direction the wind gust is blowing at that moment.

Your next comment I do not understand for Moorman isn't seen in her Polaroid for anyone to make a comparison of how her lower coat is seen against the level of her knees.

The shadows are angled differently on the south pasture Vs the knoll because the the knoll is a sloped parcel of ground - the pasture is not. Go outside on a sunny day and compare how your shadow looks when on a level piece of ground Vs how it looks on a hillside and it will all make sense to you.

The boy (little Joe Brehm) is standing in his father's shadow which makes him look so dark.

The man across the street is stepping up on the curb - so his leg is bent and not sunken into the asphalt. 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Bill Miller

[Guest]

21 hours ago, John Butler said:

I really don't see how you move from directly across the street from the SW corner of the TSBD to half way down to the overpass.

Almost everyone who visits Dealey Plaza, including me, is struck by how compact it is.  Moreover, Elm Street, is of course angled.  With very minor variations in my stance and thus my perspective, I could legitimately say I was "across from" the grassy knoll, the pergola or the SW corner of the TSBD or "hallway down to the overpass."  Also, Hill Exhibit No. 5 is a crude sketch that depicts the TSBD extending much farther down Elm Street than it actually does.  Look at an accurate schematic.  When Specter is questioning Hill, his questions to her about her position in relation to "the building" seem pretty clearly to mean "the building as depicted on this sketch" - which, of course, throws everything off.  (It is interesting, however, that for all the careful "managing" of witnesses that was supposedly done, Hill was allowed to prattle on about 4-6 shots and other observations consistent with a conspiracy.)

21 hours ago, John Butler said:

5 out 7 witnesses the closet to the sniper's nest stated they did not hear shots from there.  They heard shots from elsewhere. 

Lee Bowers, who occupied the tower in the railroad yard, commented at to how, when there had been loud construction at the TSBD, the sounds often seemed to come from the area of the overpass.  It's hardly "serious research," but I recently had a startling experience of my own.  I live in the middle of a block of houses that adjoins a large open lot in back - a very rough approximation of Dealey Plaza.  Some neighbors were recently creating a nuisance with firecrackers.  From my back porch or bedroom window, I would have SWORN the "shots" were coming from the house two doors to my right (the grassy knoll, if you will).  Just before I made a fool of myself, my wife discovered they were actually coming from the house two doors to my left.  We have since learned that, in our little version of Dealey Plaza, you absolutely cannot believe your ears.

[Bill Miller]

3 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Almost everyone who visits Dealey Plaza, including me, is struck by how compact it is.  Moreover, Elm Street, is of course angled.  With very minor variations in my stance and thus my perspective, I could legitimately say I was "across from" the grassy knoll, the pergola or the SW corner of the TSBD or "hallway down to the overpass."  Also, Hill Exhibit No. 5 is a crude sketch that depicts the TSBD extending much farther down Elm Street than it actually does.  Look at an accurate schematic.  When Specter is questioning Hill, his questions to her about her position in relation to "the building" seem pretty clearly to mean "the building as depicted on this sketch" - which, of course, throws everything off.  (It is interesting, however, that for all the careful "managing" of witnesses that was supposedly done, Hill was allowed to prattle on about 4-6 shots and other observations consistent with a conspiracy.)

Lee Bowers, who occupied the tower in the railroad yard, commented at to how, when there had been loud construction at the TSBD, the sounds often seemed to come from the area of the overpass.  It's hardly "serious research," but I recently had a startling experience of my own.  I live in the middle of a block of houses that adjoins a large open lot in back - a very rough approximation of Dealey Plaza.  Some neighbors were recently creating a nuisance with firecrackers.  From my back porch or bedroom window, I would have SWORN the "shots" were coming from the house two doors to my right (the grassy knoll, if you will).  Just before I made a fool of myself, my wife discovered they were actually coming from the house two doors to my left.  We have since learned that, in our little version of Dealey Plaza, you absolutely cannot believe your ears.

Your points are well taken, Lance. John didn't mention that the closest witnesses to the SE snipers lair (the three black men on the 5th floor) said the shots seem to have come from directly above their position.

Robert Groden told me that during the filming of the movie "JFK" that more than 21 test firings were done from different locations and at the same time. Robert went on to say that depending on where these witnesses stood determined from where they believed the shots had come from. Someone at one location may not have heard shots that someone else did and visa versa. I just wanted to mention this so John would now be aware of it.

[David Von Pein]

Lance Payette said:

It is interesting, however, that for all the careful "managing" of witnesses that was supposedly done, Hill was allowed to prattle on about 4-6 shots and other observations consistent with a conspiracy.

Yes. And Jean Hill was just one of dozens of witnesses who testified in front of the Warren Commission who said something of a "conspiratorial" nature. But to hear CTers tell it, the WC didn't call a single witness who said anything but "Oswald did it alone". Such talk from CTers is utter tommyrot, of course.

Related 2016 discussion I had with some CTers at Amazon:

"NICK" SAID:

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that multiple witness statements have been provably altered?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Point me to an altered statement. Thanks.


"NICK" SAID:

Amazon.com/forum/MsgID=MxU5WAG373RON6


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

IMO, those examples provided by Nick are pretty weak when it comes to PROVING any witness statements were actually altered.

There are plenty of statements, testimonies, and affidavits available which could lead (on the surface anyway) to a conclusion that a conspiracy existed. Seymour Weitzman's affidavit being one such example. And the Warren Commission testimony of witnesses like Jean Hill and Sam Holland.

So why would the FBI or the WC feel compelled to "change" a little bit of testimony here and a dash there, when they left so much other testimony "unaltered" (like Holland's and Hill's and many others)? Doesn't make any sense to me to do that.


"NICK" SAID:

Who cares what makes sense to you? It was done. Period. And the "little bit" of testimony here and "a dash" there, as you put it, were not innocuous statements. They were the entire CRUX of the case, which the FBI just "happened" to get wrong. Over and over again. Explain.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But when ALL of the witnesses are taken into account---many of which said things that lead a lot of people into believing a conspiracy existed---what actual bottom-line benefit would be served by altering just a few statements here and there?

Even with a "new" and "altered" version of a few statements, the FBI and Warren Commission still left dozens and dozens of statements untouched that tend to lead toward conspiracy.

So what the heck was the point of altering just a few random statements?

It makes no sense in the long run.

Or do you think that people are likely to see only the allegedly "altered" statements, while not reading any of the unaltered statements made by people like Jean Hill, Sam Holland, Seymour Weitzman, Eugene Boone, Roger Craig, Marguerite Oswald, Mark Lane, and so many others?


"NICK" SAID:

Laughable examples, since Weitzman and Boone stopped referring to the weapon as a Mauser (by the way, anyone notice how hastily Boone's testimony gets wrapped up as soon as the word "Mauser" is uttered?) The reputations of the others on your list have been so severely attacked so as to make anything they say automatically dismissed without cause.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you're actually referring to the 1963-1964 statements and testimony and affidavits of Jean Hill and S.M. Holland and Roger Craig as being "laughable examples" of witnesses who said things that many CTers prop up as proof of conspiracy? That's nice. Thanks.

BTW....

Here's something that I'd be willing to bet DOES exist in the JFK case....

A witness (or two or three or more) who originally said something to the WC or the FBI that leads to a "Lone Assassin" conclusion, but then (later) that witness noticed that their statement had been "altered" so that it now reflects something that would lead to a conclusion of conspiracy. (IOW, just the opposite from what CTers allege happened with many witnesses.)

But the reason we've never heard about those type of "altered" statements is because no conspiracy author would ever even think to ask a witness whose published statements lean toward "conspiracy" if their statements had been "altered" or "changed" in any manner.

But I'd bet the farm that there are at least a few witnesses who fall into that category. Which, if it could be proven, would render all of the arguments made by conspiracy theorists about "altered statements" pretty much worthless (or, at the very least, substantially weaken such an argument regarding alleged "altered" witness statements).

I'd never even given it a thought until the idea crossed my mind tonight [April 16, 2016]. But I don't really care enough about it to take the time to look. Maybe somebody else does. If so, that'd be great. I'd love to be able to shove the "Altered Statements" junk down the gullets of the conspiracy hobbyists.

However, even without researching it, I think some of Charles Brehm's statements might come close to meeting the requirements I just discussed above.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Virtually everything from DVP is accompanied by a statement such as "Doesn't make any sense to me," or "I believe" or "it seems clear that" or "it's entirely possible."

In other words, virtually everything from him is sheer speculation.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pot crashes head-first with Kettle --- yet again.

David Von Pein
April 14-16, 2016

Edited January 13, 2017 by David Von Pein

[John Butler]

Whew?  Doggies!  That brought 'em out of the woodwork.  I must have hit a network of nerves.  Thanks for your comments.  I will assign your comments to their due worth and place. 

Dealey Plaza has always been a wild and weird fantasy land.  I particularly liked the shadow explanation.  You guys have added to the legend.

Why pay any attention to the Bull Goose Looney?  Why not let the laughable fool go on his merry way.  He will soon stop posting. 

This will be my last post here.  There are other things that can be said but I think I made my point.

Let's continue this argument in a new post on Altgens 6.

[David Von Pein]

Is Altgens 6 a fake picture too, John?

[Bill Miller]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes. And Jean Hill was just one of dozens of witnesses who testified in front of the Warren Commission who said something of a "conspiratorial" nature. But to hear CTers tell it, the WC didn't call a single witness who said anything but "Oswald did it alone". Such talk from CTers is utter tommyrot, of course.

David,

Please try to post more accurately by saying "Some CTers ..... " and not making it look as though "all" CTers think the same when in the case mentioned above - it is simply not accurate.

[David Von Pein]

You're right, Bill. I should have said, "...but to hear many CTers tell it..."

So sorry.

BTW, good to see you again, Bill. I haven't battled with you since the Lancer days of 2004 and 2005. Hope you're doing well. (I am assuming you are the same Bill Miller from the old Lancer forum. Correct? If not, my apologies.)

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Bill Miller]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

You're right, Bill. I should have said, "...but to hear many CTers tell it..."

So sorry.

BTW, good to see you again, Bill. I haven't battled with you since the Lancer days of 2004 and 2005. Hope you're doing well. (I am assuming you are the same Bill Miller from the old Lancer forum. Correct? If not, my apologies.)

I am the same person - only difference now is that I am a 3X cancer survivor.