John Butler

No, it isn't a difficult question to answer. When the evidence by media and witnesses point to an event happening one can't deny it or ignore simply because it doesn't agree with one's bias.

It is always a reference to another site to validate his assumptions and speculations. Pat Speer the medical expert says so and so. Believe it. Don't listen to anyone else.

Thanks Sandy, I am sorry to feel that your effort is wasted on Jeremy. I could have predicted his answer.

Unable to show proof or not wanting to answer your "unanswerable question"? Anything I said would not be accepted as an answer as it has been in the past with countless examples. It is a cointelpro technique. The unanswerable question to be repeated indefinitely with any answers as unacceptable or ignored.

Gee! Golly! It is not in the Zapruder film. Several films show the turn from a distance, and one can't really see anything in detail. Then, there is the Towner film. It is an animation. I went back and counted the frames. The film shows the same frame for 5 times and then moves on to the next and does that again. Some of the instances of showing the same frame over and over reach 6 or 7 times. It looks like one frame per second. Who could believe that except someone who wanted to.

We should believe witnesses unless their testimony is refuted. Whether 59 people or 90 people say something then they should be listened to and not slickly denied because more witnesses say another thing, or it offends your bias. There is such a thing as reasonable doubt.

Yes. If it doesn't show the head moving forward. The forgers believe what we see helped with proving Warren Commission conclusions.

I have never believed Zavada's account for the film. And, many other don't, also.

Show proof why these honorable men should not be believed. Give a motive for whey they would deceive the public.

Film alteration. They had months to do it.

Ron's more right than wrong. His assumptions are based in reality of witness statements. These are things missing from the Zapruder film. They are missing to put Oswald on the 6th floor, rifle in hand, murdering Kennedy in the right place, not the wrong place. The wrong place is the intersection, and the right place for LNers is the Grassy Knoll. Oh, sorry from your recent comments I believe you have changed your position.

Here's one for Jeremy. If Jack White was correct, then who filmed the Zapruder film. Since, Jeremy has now become a conspiracy theorist, I thought he might provide an answer.

Sean, Dead on. I don't know why I couldn't see that. When you did, I said yep that is Roscoe. Thanks for the ID.

Speaking of Jack White, does anyone know who this man is? This photo is from Jack White. I believe John Pic thought it might be Robert Oswald. I don't think so. It is neither Harvey nor Robert Oswald in my opinion. This young man is a Pvt./E2. Lee Oswald made this rank but was busted down to private and then again to this rank just before he left the service in March. 1959. Harvey made this rank and was also busted down also. I am not sure, but I think he left service as a Pvt./E1 in Sept., 1959. I'll have to check that.

Indeed he did! He got humiliated because he set himself up as an expert but didn't understand perspective and didn't know what photogrammetry was. Here's the transcript: http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html White's embarrassment at the HSCA hearings came about because he misinterpreted photographs of the sixth-floor rifle, something he did again years later in Fetzer's book. If you turn to page 99, you'll see a montage containing three photos of the sixth-floor rifle. Each photo was taken side-on but from a slightly different angle, which caused the relative dimensions of the rifle to appear differently in each photo. Jack White claimed that this proved there were three different rifles. The man was an idiot. With his belief in faked films, faked rifles, faked Oswalds, faked moon landings, and a faked attack on the World Trade Center, Jack White probably did more than anyone else to discredit JFK assassination research as a serious subject. The Zapruder Waltz a la Jack White: No moon landing here. Just solid reasoning and evidence. Jack White did that constantly.

You are correct. Sorry for the confusion. I just have been having too much fun nit picking.

Very interesting. What about witness testimony. Visually not as good as film or photo. Or, FBI shennigans.

Thanks for this info. I have found some interesting things.

Sorry. I would have answered sooner, but I have been out killing my dandelions, crabgrass, chickweed, etc. No. You have not missed a thing. I don't have any real evidence for the identification of George Applin. Let me say that again, "I don't have any real evidence for the identification of George Applin". What I do have is Jeremy B's identification evidence for George Applin. I took that photo from a website posted by Jeremy B. saying or suggesting this was George Applin. After posting many times, he has not denied or refuted that this photo is not George Applin. So, I have been using it as much as possible. I too am concerned over the credibility of this evidence since Jeremy has only white, male, and young as identifiable characteristics for Oswald/Applin. Go back and look at the work I did on identifying Oswald's character traits for identification and you will see a great deal of difference in detail. I simply never said young, white, male because anyone can see that. Those traits are so general that they are unusable for identification purposes.

That is not at all what Jim Marrs said. His description fits another Oswald which is more than likely Lee Oswald. He said nothing of Applin. He did speak of Oswald and believed for 25 years that this was the Oswald taken from the theater. He was shocked and amazed that Oswald, Harvey, was taken from the front of the theater.

Ahhhh! The non-existent pull over shirt solves the identification problem. In Applin's photo he doesn't look like he has a pull over shirt, but a pull over sweater which is more in tune with the weather in late November in Dallas.

Given that Haire saw one man being led out the back of the Texas Theatre for "just a few seconds" how can you be sure that it was Applin. Was Applin even at the theater? Can you prove he was there? We have to take a witness' statement as true unless it can be confounded by other evidence. You have not provided other evidence of any quality to refute what Haire has said. You have completely ignored the solid evidence provided by Jim Hargrove and persisted in your notion that Applin and Oswald were lookalikes. Time to give it up.

Can you provide proof for this statement that Applin was escorted from the theater? And, what was the motive for the police to escort Applin from the theater?

Jeremy, I see you are persisting in this useless character description resemblance between Oswald and Applin. I take that you believe there was someone taken from the rear of the Texas Theatre, but you do not believe it was Oswald. Well, your character resemblance is worthy in that you have narrowed it down by eliminating women, old people, middle aged people, people of African and Asian descent. That leaves tens of thousands of young white males in Dallas and the surrounding countryside to be considered. It is time to give up this very poor resemblance description between Oswald and Applin. Do the two look alike in any characters other than young white males. Give it up.

Sorry to hear that you wasted money. Weberman did get out and do valuable research of worth unlike others.