John Butler

28 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

We have to decide which of the following options is the more likely:

• A small number of witnesses were correct, and a larger number were mistaken, and the Zapruder film was altered, and the Muchmore film was altered, and the Nix film was altered, and the Bronson film was altered, and the Moorman photo was altered, and the Altgens 7 photo was altered.
• Or a small number of witnesses were mistaken, a larger number were correct, and none of the films or photos were altered.

It isn't a difficult decision, is it?

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.  

26 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

This belief seems to rely on misunderstandings of what the doctors actually stated. I'm not an expert on the medical evidence, but Pat Speer has assembled a pretty comprehensive collection of the doctors' statements. They indicate that the head wound the doctors saw was consistent with its appearance in the Zapruder film.

I'd advise anyone who's interested in this question to read Chapter 13 onwards at Pat's website, and let us know what he got wrong:

https://www.patspeer.com/

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.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jeremy,

The Z film as we have it is irreconcilable with what the witnesses say in three instances:

1. Witnesses say that the limo took a very wide, slow swing at the corner of Houston and Elm. Some researchers note that that made it an ideal time for a kill shot. I haven't bothered studying it myself because there is no reason to believe that an actual shot was taken at that time. But this part of film is gone (in spite of Zapruder's statement(s)) and so it is reasonable to hypothesize that the wide, slow turn was covered up to protect the Secret Service from criticism, and possible complicity in the assassination.
2. Numerous witnesses say the limo slowed down significantly right before the shot to the head. Since our not seeing this in the  film contradicts a large number of corroborating witnesses, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the film was altered in a way to remove  the slowdown, in order to protect the Secret Service from claims of complicity in the assassination plot.
3. Virtually every Parkland witness stated in early reports that there was a large blowout wound in the back of Kennedy's head. Yet the film shows that the large wound was on the upper right-side of the head. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the film was altered to hide the back-of-head blowout.

Now, you keep asking John how any of the hypothesized alterations support the lone gunman theory. I can't speak for John, in part because he sees a lot of anomalies that to me appear to be optical illusions. But I will say that all three of the proposed alterations listed above do support the lone gunman theory. Here's how, respectively, for the three proposed alterations listed above:

1. The wide, slow turn could indicate complicity of the Secret Service in the assassination plot, and this in turn would indicate a conspiracy. Remove that and the lone gunman theory becomes viable.
2. The same situation as #1, except this time the limo slows down just for the kill shot. Remove that and the lone gunman theory becomes viable.
3. A blowout wound to the back of the head indicates a shot from the front, and this in turn would indicate a conspiracy. Remove that and the lone gunman theory becomes viable.

 

Thanks Sandy,

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

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John has so far been unable to show us how the film supports the lone-gunman theory. Evidently, the film does not support that theory.

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.     

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What evidence is there that the turn was eliminated?

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. 

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

A small number of witnesses claimed that the car stopped, while a larger number claimed that the car merely slowed down. Why should we believe the smaller number over the larger number? The witness evidence is collected and analysed here:

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.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

A couple of people recalled JFK's head moving forward. How does this prove that the film was altered?

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

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Horne's claim relies on interviews made several decades after the event. His account of what happened to the Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination is contradicted by Roland Zavada's account in his review of Horne's book, here:

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

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

And as for Douglas Horne, there is no reason to take anything he says seriously unless it is confirmed by a reliable source. Horne even supports Lifton's body-alteration nonsense! Would you buy a used theory from this man?

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

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

f the car stopped, it isn't just the Zapruder film that must have been altered, but also the Muchmore film, the Nix film, and the Bronson film, and possibly the Moorman photo too. Is all of that even remotely credible? If you think it is, you need to demonstrate how such a task was possible.

Film alteration.  They had months to do it.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

That's three claims you need to demonstrate, not merely assert.

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.   

13 hours ago, John Butler said:

The Zapruder Waltz a la Jack White:

No moon landing here.  Just solid reasoning and evidence.  Jack White did that constantly.

 

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.

5 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Roscoe White?

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.  

On 4/20/2022 at 3:39 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If you're referring to James Fetzer's comic masterpiece, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, thanks, but I have a copy already. There are one or two useful essays in there, but the majority of it is laughably idiotic.

Rain sensors in Dealey Plaza are actually listening devices! They were placed there by Them to spy on fearless investigators who think Mary Moorman was standing in the street! The lampposts were tilted - by Them - to prevent the lampposts being measured accurately! One of the contributors was followed from the airport by Them! His shirt and electric shaver were damaged by Them when They broke into his hotel room!

It's exactly the sort of semi-paranoid stuff that allows the media to equate serious Warren Commission critics with flat-earthers and moon-landings deniers.

And speaking of moon-landings deniers ...

Quote

Jack White ... I believe he testified in a congressional hearing regarding Kennedy assassination film  imagery

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.

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Ah, the clarification is appreciated!!  I just want people to realize that there is no evidence presented so far that the guy in that photo is George J. Applin.  And as a general lament about this whole case, I sure wish I could trust the photo evidence more, especially from misrepresentation.  

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

11 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Explain Position A if the limo did not swing out wide.  Position A is not in the Zapruder film, where did they come up with it (and WHY?).

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.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

He was good in that way. It should also be noted that before his death he donated his research materials to the Poage Library at Baylor University.

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John,

Did I miss something?  I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that the picture you keep posting is of George Applin.  What makes you think it is?  There were demonstrations in Dallas on 11/22/63 and I believe a number of young men were taken into police custody.  Are you really sure this is George Applin?  Please post the evidence for it.

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.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Everything Haire said is consistent with what happened to Applin. Here, for the record, is Jim Marrs' account of what Haire saw:

Quote

Haire went into the alley, which he said was also filled with police cars. Walking toward the theater, Haire was opposite the rear door when police brought a young white man out. He said the man was dressed in a pullover shirt and slacks and appeared to be flushed as if having been in a struggle. Although Haire was unable to see if the man was handcuffed, he was certainly under the impression that the man was under arrest. Haire watched the police put the man in a police car and drive off.

For nearly twenty-five years, Haire believed he had witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was shocked to discover that Oswald had been handcuffed and brought out the front door of the theater.

(Crossfire, Pocket Books edition, 1993, p.354)

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.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It worked when I tried it yesterday, and again today. The photo shows a white [check!] man [check!] of about the right age [check!], wearing a garment matching Haire's description of "a pullover shirt" [check!], accompanied by a policeman [check!]:

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.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The incident Bernard Haire saw - one man being led out of the building and into a police car - would have taken just a few seconds. Haire could easily have assumed later that the man he saw had been Oswald, given that Haire did not learn until nearly 25 years after the event that Oswald had been taken out of the front of the building.

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.  

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

We can be certain that the one person escorted by police officers from the front of the building was the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. We can be certain that Applin too was escorted by police officers out of the building and into a police car.

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?  

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

But he did resemble Oswald. The one and only George Jefferson Applin was white, male and 21 years old. The one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was white, male and 24 years old.

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.

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I put his book in the trash years ago.  Worst thing I ever wasted money on

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