John Butler

Thanks Rick, The motorcade planning, organization, and conduct through Dallas on Main, Houston, and Elm has strange aspects. One of the stranger things I have noted is the Advance Car, the first element of the motorcade. On board was one person, Capt. Perdue W. Lawerence. There is a thread on this in the forum: I think they got this wrong in the first part of the thread. I haven't read all of it. So, people might not know this. The Advance Car, not the Pilot Car, led the motorcade and left the motorcade before it reached Dealey Plaza. It turned right onto Market Street and proceeded north. Why it didn't stay with the motorcade I couldn't guess. Did it have anything to do with the assassination? Again, I don't know. I'll go back and read the William Kelly discussion and report if anything is of significance. PS I read through the Kelly discussion hurriedly. I don't think they figured this out.

William Weston said in his discussion of drugs, guns, and the TSBD The Spider’s Web: The Texas School Book Depository and the Dallas Conspiracy: “There is a very large spider guarding this web of secrecy. I have entered other webs, but this one is different because the spider leaves the web and stalks its prey – sometimes for many years.” From FBI testimony of 11-30-63 and also Commission Exhibit No. 2104: 1 STEVEN P. WILSON, Office Manager, Allyne and Bacon, Inc., 301 Texas School Book Depository Building, advised at approximately 12:30 p.m. on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, employees of his office had gone to view the Presiden- tial Motorcade on the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, and due to a heart condition which he has had, he opened the blinds on the third floor opposite from his reception desk and viewed the Presidential Motoroade as it proceeded north on Houston Street and then west on Elm Street. Due to a large tree being in the way, he could not view the entire procession, but as his view became obstructed, he heard, three distinct shots which he thought came from a rifle, and sub- sequently it was determined that the President had been shot. Steven Wilson is the man in the jacket and tie visible in the 3rd floor window of the TSBD in the Dilliard photo. He is not visible in the Powell photo or any other photo or film. If you look at the Hughes frame below you will see a very blurred image of a man in a jacket and tie. Could this be Steven Wilson? Well, I have discovered over time that most anything is possible with Kennedy Assassination imagery. Although, one man in a jacket and tie does not necessarily indicate it is another man in another location. I don’t know whether Wilson was involved in any gun or drug operations that was alleged by Weston in his Spider’s Web article. But, his presence is blacked out in all other films and photos. And, that is interesting? This was something I was working on several years back and never finished. As an example: Yola Hopson said similar things to Steven Wilson. She was in the storeroom of the same offices of Elsie Dorman and others were on the 4th floor. Both, she and Steven Wilson, said they couldn’t see what was going on due to trees being in the way. In an FBI statement of 12-1-63 she said: She stated at the time she he »rd these sounds she could not sec the Presidential car since there were some trees along the edge of tho street which blocked her view. You can still find unusual information in these old films but, you have to look closely at what is there.

I have just listened to the Russian Oswald tape and his tape in New Orleans. In the Russian tape Oswald has a more pronounced southern accent. Not necessarily a New Orleans accent but a southern one combining Louisiana and Texas. The New Orleans tape with Oswald has very little of a southern accent but, a northern accent with foreign implications in some words pronounced. One would think that Oswald on returning to his birth place would automatically pick up on prior speech acent patterns to fit in. I first thought the Russian Oswald was a different person because the accent was not the same. However, their speech pattern and goofy laugh has much in common.

David Josephs has once again opened up an area for discussion that asks a lot of questions that people generally don’t or won’t provide an answer for. Josephs examination of Weaver details is quite exacting. You can notice the same problems in other photos and films. It is well demonstrated in Josephs analysis that some of the windows have been altered by painting out what could have been seen. The turn on Elm Street by the presidential motorcade is obscured by bad photography which we are supposed to accept as natural. We are not allowed to think that something unnatural may have occurred to almost all the photography on the day of the assassination in Dealey Plaza. This is the type of imagery we should have coming out of Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination. This can be blown up and looked at in detail. Why we don’t have this can generally be explained one way. Instead we have distant, distorted blurred, and altered imagery to contend with such as this from Hughes. Not only is the imagery bad but, it doesn’t show the same thing in different photos taken approximately at the same time. This last scene is from the Hughes film just seconds to the assassination. Where is Oswald? Where is Bonnie Ray Williams who said he saw the limo turn onto Houston Street. Where are his two buds? Can you see a man in the 3rd floor corner office in a jacket and tie? Where is the group standing on the front steps of the TSBD. If they are there why are they blacked out? Better imagery allows you to ask more questions. Examine this Dilliard photo for the man with the jacket and tie in the 3rd floor window, and the comparison for other anomalies. There is an alleged 30 seconds difference. It may have been decided early on to block out the windows in Weaver, Hughes, and others and then decided later that you need the 3 black men in the windows on the 5th floor to make a better story. There was reenactment at a later time. So, was Dilliard and Powell really taken on the day of the assassination?

There were things going on when the presidential limousine turned on to Elm Street that people ignore or say they didn’t happen that way. As an example, if there were 100 people who said there were 3 gunshots, 50 people who said the 4 gunshots, and 25 people who said there were 4 to 6 gunshots then, who would you believe? All 175 said there were 3 gunshots, 75 said there were 4 or more. How do you determine what is correct and really real? Does this simply leave a situation that can’t be determined due to reasonable doubt? Do you just discredit over 30 witnesses that say the Zapruder Film, Mary Moorman’s Polaroid, and Altgens 6 are lies? And, why would over 30+ witnesses lie or be so confused that they momentarily lost control of reality? What some Witnesses said about the turn onto Elm Street and in front of the TSBD: Carolyn Walther- heard shot after limo turned onto Elm. Mrs. Pearl Springer- thought she heard a shot as the limo turned the corner onto Elm. Arnold Rowland- said he was on Houston when the presidential limo began to turn on Elm he heard a noise he thought was a backfire and he heard another about 8 seconds later. Garland Slack- when the vehicle turned onto Elm heard a loud retort. James Worrell- at the NE corner of the TSBD when heard shot the vehicle was 50 to 75 feet past him. TSBD is 100 ft. wide. Robert Edwards- heard 4 shots as vehicle rounded corner of Elm St. Ronald Fischer- heard 3 shots as vehicle turned the corner of Elm St. Amos Euins- He said shortly after the car started down the hill he heard what sounded like a backfire. Harold Brennan- eventually states he heard a shot a short distance from his location on the retaining wall at the SW corner of Elm and Houston. The short distance implies in front of the TSBD, less than 30 yards. Harold Norman- 11-26-63 FBI statement Norman said he heard a shot as the vehicle turned onto Elm St. Bonnie Ray Williams- first said he heard shot when the presidential limo turned onto Houston. Later, he changed that to a turn onto Elm St. and then later changed that. James “Junior” Jarman- At first, Jarman said much the same as Williams and Norman. He later changed his testimony at the Warren Hearing to hearing shots from low and to the left. Elsie Dorman- thought shots came from the Court Records Building on Houston St. Sandra Styles- In a statement made to the FBI on 3-19-64 she said she heard shots but, did not know where they came from and offered no other relevant information. However, in a video published in October, 2017 she said as the presidential vehicle turned into the intersection she heard 3 shots. Reference: Jobert Jefford Paulson video, Oct. 17, 2017- The Case of the Lady Who Did Not See the Assassin. Vickie Adams- when the president’s vehicle entered the intersection she heard 3 shots. Dorothy Garner- When the shots occurred the presidential vehicle was out of sight, obscured by trees. This would be in front of the TSBD. Mary Hollies- 2-18-64 statement to Detective Potts said she heard 3 shots as the motorcade turned into the intersection. Betty Alice Foster- She heard something like fireworks after the President’s car turned down Elm St. Geneva Hine- She saw the lead car turn into from Houston Street onto Elm Street. The next one to turn was the presidential vehicle. She heard shots as the next vehicle, the Secret Service car begin to turn onto Elm. Betty Jean Thornton- said as the President passed by she heard 3 shots. Jane Berry- FBI statement of 11-25-63 she was located just west of the TSBD (allegedly in Mannequin Row) when the motorcade came by. Just as the car was passing by her she heard 3 shots. Ochus Cambell- 11-24-63 FBI statement he was located 30 feet in front of the building. He was standing there observing the passing motorcade when he heard a loud report which he thought was a firecracker. Pauline Sanders (Mrs. Robert E. Sanders)- She said she could not recall the exact time but immediately after the motorcade passed she heard 3 shots Virginia Rackley- When President Kennedy’s limousine immediately passed her location she heard 3 shots Linda Willis- said in her Warren Commission testimony taken by Wesley J. Liebler on July 22, 1964 that she was standing in front of the TSBD when he motorcade came by. She initially said she heard shots there. Tina Towner- in a YouTube video, Witnesses to the JFK assassination: Three Dallas Stories- LA Times by Brian van der Brug, she said things that indicate shooting occurred as the presidential vehicle turned into the intersection and in front of the TSBD. The article said she stopped filming after the presidential limousine turned into the intersection. If that’s true then who filmed her film? James L. Simmons- a Union Terminal railroad worker who said he was standing on the Triple Underpass when the assassination occurred. He said he heard shots when the presidential limousine turned into the intersection of Elm and Houston. Bill Newman- in a Dallas Sheriff’s Office statement made on 11-22-63 said he was standing just west of the concrete standard (the monument) at the corner of the TSBD when he heard shots as the presidential limousine came toward him. This means that the shooting occurred on Elm Street in front of the TSBD. Toni Glover- in a YouTube video from the JFK Assassination Forum, Rare Interview With JFK Assassination Witness Toni Glover Who Was Ony 11 Years Old In 1963, Toni Glover said as Kennedy rounded the corner (corner of Houston and Elm intersection) his head exploded. J. W. Foster- The Warren Commission Testimony of J.W. Foster was taken at 1:30 a.m., on April 9, 1964. J. W. Foster was a Dallas Policeman stationed on the Triple Underpass during the assassination. He said in his testimony as the presidential limousine came onto Elm Street he heard a loud noise that sounded like a firecracker Earl Brown- was a Dallas Police Officer assigned to duty on the Stemmons railroad overpass over the Stemmons Expressway service road. In his Warren Commission testimony of 4-7-64 he stated the presidential vehicle had made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped. Pierce Allman- said it pretty much happened in front of him. He was standing on the SW corner of Elm and Houston. He was about 10 feet front the vehicle when shots were fired. 44. Peggy Joyce Hawkins---she was on the front steps of the TSBD and " estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a full stop." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97]; 45. Yola Hopson- She was on the 4th floor in the middle of the building in Scott-Forseman and when she heard shots she couldn’t see the presidential limo. It was under the trees. The shots did not sound as if they came from the building. S. M. Holland- said much the same as Simmons and other railroad workers. There is evidence that claims the FBI changed the statements of these men concerning what they saw and heard. There is a longer version of this with more detail.

Corey, That is most likely some sort of photo error in the Weaver photo not the result of some kind of gunshot wound. I would like to claim that is what the Altgens 5 photo alterations were all about. I would like to claim Altgens 5 was altered to show that President Kennedy had been shot on Houston Street and that was covered up but, that is not what I see. And, more importantly I can't prove it. All I can say is something happened at the intersection of Main and Houston and later on Houston Street is suspicious.

A big shout out is due to David Josephs for the imagery in his post. He has picked up on what others have missed and he has pointed out a way to calculate as nearly as possible the amount of time in the Zapruder Gap. I differ on one of his interpretations of the Advance / Lead Motorcycles. Here is that difference: His red line doesn’t connect the motorcycle cops correctly. The Lead Motorcycles consisted of 5 policemen. They proceeded directly in front of the Lead Car/Jesse Curry. And, then the next vehicle was the presidential limousine. The Advance Motorcycles and Lead Motorcycles are easy to confuse. I am constantly correcting myself for improperly using one for the other. The first 132 frames of the Zapruder Film show only 3 motorcycle policemen. Therefore, they have to be the Advance Motorcycles and not the Lead Motorcycles. In the Weaver photo above the Advance Motorcycles have already cleared the area of the intersection of Houston and Elm and the area of the TSBD. At this point in the Weaver photo they could be down by the Grassy Knoll or further toward the Triple Underpass. The point is that the Lead Motorcycles and the Lead Car are not seen in Zapruder. They can only be found in the Weaver photo and the Gap. I have posted on the Weaver photo before and have concluded that the missing part of Kennedy’s head must be a photo error. There is a small possibility of altering. I don’t see that there is any sign of alteration on the limousine. The technique in those days was to cut out images for pasting into another photo was to use a sharp knife like an exacto knife or small scissors. I don’t see anything unusual about the limousine which I would think would be a difficult task to cut out without leaving some telltale mark. The important part of this is David Josephs has given us a better way to calculate the time of the missing film segment in the Zapruder Gap. I’ll do a rough approximation. Someone with better math skills and research skills at finding distances can do a more exact calculation. I’ll wager there will be little difference or significance between the two. The presidential limousine has just turned the corner giving us the entire length of that block of Houston as a measure for distance to the intersection at Elm Street. There are two buildings on Houston which are the Court Records Building and the Court House. Each building is about the same size as the TSBD which is 100 feet per side. So, the distance of Houston Street is about 220 feet. The extra 20 feet comes from the entrance between the buildings. The presidential limousine appears in Z frame 133. It appears to be about half way or just a little more pass the TSBD. Let’s say about 60 feet due to the intersection being wide. This is based on the length of the two vehicles, the distance between, and the distance to the Johnson vehicle. It may be closer to 80 ft. All together that gives us about 280 feet. Using David Josephs 17.6 frames per second figure that would give 15.9 seconds. That’s pretty close to Josephs figure of 14 seconds. The variance can be due to turning times and acceleration speeds or other similar variables. There could be a longer period based on turning corners, accelerating, deaccelerating to turn corners, and the slow down in front of the TSBD due to the wide turn. Some say that was a brief stop. But, there is no way to calculate that.

Ron, Isn’t that standard FBI procedures. Kind of like SOP. When you read about current FBI scandals, how does that differ from the past behavior? DiEugenio is dead on.

Mark, Yeah, I thought I had pulled a fast one at 17 voting illegally for LBJ. I had just turned 17 and registered in September. But, the county officials were just glad to get another Democrat vote. Politics in the county I grew up in in Central Ky was as they say there "crooked as a dog's hind leg and twice as dirty". Actually, they knew who I was. I had worked at passing out election whiskey to buy votes as early as 12 years old for my brother in law and others starting in 1958. I didn't drink but was paid in 1/2 pints of whiskey. In those days a 1/2 pint of whiskey sold at the bootleggers for 2 dollars. I don't have any corroborating evidence. In reality I have never thought about the voting age. I just assumed in 1964 that the voting age was 18 and its kind of a shock that I got away with that at 17. I didn't. It was just crooked county officials. PS I just went and looked up voting age in Ky. I thought I was right about 18. Here's a statement on voting in Ky in 1964: "- In 1955, 18-20 year-olds were enfranchised in Kentucky – 16 years before the 26th Amendment granted voting rights to that same age group in other states"

Rich, This is a reference to a well documented article on the number and explanation for shots in Dealey Plaza. Best I've seen. It should answer many of the questions you might have. However, I don't agree with some of the conclusions in the article. http://theshotsindealeyplaza.com/?page_id=12

Rich, Your are right. The best thing to do is think of 3+ shots. Some people account for 9 or 10 shots. There are more shots than the official story. Even 11 year old Rosemary Willis claims 4 to 6 with a preference for 6. If you read Rosemary's statement in my last post you will see she said the shots came from behind her back and right shoulder. This means the Dal-Tex and the Court Records Building. If you really stretch it could mean the Court House. She says the last shot, the one that hit the President in the head, comes from the Grassy Knoll. Dealey Plaza is an assassin's dream, fantasy land. You can shoot from anywhere in the Plaza and from outside the Plaza in certain directions. There are a lot of marksman like Hickok45 of Utube fame who can hit a target at 230 yards with a pistol. And, certainly has no problem whatsoever to hit a target at that distance without a scope on the rifle. The greatest distance a person in Dealey Plaza had to shoot is about 200 to 300 feet. That gives you a wide variety of areas to look at for marksmen to be stationed. Some people claim the President was shot in the head more than once, up to 3 times. I think two shots to the head is what occurred. And, here is where I go out on a limb and find myself in territory other people think is fantasy. I believe the President was shot more than once in the back and at least once in the front in the neck. John Connally may have been shot twice, once in the back and once in the front. So, how many is that? That's 7 if my math is correct. Actually, I think there were more.

Mr. Josephs, The importance of the Mary Moorman argument is neither here nor there. It’s time to move on. You are not about to change your position and neither am I. Just for your reference I never said Mary and Jean were moved up the street to the SW corner of Elm and Houston. What I actually said there was some evidence to suggest that Mary and Jean were moved from the SW corner of Elm and Houston to the area in front of the Grassy Knoll. The real problem is the missing Zapruder Gap which you deal with adroitly in your calculations. Josephs said “Another question would be the total time/# of frames it takes for the limo to get from z132, to its position at 133 and/or Pos A.” The time of the Advance Motorcycles (not Lead since there are 3 motor bikes rather than 5 in the Lead Motorcycles) is exactly 14 seconds as you have analyzed. Watching and timing the film gives exactly 14 seconds for those 132 frames and the Advance Motorcycles to travel down Elm Street. The same as the calculation made by Josephs. But, there may be something wrong with that. 132 frames divided by 17.6 ft per second gives 7.5 seconds for the distance traveled not 14 seconds for the 132 frames. If that’s true they must have been traveling at half that speed. They must have been moving slower than 12 mph say, perhaps 6 mph. I don’t know how to account for that difference but, it is important. So, how long was the Zapruder Gap? The speed the motorcade elements were moving is crucial to judging how long the Gap is. In between the Advance Motorcycles numbering 3 elements and the presidential limousine there are the Lead Motorcycles (5 in number) and then the Lead Car with Chief Jesse Curry. How fast did they travel through the intersection? It is all guess work but, if you give 7.5 seconds for the Lead Motorcycles and the Lead Car to pass through before the presidential limo shows up in Z frame 133 then you have 22.5 seconds for the whole event. The first 132 frames and the time in the Gap is 22.5 seconds before the presidential limo pops into existance at Z frame 133. This gives about 15 seconds for the time in the gap. Now, if you calculate 14 seconds as the basis for the Advance Motorcycles on Elm Street and use that as a basis for the other elements you have 42 seconds before the presidential limousine shows up. You have 28 seconds for the time in the Gap. Either period of time is enough for a lot of things to happen. The 28 second guess gives more time for things to happen. If we had the Zapruder Gap film we could see what the 25+ witnesses saw and judge whether what they said was accurate or not. Other witnesses heard other things. Here’s an example of the problem. Billy Lovelady said after the presidential vehicle passed at that he heard shots coming from down the street. At the time Lovelady was in the doorway of the TSBD and heard shots coming from the Elm Street viaduct. Did anyone take him seriously? Was he believed? It didn’t fit the narrative. The other 25+ witnesses that heard shooting while limo was in the intersection and in front of the TSBD didn’t fit the narrative either. There is more to the Zapruder Gap then just missing film. Rosemary Willis flinches as something happens when the limo appears or just shortly thereafter. At Z frame 161 the limo is at the SW corner of the the TSBD when she stops. She makes a statement and no one really believes an eleven year old girl. She said,

Rich, That's true. But, there were other things going on there. David Josephs has commented on some of these. The post you pasted has more to do with what I question about the authenticity of what we know about the presidents turn onto Houston from Main. There is enough contradictory evidence there to make that event suspicious.

The turn onto Elm Street, as I discussed it, opens up another question. What happened during the turn onto Houston Street? There is no one who considers this a problem except for me. The turn onto Elm Street argument questions what happened there based on distorted, disrupted film images, and films skipping parts that should be documented but, have been cut from the film. For instance the Zapruder Gap as the most noticeable in deleting information from the film. The presidential limo’s turn onto Houston Street suffers from the same problems of altered, distored, disrupted, and cut films. Houston Street has these problems: Altgens 5 was edited. Why do that if nothing happened there? Robert Hughes was edited. There is the problem of the Cut Apart Policeman. Marie Muchmore was edited. There is the problem of Phil Will the Flat Headed See Through Man. Phil Willis' location in the intersection and on the west side of Houston. Orville Nix’s location. Orville Nix could not have filmed the Houston Street scenes if he was located as most people locate him on Main Street below the Houston / Main Intersection in maps that locate photographers. Altgens photo (could be 3 or 4) that was cut into pieces showing that some editing was going on. Marie Muchmore initially said she heard shooting on Main Street when she was in the intersection. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said he heard two shots as the limo turned onto Houston Street. Alan Smith said he heard shooting on Main Street. The AMIPA film events on Main Street. With this level of alteration one has question what is going on in the assassination other than the faked evidence presented in the Zapruder film and others.

I thought I had posted this earlier but, don't see it. One more try. Jake Hammond Advanced Member Members 204 posts Gender:Male Report post Posted Wednesday at 05:00 AM (edited) Initially this was going to be a question to LNers , along the lines of ‘ how do you explain the destruction, damage or cutting of several of the video and images showing the turn on to Elm?’ . Before inserting ones foot in ones mouth however it may be prudent to ask if anyone knows of an good image showing this ? There is one I believe but it’s cropped quite tightly on the lower part of the car . Also , is there any GOOD evidence of the Z film been seen by people avec le turn ? Thank you Edited Wednesday at 06:50 AM by Jake Hammond The turn on Elm Street is an interesting topic. I have spoken about that on various occasions here and elsewhere. It is a huge problem not only for LNs but, for CTs also. If you look at the presidential limo turning on Elm Street and pay attention to what the visual media show and more importantly what it doesn’t show then you will develop doubts about the main visual evidence for the assassination of JFK. Particularly, The Zapruder film, Mary Moorman’s photo, Altgens 5, 6, 7, Muchmore, Nix, and most of the other assassination films. All of these films and photos have been altered and edited. There are many witnesses who said the president was shot in the head as the presidential limo turned onto Elm Street and others said they heard shots when the limo was in front of the TSBD. Of 50+ witnesses I surveyed (those closest to the 6th floor Sniper’s Nest), over half stated something similar to the above statement. I use Robert Groden’s The Assassination Films DVD from 1995. I like the DVD because I think you can trust the images displayed in the various films. I don’t think you can do that with newer, clearer images from enchanced films. True, the DVD has poor imagery but, it is sufficient to interpret what is going on in the films. The films on Groden’s DVD generally become so disturbed and disrupted you can not see what is going on in front of the Court Records Building on Houston Street. If the Film’s content is not disrupted then it will skip pass the intersection generally out to Elm Street. The exception is Robert Hughes but, the intersection and limousine is section is of such poor quality that you can not see what is going on in the limousine. What happen’s during the Zapruder film gap. There are some things available to look at: The Tina Towner film Tina’s dad, Jim I believe, took a picture during that time. Robert Croft photos Phil Willis photos Mary Moorman’s other Polaroid- the McBride Polaroid The John Martin film The Mark Bell film There may be some other but, I am not recalling any at this time.

David, Thanks for your reply, I'm having an increasingly hard time Googling anything and not getting anything but LN sites. The simplest questions to often come up with nonsense and LN literature. This has occurred for a period of time over a year. This Google bias has been present since I ran a website on the Kennedy Assassination where I was free to entertain my speculations and theories. The cite was very anti LN theories and most CT theories. As far as my responses on the forum, I try to be as honest as I possibly can be based on the evidence I see. However, a great deal of my theorizing is so outre and foreign to the thinking on the forum I often run into trouble from good people such as yourself. Example: I'm sure you recall the Mary Moorman business.

I generally agree with most of what David Josephs says particularly the following. The following is a general response for a lot of the things I've posted: " 47 minutes ago, David Josephs said: FWIW - the rebuttal of a LNer... FC - ever hear of COINTELPRO TECHNIQUES FOR DISRUPTING FORUMS? Here are a few which apply perfectly... 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance." What is stated above can't be said better in such a short discussion. I would like to have a reference for all of the points on cointelpro techniques, after all Josephs once accused me as being a cointellpro agent and has said from time to time I should be ignored for "playing" people on the forum for fools. But, then there are things I disagree with and this plus other things are why I am on his ignore list. The following is an example: " 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: Faked? No. Altered and edited... yes. " I would rewrite that as: Faked? Yes. Altered and edited...yes." Altered and edited means faked. The cointelpro statements are how I feel when trying to discuss things with certain folks like Ray Mitcham. Ray has from time to time told me he is not a Lone Gunner (my term for a Lone Nutter) and I believe him. But, not on much of his arguments.

Thanks Adam for the date on the left hand photo. Maybe this next montage will be clearer. They are not the same holes. I have added extra lines to show that the left and right sides of the holes are not the same. To me this indicates tampering with evidence.

This topic has passed on and dropped off the first page due to lack of interest. Maybe, rightfully so. However, I am bringing it back because I found a different photo of the hole in the back of JFK's shirt. It appears to be different from other photos. From these difference in the holes and the different ages of the images I can only conclude that the shirt hole in the 1993 photo is manufactured evidence therefore not usable for court purposes or theorizing. The left hand photo has a horizontal hole and in the right hand photo of 1993 appears to have a vertical hole. The question is how does the 1964 hole cut by the FBI reqrow shirt material (loose threads and narrowing the top of the hole) in the 1993 photo?

Cliff Varnell has it right. "In the last few months there has been an influx of incredibly ignorant lone nutters who are obviously here to disrupt legitimate discussion of the murder of JFK. These t=r=o=l=l=s add nothing to the greater understanding of the case. Engaging them with evidence and logic means nothing to them. They ignore facts and repeat the same debunked talking points over and over. I propose every member of good faith ignore them, as Professor McBride has recommended." The discussion to this point demonstrates the validity of his statements. You cannot discuss much of anything with Von Pein, Payette, Baker, Hammond, etc. with any hope they will respond in a positive manner to your ideas. I generally avoid answering any of their comments.

Merry Christmas to one and all from the hill country of Central Kentucky. The Russians are coming. They going to be colluding in the whiskey business only the sassy Russians want to make vodka instead. Anyway..... I was going to do something more about Marie Muchmore and the Babushka Lady / Lady in Blue but couldn't resist this on the "Random Man" and "Jack Ruby" identifications of Phil Willis.

This is really not on topic but, for Rich and Denis' curiousity: The Marie Muchmore has been altered. Whether the AP or the FBI did it is questionable. Someone did it and if you look at the film you can see those alterations. I first wrote about Marie Muchmore in 2017 and how I thought the film was altered. But, that topic wasn’t well composed and I did not state all that I have learned about the film. I have revisited Marie Muchmore’s film several times and will try to point out why I say it is altered. This is the topic on the forum. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23315-marie-muchmore-and-the-see-through-man/ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, some basic info “Muchmore was an employee of Justin McCarty Dress Manufacturer in Dallas located at 707 Young Street, four blocks south of the Texas School Book Depository. On November 22, 1963, Muchmore was in Dealey Plaza with five co-workers, including Wilma Bond, who had a still camera, to watch the presidential motorcade. Muchmore stood near the northwest corner of Main Street and Houston Street with her 8 mm Keystone movie camera and awaited the president’s arrival…. Muchmore sold the undeveloped film to the Dallas office of United Press International on November 25, 1963, for $1,000. It was processed by Kodak in Dallas, and flown to New York City. It appeared the following day on local television station WNEW-TV.[6] The film now belongs to the Associated Press Television News, which restored it in 2002.” I don’t know whether the FBI obtained a copy and altered it or, the AP altered it or some unknown entity. I will discuss several alterations. The first is Phil Will The Flat headed See Through Man. This is a one of the Muchmore frames on which that claim is based. This frame shows Willis is a cutout figure from another film and that didn’t quite do right when pasted into the Muchmore film. This generated some argument and disbelief when first shown. Willis, in my opinion, showed up in places he didn’t have time to get to. Such as what we see in this Muchmore frame. Willis is in the street, the intersection of Main and Houston, as the presidential limousine passes by. At the same time, he is on the west side of Houston by the light pole with Rosemary. There is no way he could have gotten back to the sidewalk on west Houston from his place in the intersection when his photo was taken by Jay Skaggs. Jay Skaggs took a picture of Willis and Rosemary on the west side of Houston. No matter how fast you may think WWII vet and VA disabled Willis could move he couldn’t have done this. I also have questioned how he ran down Houston to Elm to be there before the presidential limousine.

Blood spots are amorphous. No. 1 and No.2 have structure that appears to come from a tumbling bullet or as the anthropologists say "a bit of morphology". Magnify the images and that becomes clearer.

I posted these mainly for myself to take a better look at the argument. No one is going to change their position on the SBT. They basically haven't in 55 years. The argument is basically a useless endeavor but, it goes on endlessly. What I posted may help someone new to the argument.

Not all the time. Examine the wounds in the autopsy photo No. 1 and No. 2. They are a carbon copy of each other except for size.