John Butler

Ray,

Send me an email address and I will send you a pdf on Mary and Jean.  Josephs found it full of problems.  I think it is one step in displaying the "show stage" area of the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  Elsie Dorman shows twice as may people as Zapruder on the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  How about that?

David Josephs is making fun of me with that con.  I did something similar with showing the different heights of Russian Oswalds and he told that was a chump way of doing that and doesn't really show anything.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

I was going to post on Algens 5.  I don't think I will.  Being an old fellow my blood pressure is more important than arguing with the same people.

So, I going to leave them my thoughts on the Kennedy assassination.  I think they will find things here they can agree with.

The Kennedy Assassination over 50 years later:  Notes on an assessment

• The cover up of the Kennedy assassination is an ongoing affair.  It is still operating today blatantly and with some people and organizations one would not ordinarily suspect. 

• The assassination of President John F. Kennedy happened long ago, over 50 years ago.

• To modern, younger generations that event is ancient history along with WWII, the Korean War, the Cold War, and the fall of Communism Empire.  And, to them these events have little to do with what is happening today.

• On the contrary, events of long ago do effect the present and future.  WWII spawned a generation of men who were willing to do anything to accomplish their mission.  They were willing to do things more savage, more brutal, and more dehumanizing than the enemy to win. This was the problem then and this is the root problem of government today.  Government and society were changed forever.

• The people who planned the assassination of President Kennedy were thorough and meticulous in their planning.  Everything was arranged to perfection in their plan.  They had back up plans.  But, as with most large scale planning things don’t go as plan.  The assassination was botched requiring a greater effort at cover up.  

• In the end the assassins were successful and seized the power of the Presidency to do what they considered fit.  The course of history was changed by the assassination as the assassins assumed the power of government.  

• It will never be known exactly who they were.  Many have speculated as to who these people were and are probably correct in their assumptions.  As it stands nothing can be proved against them. 

• There are self-confessed assassins.  There is E. Howard Hunt’s death bed confession and everyone’s best guess or speculation based upon what this person or that person said.   

• The assassination and cover up were completed before the election of 1964 and the assassins were free and clear.  They profited and were reelected.  There were maintenance issues and several hiccups of assassination concerns during the following decades.  The assassination cover up is still being maintained.

• Next year is 2017 and there will probably be another round of Kennedy Assassination hurrah as more documents are released. Will they uncover anything?  The beat goes on, La de da de de, la de de da.     

• There was a conspiracy that will never be proven to or, accepted by, or admitted by certain elements in government, the media, and society.  These elements were in control of government and media then and their successors still are today.  This has nothing to do with political party lines.  This has to do with elite forces controlling government from behind the scenes.  The American Public has never really had a sound idea of how government really works. 

• Only one person, Clay Shaw, has been prosecuted, but not convicted for a crime in the assassination of John Kennedy.  No one else has successfully been charged and convicted for involvement in the assassination.  The trial of E. Howard Hunt was not a criminal trial.

• The evidence has been destroyed, altered, or new evidence manufactured to the point that no one can be convicted on a Kennedy Assassination crime or of being a co-conspirator to the murder of President Kennedy.

• No one will ever solve or break the case based on the current state of the evidence.

• Both sides, the WC supporters and the assassination research community have the story wrong.  Reasonable suspicion suggests there is something wrong with the assassination research community if in last 50 years they have not accomplished anything significantly different from the 1^st decade of researchers.

• The interests of the assassination research community maybe other than the truth.

• The Government, the Media, and the famous “400” Historians, or some such ilk, will continue to support the Lone Gunman Theory and charge Lee Oswald with being the single perpetrator of the crime.  It is that way in the majority of current history books.

• The majority of current Historians, especially writers of history books, support the Warren Commission as the best evidence citing all other ideas as speculative or unproven whether they are or not.

• As it does today, future history in the United States will show that Lee Harvey Oswald, a demented, lone assassin killed President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on the 22^nd of November, 1963 for reasons unknown.  50 years from now few will question the event.

• Lee Oswald had to die to support this conclusion.  There could not be a trial based on the evidence from Dealey Plaza.  Oswald would have walked.  Most of the evidence the public thinks convincingly convicts Lee Oswald would not be admissible in court.  Most of the really damning evidence to convict Lee Oswald comes from Marina Oswald, a suspected Soviet spy.  She would not be allowed to testify in a Texas Court.   

• The only place Lee Oswald could be convicted is in the Warren Commission, a Kangaroo Court at best, or some mock trial controlled by lone gunman supporters, or in some book that falsely represents the evidence.  With one obvious exception the same can be said of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

• Unless the notion of a Kangaroo Court has passed from the population’s memory here is a definition from of Wikipedia that is apt:  “A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.^[1] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.”  Does this sound like the actions of the WC and HSCA?

• In a later decade, The House Select Committee on Assassinations essentially vindicated the Warren Commission in most things, but in the end had to concede that there probably was a conspiracy with more than one shooter.  The Warren Commission and all of its work has been invalid since then.  Why isn’t this pointed out more often?

• After reading the rather depressing bullet points above one might ask what about the hundreds of books and thousands of articles written about a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy?

• Well, what about them?  Although they do a fine job explaining the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy in detail as their authors see it, they don’t tell the real story of what happened that day.  None of them tell the real story.  The real story is hidden in altered witness statements and an altered visual record of Dealey Plaza.   

• The real story is a different story then what the Assassins tell and also different from what the assassination research committee tells. 

• I think this is primarily due to the distortion and alteration of evidence and its outright destruction.  The assassination community does not want to travel beyond where the evidence takes them.  This is primarily due to fear that someone will call them out as an inadequate researcher basing their conclusions on thin or no evidence at all.

• And, then there are disinformation artists who are not what they seem.  Some have been active for decades.  Furthermore, these people have been given accolades for their exposure of things related to the Kennedy assassination.  

• No one can piece together the giant jigsaw puzzle with the individual pieces being altered by the assassins into something different, a different story.  The picture on the individual pieces has been changed to something else and when someone tries to correct that picture into a picture of reality than this gives rise to argument and contention.  The changed puzzle pieces are the Assassin’s story line, which is basically the Zapruder Paradigm for the visual record, and staged evidence, and altered witness testimony.

• The Zapruder Paradigm is evidence presented in Altgens photos, Mary Moorman’s Polaroid, the backyard photos, and the Zapruder film.  These were the major pieces of evidence presented to the American public within a week of the assassination and later in the case of the backyard photos.  They have controlled the story since then. 

• Nobody can definitively prove anything based on the current evidence available from Dealey Plaza without controversial argument and the raising of reasonable doubt.

• The assassination community’s reluctance to examine points beyond the evidence, which in most cases is false, is their problem.  They are not thinking outside the box.  What is being talked about here is not speculation, but notions based on reasonable suspicion.  An example of this might be recognizing something happened in front of the Court Records Building on Houston Street that is deleted from or skipped in all assassination films.

The Warren Commission made their argument and conclusions without anyone questioning their work while they were doing it.   

Ah, David.  Thinks for making one of my points for me.  Mary's raincoat is portrayed in your composite as being of different lengths.

Her arms are not significantly raised.  Her sleeves might raise but not the coat to account for the difference in these photos.

Maybe clutching her purse in the scene with Jim Featherstone is enough to raise her raincoat and account for the differences in the Polaroid and the Cancellare photo.

Maybe Mary's magic purse and shoes help  with coat raising?  Or maybe the wind or Texas gophers. 

I didn't post a con job as others have.

Folks, make your own decisions.  Don't allow someone to make it for you.  Fire up your computers and look at the visual material concerning Moorman and Hill in Dealey Plaza and decide for yourself.  So what if you make an error.  It's yours not some expert who is wrong nearly all the time.

I have one more post to make on the intersection of Main and Houston before I continue discussing The Dynamic Duo. 

I like David Joseph's composite.  He should have included the other woman with the lady in blue.  He should have included the 3rd set of women further to the east on the SW corner. 

What he did present is a bit of a con. There is enough in the post to conclude that the Bull Goose Looney has escaped the clutches of the Combine. 

It doesn't include any of the reasoning on why I believe the images of Mary and Jean in the Zapruder film are false.  I use Z frame 298 for their general appearance.  Their appearance in Z frame 298 is basically correct.  But, their are things that are missing and things that are retouched.

The business of discussing the appearance of Mary and Jean is what the discussion of the SW corner of Elm and Houston is about.  We only have two views of what is there.  Zapruder and Dorman.  The two films don't match.  The women on the SW corner at the end of the pavement just before the grass are different in the two films.  The films portray them as being there at the same time.

There is a lot to say on this topic.  I might continue later.

Thanks Robin,

That is a wonderful photo.  You don't have any problem seeing what type of shoes she has on in that Polaroid taken by Jean Hill. 

There's some problems with her shoes.  In Zapruder she has flat black shoes similar to the Polaroid.  In some frames they don't show very well and you might suspect she has on white shoes.  Jack White did.  However, if you look close enough there is generally a shadow under what appears to be a white shoe indicating flat black shoes.

The problem comes from a Cancellare photo that show Jim Featherstone and Mary Moorman talking in the distance.  If you blow up that section of the photo Mary appears to be wearing high heels. 

She is holding a purse.  Neither She or Jean Hill have a purse in Zapruder or other films.

The length of her raincoat is variable.  In the Polaroid her coat comes down to her ankles.  In Zapruder and other films her raincoat is just below her knees.  In the Cancellare photo is raincoat is midcalf. 

Don't get me wrong.  I don't hold Mary Moorman responsible for anything she has done.  I believe she did the best she could in a vary difficult situation.  She has been consistent with her testimony from then until now.  On the other hand I laud and curse Jean Hill.  She was not consistent with her testimony.  Mary and Jean's testimonies diverged the following day.  Jean said one thing Mary said what she has consistently said.

Robin,

Maybe one day we'll agree on something.

I don't do photo analysis.  What I do is image comparison.  And, I'm good at it.

There's about a 1000 views on this.  Isn't there anyone out there who would like to reply other than a half a dozen gateway thugs?  They seem to be the only ones using this blog.  There is interest otherwise the number of posts wouldn't be this high in just a few days.

If I hurt any feelings out there then I apologize.

Now, I understand something that has been bothering me for some time.  That is the lack of progress in assassination research over the last  couple of  decades.  Minds have shut down and no longer entertain new ideas.  Out of the box thinking is out the door. 

Thanks Robin,

That is a wonderful photo.  You don't have any problem seeing what type of shoes she has on in that Polaroid taken by Jean Hill. 

There's some problems with her shoes.  In Zapruder she has flat black shoes similar to the Polaroid.  In some frames they don't show very well and you might suspect she has on white shoes.  Jack White did.  However, if you look close enough there is generally a shadow under what appears to be a white shoe indicating flat black shoes.

The problem comes from a Cancellare photo that show Jim Featherstone and Mary Moorman talking in the distance.  If you blow up that section of the photo Mary appears to be wearing high heels. 

She is holding a purse.  Neither She or Jean Hill have a purse in Zapruder or other films.

The length of her raincoat is variable.  In the Polaroid her coat comes down to her ankles.  In Zapruder and other films her raincoat is just below her knees.  In the Cancellare photo is raincoat is midcalf. 

Don't get me wrong.  I don't hold Mary Moorman responsible for anything she has done.  I believe she did the best she could in a vary difficult situation.  She has been consistent with her testimony from then until now.  On the other hand I laud and curse Jean Hill.  She was not consistent with her testimony.  Mary and Jean's testimonies diverged the following day.  Jean said one thing Mary said what she has consistently said.

David,

I felt we weren't communicating.  Most of the reasoning behind what I was saying you were ignoring.  I thought you were trying to confuse me with a bewildering array of different arguments.  The work you sent on the Hill no. 5 exhibit I thought was over the line.  The bit about Mary's stance I thought was unreasonable.  Of course one person does not stand the say way all of the time. 

Thanks for putting together an image that says part of what I am trying to explain.  The wording is good.  If you compare the Cancellare photo Mary does have a purse.  She doesn't in Zapruder or other films.

I don't mind making trips over into Kook Land.  Sometimes you pick up interesting things. 

There is another set of women that you can include in this photo.  They are the woman in the tan coat with a white collar and her taller companion visible in Elsie Dorman.  They are visible in that spot where the grey haired woman in the flat black hat and her red haired companion are in Zapruder.  The pair in Zapruder are not shown in Elsie Dorman.  That makes 3 sets of women I'm testing to see if there appearance can be related to Mary's since what we are seeing of Mary in the Zapruder film is false.  The behavior of the two women in black in Zapruder more clearly matches their behavior as testified to in their FBI statements.

David is right I do love to talk about Mary and Jean.  They are the most fascinating characters.

I know talking about Mary and Jean puts me on thin ice.  Based on what I thought I heard in an interview and the differences between her Polaroid, the Zapruder film and others, and the Cancellare film one can be suspicious of what she was wearing that day. 

I might add here that one of Mary's relatives or people she knew was shot in the head when he testified that he did not see Oswald at the Tippitt murder scene.  Later, after surviving the shooting he did change his tune and say yes it was Oswald.  

Thanks Robin,

That is a wonderful photo.  You don't have any problem seeing what type of shoes she has on in that Polaroid taken by Jean Hill. 

There's some problems with her shoes.  In Zapruder she has flat black shoes similar to the Polaroid.  In some frames they don't show very well and you might suspect she has on white shoes.  Jack White did.  However, if you look close enough there is generally a shadow under what appears to be a white shoe indicating flat black shoes.

The problem comes from a Cancellare photo that show Jim Featherstone and Mary Moorman talking in the distance.  If you blow up that section of the photo Mary appears to be wearing high heels. 

She is holding a purse.  Neither She or Jean Hill have a purse in Zapruder or other films.

The length of her raincoat is variable.  In the Polaroid her coat comes down to her ankles.  In Zapruder and other films her raincoat is just below her knees.  In the Cancellare photo is raincoat is midcalf. 

Don't get me wrong.  I don't hold Mary Moorman responsible for anything she has done.  I believe she did the best she could in a very difficult situation.  She has been consistent with her testimony from then until now.  On the other hand I laud and curse Jean Hill.  She was not consistent with her testimony.  Mary and Jean's testimonies diverged the following day.  Jean said one thing Mary said what she has consistently said.

By looking at these things and reading the testimony of the two ladies and looking at the events in the Zapruder film concerning Mary Moorman and Jean Hill the film comes up as very suspicious.

Let me continue this by answering David Josephs.  I sent David by thoughts on Mary Moorman and Jean Hill.  If you want a copy send me an email address.   

There is another interesting thing about the Weaver photo I just noticed.  It can be inserted into a sequence that shows Nellies window.  The sequence goes something like this:

Love Field Photo- Nellie's window- no shade

Weaver Photo-  Nellie's window- no shade

Altgens  4-  no shade

Altgens 5- shaded window

Altgens 6- shaded window

Altgens 7- no shade

I'm sure with the superior Mary Muchmore film one could track this issue well at the corner of Main and Houston and on into Houston Street.  It might be interesting if see what Mary Muchmore shows at about the time of Altgens 5 on the shade/no shade issue. 

This was one of the things I wanted to talk about involving Altgens 5. 

ps:  It appears that in Muchmore frames Nellie's window does not have a shade at about the same position or same position as Altgens 5.

Does this make Altgens 5 a fraud?  Or, the Weaver photo a fraud?  Or, does this make Muchmore a fraud?  The preponderance of the evidence so far indicates Altgens 5 is a fraud.

Once again, why all this tampering with the visuals down at the corner of Main and Houston?

Thanks Alastair,

Yeah, that's the photo.  A portion of Kennedy's head is missing above his hand.  That's got to be a defect of some sort just above his little pinky.  I mention it to show how easily things are missed in looking at photos.  Do you know of anyone who has see this or mentioned it?

A blow up would make it easier to see.  I had one prepared to post but can't at this point.

Alastair,

At one time Jack White was my hero.  That is until he developed feet of clay over the Altgens photos, Mary Moorman's photo, the identification of Richard Bothun, and the shadows in the backyard photos.

As far as uploading photos.  You are an old hand.  What am I doing wrong?

The Weaver Photo,

Next on the list is the Weaver photo.  There is nothing to say about this photo that is meaningful.  It just has an interesting camera defect or film defect.  I’m sure that’s what this is.  It seems that President Kennedy is missing one fourth of his head in this photo.  What’s missing is about where the autopsy wound is.  I’m sure this is just some camera of film defect.  But, it is interesting.  I don’t think anyone has mentioned this anywhere.  I may be mistaken.  I'm putting this out here as an example of things people miss.

Sorry, I can post the photo.  I'm only allowed 10 kb.  That means I can't post on Altgens 5 either.

Is this usually the way things work?

There's a lot more to Mary Moorman that meets the eye.  I think she was trying to tell the truth and this was the closest she could come to it and still maintain she was in front of the Grassy Knoll.

Maybe you can help me or some can.  I remember hearing an interview of Mary Moorman where at the end of the interview she said somewhat sullenly I wasn't wearing white slacks.  Maybe someone out there can help me with this or is this something I just imagined.  Whatever it was it is what started me thinking about Mary Moorman.

What type of shoes was Mary wearing that day?  This is a good question to determine how truthful Mary Moorman's appearance in Dealey Plaza is.

Alastair,

I don't want to talk about Altgens 6 yet.  I first want to talk about Altgens 5 first.  Altgens 5 is at the corner of Main and Houston.  I'm not quite done with things I'm seeing there.  I am next going to post the Weaver photo.  And, Altgens 5 will come next.

Alaistair,

Your are almost making a believer out of me.  Your explanation looks good and if true I stand corrected.  There's still a problem.  Is it Nellie or Kennedy you point out as Kennedy.  I still don't see Nellie.  Jackie should be sitting behind the partially raised window in what looks like an empty seat.  This photo seems to have the same perspective problem as Altgens 6 for the placement of Nellie and Jackie. 

I'm almost with you but, not quite.  Maybe you can explain further.

Sorry, for the avoiding issue.  I don't want to get into a fight or argument with anyone and get kicked off.  When that happens, even if you are right you still feel bad.

Alastair,

Where's Nellie?  I get to ask this question more than once when looking at the Kennedy Limo in other places.  Altgens 6 is a good example.  There is some kind of small Kennedy image there or something on the street.  Where's Jackie?

William Greer is there.  Maybe Roy Kellerman.  The angles could hide Governor Connolly. 

Michael,

The evidence for something happening at the intersection of Main and Houston is not very, very, strong.  I just realize I sounded  Iike J. Edgar Hoover.  Damn. 

However, there are suspicious events there. 

Why edit films and photos in that area?  What's the point?  Houston Street is even worse.  8 of 16 films that show the presidential limousine approaching the Court Records building jump to the intersection of Houston and Elm or jump all the way over to Elm Street.  Robert Hughes gives the best record of the motorcade traveling down Houston.  But, it too skips to the intersection.  There is not a single film or photo showing the limo passing the Court Records building.

What's the point in doing that?  It is way beyond coincidence or happenstance for these film not showing the presidential limousine traveling past the Court Records building.

Dealey Plaza is Murder Plaza.  You can shoot from anywhere with a reasonable expectation you are going to hit your target with just about any weapon you choose.

The worse location to me in the sniper's nest.  The idea of shooting from there with a bolt action scoped rifle at a moving target would give me nightmares. Oswald so called feat has never been repeated by experts on the first try.

The best ambush is an L shaped ambush.  It is the simplest of military ambushes.  And, it is the produces the most effective kill zone.  The Court Records building, the Dal-Tex, the TSBD, the Grassy Knoll, and the Triple Underpass produce that L shaped ambush.  If you rely on a 6-7 second ambush that has a small kill zone and you are shooting from 65 feet in the air with a scoped rifle you are not going to get your man.

It is a ridiculous idea shooting with a scoped rifle at a moving target.

To me the best place to shoot from is the Triple Underpass.  I have always ruled that out because of Officers J.W. Foster and J.C. White being there.  However, I am beginning to change my mind because of the long, slow freight train that Officer J. C. White describes being there at the time of the assassination.  The boxcar on the train if it just paused for about 20 seconds would be the best platform for Kennedy's right temporal to rear occipital wound.  However, there is little proof of this also.

Brad,

I did an article on another website called The Ghost Train of Dealey Plaza.  It is an offshoot of a study of Altgens 7.  I was told that's not important just blah, blah, blah, and that the piece was just a rehash of the old stuff in the Kennedy assassination.  They weren't happy with the piece and kept threatening me about rules.  Jack White worked on the idea of missing train that you can see behind the pergola in some photos but not others.  You might be able to find the post on Greg Burnhams site.

If not I can send it to you.  It might be helpful

The last frames in Patsy Paschal shows the blacked out train.  Here is an image from Patsy Paschal.  It is blacken well. The image is small I was only allowed to upload 40 kb.

In this frame you can see the blackened out area at the top of the Triple Underpass.

The Patsy Paschall film is dark and hard to interpret.  You really don’t get to see much as the motorcade advances on Main Street toward the intersection of Main and Houston.  It doesn’t get to or just about gets to the intersection of Main and Houston when the film skips over to Elm Street.  There is an interesting frame that shows what has happened to this film.  As you can see the occupants are obscured by dark paint. I call this frame the Giant Jackie frame.  Jackie Kennedy in this frame is huge.

Patsy Paschal is heavily edited by black paint also.  Most of the imagery is obscured.  The same can be said of the Elsie Dorman film.  There are many frames in Elsie Dorman that has been heavily edited to hide or obscure what is shown.

Here is another example that shows air brushed black paint in circles.

Why are films being edited at the intersection of Main and Houston Street?.  Why is the Elsle Dorman film so heavily edited?  Good questions.

Thanks, Robin for your decision.  Things are not going to get better, but worse in he kook theory field.  I'm just getting started.  No games, Mate.

I would like to take the time to apologize to the Willis family for the uncalled for crude humor.  However, Z frame 157 is what it is.  I didn't make it. I simply should have talked about that with a more professional manner.

I agree with the better frames notion.  But, Groden is sufficient.  It is not much of a photo analysis to note that the occupants of the back seat are missing.  You don't need a photogrammetrist to see that.   

There are other things to note at the beginning of Marie Muchmore but, they are a bit iffy.  To go over those one would be on thin ice.  So the next post is this series are about Patsy Paschall and Elsie Dorman.  I will continue when I have the time.  I have to replace a leaky commode.  Not being a plummer that might take some time. 

Thanks for replying Robin,

I really don't know what you are talking about when you say the man in the cap is not Willis.  I don't think I mentioned anyone in a cap.  Your images are nice sharp and clear.  However, Groden's is good enough to see there is no one in the back of the limo. 

I have another nickname for Phillip Willis.  It's Phillip "superleg" Willis.  He's named after what is shown in Z frame 157.  May be he hopped down to the SW corner with that leg faster than the presidential limo drove down there.  Here's Superleg.

Thanks for replying Chris,

Maybe the following is motion blurring also.

Here is another scene from Muchmore that is highly suspicious.  There is nobody in the back of the presidential limousine.  There appears to be a Dallas policeman firing a gun or taking a picture.  The scene is fairly blurry.  But, it is sufficiently clear to see there is no one in the back seat.

 I don’t know what to make to this?  With the silver balls in Elsie Dorman are these scenes sufficient to take one over into alien research.  Is the science fiction rather than science fact?

Thanks Brad,

How true.  I'm just trying to concentrate on the intersection of Main and Houston.  There is more to reveal. 

Your right about the 6th floor except when it comes to Mary Holly.  There I'm doing it myself.  I just want to keep focus on the intersection of Main and Houston for the present.

Here is something to consider.

Marie Muchmore’s Testimony

As far as I know Marie Muchmore made two statements to the FBI.  These statements were made on 12/4/63 and 2/14/64.  The statements are similar to many FBI witness statement and involve evolving testimony.  You can call it clarification if you will.  To me it suggests changing the story.  I have seen similar things in many other testimonies.

Here is the relevant statement.  “As the parade passed by there she heard the first shot but from where they were standing could not could not observe where the shot came from.”

Did she hear a shot when the 3 lead motorcycle policemen came by, or when the presidential limousine came by, or when the press bus came by?

That’s a pretty vague statement for a trained FBI agent to make.  What if she heard a shot as the President passed by?

This is corrected in the next document but still presents problems for researchers. 

The FBI vagueness is corrected to hearing a shot after the limo turn onto Elm St.  This is still vague but can be argued that the shot occurred way after the turn.  Or, can it?

The only other person I know of who claimed to hear a shot as the presidential limousine turned from Main onto Houston was Bonnie Ray Williams.  He said he heard two shots.  He later changed this location to when the presidential limousine turned from Houston to Elm Street.  He then changed that to just after the limousine passed his position.  You will find “just after” or “passed by” for a lot of witnesses who originally said they heard a shot when the limo turned the corner onto Elm.

How does this help with seeing strange things in the visual record when the President’s vehicle turns onto Elm Street?  It may indicate the FBI is hiding information regarding the intersection of Main and Houston when the President was there.

Thanks for replying Michael,

These scenes are from Groden's assassination DVD.  The first is the Muchmore film.  The second is the Hughes film.  The first film shows that Muchmore has been edited.  There are other questionable scenes showing something strange when the limo begins its turn off Main onto Houston.  The Hughes film is just a guys shoulder.  I thought it a bit strange this was occurring in a second film blocking the view at about the same time as Muchmore is blocked by Willis.

There are other strange things in other photos and films of the NE corner of Main and Houston.  If I'm not kicked off this website I intend to post and show these things over time.  I've been kicked off of two websites for so called rule violations.  The complaint was actually what was in the posts rather than behavior. 

I am challenging the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the lone gunman theorists, and their supporters.  Not only that, I am challenging 52 years of research by the assassination research community.  I think things have been missed and now is the time to speak about what people are not seeing.

That's fairly bold.  But, bear with me.