John Butler

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

"Mayor's car?" LOL! That's the LBJ back-up car. Obviously. The Mayor's car was a convertible. 

Sorry,

I posted the wrong photo.  Earlier, years ago, with the first photo posted, I thought that was the Mayor's Car and asked for help from folks on the forum as to whether I was right or not.  They said not.  It was the Johnson SS vehicle.  

It is now corrected.  I also posted a photo of the Mayor's Car on Houston to show the difference.

The problem with the corrected photo is that it shows the National Press Pool Car as the first vehicle in the picture.  I have this listed as a Weigman photo and I think others describe it as such.  

The first vehicle in the photo is the National Press Pool Car image and was taken from Camera Car #1 that Dave Weigman was in.  Just ahead of the National Press Pool Car is the Mayor's Car in the motorcade.  This is according to the motorcade work of  Todd Wayne Vaughan, Presidential Motorcade Schematic Listing.

I can't tell whether there is another vehicle in front of the National Press Pool Car or not. 

That is the confusion in the Weigman photo.  There is where my earlier uncertainty came from and the appeal for help.  

On 3/24/2022 at 1:12 PM, John Butler said:

This gif offers proof that the Z film was altered with this strange image.  Z frame 157 is one of the Crown Jewels in film altering with a number of strange things.  What is shown in this gif is Z frame 160.  This can also be seen in Z 157, but not as well.

Frame 1 has a Mercury Monterey Breezeway which was the same vehicle as the Johnson security vehicle.  Frame 2 shows the same vehicle but orientated to the other direction.  Frame 3 shows a crop of Z 160 which has in the background the Mercury Monterey which is the same as the Johnson security vehicle with the top reversed and going in a different direction than the bottom.  Very strange indeed.  I can't think of any film copying that would do that.

Frame 4 is a blurry crop and mag of that anomaly.  Z 157 has several strange film alterations.

This alteration is something you cannot talk or argue away.  It is not a copying error.  There are two instances of something bizarre about the Johnson security vehicle.  The first is in Altgens 6 when the vehicle is badly distorted and all else around it is not.  Then, there was the Z 157 image.  Z 160 was used because it was a slightly sharper image.  Several frames show this bizarre vehicle hence ruling out a copying problem.

I can only speculate that perhaps the Johnson security vehicle did not make the turn with the rest of the motorcade and was halted in the intersection.  This complicates the Mayor's Car story of being stopped in the intersection.  It may have been halted briefly and released within seconds.  They are bumper to bumper perhaps suggesting they were released at the same time.   

It is a weak notion since we might see the Johnson SS vehicle in Weigman photo in front of the Mayor's Car.  Other than that I can't find any photos of films showing the Johnson SS vehicle other than Altgens 6 and Zapruder on Elm Street.  Other films have the vehicle on Main Street as the motorcade moved down Main. 

This photo/frame has an interesting negation of Altgens 7.  We should see railroad men and a police officer on the bridge above Elm Street.  They are not there.  A figure on the bridge marked with a question mark could be Officer Foster.

The Mayor's Car on Houston.  The correct line up for that part of the motorcade is the Johnson SS vehicle, the Mayor's Car, and the National Press Pool Car.

I believe the Elsie Dorman film shows the vehicle turning the corner at the Houston and Main intersection.  There we can see the proper orientation of the top to the bottom of the vehicle.

10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think the short answer is yes. Lets say he fired the head shot then turned to place the rifle in the trunk or under the hood of the vehicle right behind his position. That would take only 5 second if the hood is already popped open. Then he walks at 3.5 mph around the back of the colonnade and east up the Elm annex Rd. After 15 seconds he would be crossing the path between the fence and the pergola. At 25 seconds he would be at the middle of the colonnade. At very close to 45 seconds he has passed the east pergola and would be in the spot where Mr Bothun photographed the "Silhoutte Man".
 We know for a fact that Silhoutte Man exited the plaza unimpeded and disappeared. We can also conclude that walking at an average speed would put the knoll shooter at the same location as Silhouette Man. I'm not saying Silhouette Man was the shooter but he proves it is feasible that a shooter walking from the knoll fence could have disappeared exactly as Silhouette Man did.
 interesting to note that Officer J. Smith would have been passing right by Silhouette Man when the Bothun photo was taken and somewhere along there he encountered the guy who flashed SS ID.
Who would have seen the shooter? first the guy next to Emmet Hudson ran right past the fence and could have seen him or maybe he would be bending down to stash the rifle. Either way he never came forward. Next Dogman and the other 'Runner' next to him would have at least seen the shooter from the back. They never came forward. I guess if I starred into the face of the assassin and could identify them I would stay silent! Next is Mr Hester and he would have got a good look. But since they heard the shots come over their heads from the TSB, a person walking behind the colonnade may not raise suspicion.
  Just to save space I have an unrelated observation. Emmet Hudson is a star witness for the LN'er because he was just feet from the knoll fence and said he clearly heard the shots from the TSB. He said he could hear the shots extra clearly because he and the guy next to him both hit the ground and from down there you could tell where the shots came from. Well FYI, Hudson and the other guy are seen in many images all throughout the shooting sequence and they are standing the whole time! He never drops to the ground unless it is for maybe 5 seconds between shots. The star witness' memory about how he heard the shots could not be more wrong.

Chris,

This is an interesting idea.  I like it.  I hate to think I am like others dampening your idea.  But, how can you tie anything to Silhouette Man?  He could just be an innocent by stander.  Wasn't there a GI on the knoll.  It might be him.  Or, some other character not necessarily sinister. 

I think you are using this figure to illustrate that a shooter could be on the Knoll and leave without apprehension within a short period of time as you said.  Good idea.    

On 3/23/2022 at 4:30 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

A fourth claim is simply to say that until someone comes up with convincing evidence, there is no good reason to suppose that the film has been altered.

This gif offers proof that the Z film was altered with this strange image.  Z frame 157 is one of the Crown Jewels in film altering with a number of strange things.  What is shown in this gif is Z frame 160.  This can also be seen in Z 157, but not as well.

Frame 1 has a Mercury Monterey Breezeway which was the same vehicle as the Johnson security vehicle.  Frame 2 shows the same vehicle but orientated to the other direction.  Frame 3 shows a crop of Z 160 which has in the background the Mercury Monterey which is the same as the Johnson security vehicle with the top reversed and going in a different direction than the bottom.  Very strange indeed.  I can't think of any film copying that would do that.

Frame 4 is a blurry crop and mag of that anomaly.  Z 157 has several strange film alterations.

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

That's stop-motion animation. The skeletons were essentially miniature action figures. It took months and months to film the movements of the skeletons. As I understand it, Ray Harryhausen would film a frame, move the skeleton a 1/16 of an inch, or whatever, and film another frame. The action sequence of the humans would be filmed separately, with part of the image blocked out. The skeleton film would then be added onto the film of the humans in the area that was blocked out. 

This was a time-consuming effort, performed by a man considered the master of his craft. And yet when you watch the humans fight the skeletons there are all sorts of giveaways that they are not really in the same shot.

The manipulation and photographing of miniature figures is not what I am talking about.  You still have to put those images into a frame in a logical sequence as you said.  That's the point.  Unnatural images are placed into a film.

I like John Costella's suggestion that the Z film may be built from the ground up.  Several people saw the film, but the film they saw is probably not the extant film.  Life Magazine published some still frames and that was all that was known by the public at the time.  When was the next showing of the Z film material in public?  I believe at the Shaw trial years later.

I believe they had all the time they needed to make any changes they wanted. 

On 3/21/2022 at 4:49 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

To conclude that human beings did something, you need to show two things:

• that it is possible for human beings to have done that thing;
• and that humans actually did that thing.

Photo editing in a hilarious way.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

To conclude that human beings did something, you need to show two things:

• that it is possible for human beings to have done that thing;
• and that humans actually did that thing.

Jason and the Argonauts 1963 movie editing technology:

This is 10 frames from the movie.  It was a lot better as a DVD, or on the big screen.  This low resolution Youtube clip lacks much.

For it's day, it was quite impressive in the theater.  In 1963 you could basically do anything with film editing.  That's not my statement, but David Healey's, a master technician and editor.

If Jeremy is correct than this is just historical myth captured at the time of the event.

Hey editors,

What happened to my long reply to Jeremy?  I saved it.  And, it is not here.  What is happening?

Meanwhile, I have prepared this gif showing that Phil's extra, long leg grows and shrinks from Z frame 154 to Z frame 160.  It does so in a consistent manner and not in a random way as would be some sort of film imperfection.

I have no further comments to make in this thread.

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

So maybe Shelly was Oswald's handler at the TSBD?

Good point.  I believe Shelley was with Oswald in New Orleans in front of the trade center.  If that connection is correct, then Shelley has a more important role in the JFKA than most folks think.

21 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

You know, I've always wondered why Oswald was still carrying a ticket to the Ga-Jo-Enkanko Hotel in Japan in his wallet, five or six years later.

This was found in Oswald's wallet.  The question is which wallet?  And, whose wallet? 

I would speculate that the ticket would identify him to certain people or groups that knew he was in Japan.  I would further speculate this makes little sense since the Oswald captured at the Texas Theater was the Harvey part of Harvey and Lee.  Harvey was not at Atsugi, Japan at all.  Lee was.

In the Missing Chapter, Jack R. Swike the Ga-Jo-Enkanko Hotel, said the hotel was in Tokyo.  Harvey Oswald was in Japan after a brief trip to Taiwan.  He spent some time at another military base, Iwakuni, hundreds of miles from Atsugi and Tokyo.  Here's a note I made in researching this for a timeline of Oswalds in the Marines:

Note:  Harvey Oswald arrives at Iwakuni, Japan on October 6, 1958.  He leaves there some time in October to be at Santa Ana, CA on October 29, 1958.  Did he fly or take ship?  From Yokosuka, it is at least a 2-week trip by ship to the US.  If we assume his trip was as lengthy as Lee’s trip on the USS Barrett, then Harvey could have left Iwakuni, Japan on the 16^th of October making his stay at Iwakuni about 10 days. 

Swike in his book denies that Oswald was ever in Taiwan.  But, another note says this:

"Following his "defection" to the Soviet Union, HARVEY Oswald discussed his assignment in Taiwan with reporter Priscilla Johnson, who wrote news articles about Oswald and his "defection." A naval message of November 4, 1959 reported that Oswald served with Marine Air Control Squadrons in Taiwan. In 1964 The Warren Commission received a memorandum from the Assistant General Counsel for the Department of Defense that stated Oswald had been stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan.” 

Since Harvey Oswald was in Japan for a short period of time he may have gotten to Tokyo.  He probably shipped out of Yokohoma in Oct. on his way to the US.  Tokyo is 22 miles from Yokohoma, Japan.  Yokohoma was the main naval base in Japan.  Moving from Iwakuni military base to Yokohoma he may have made a side trip to Tokyo.  Who knows? 

Hope this gives a little extra information.

PS

I believe I said earlier that Oswald's military career was all about radar and the U2.  Since reviewing Swike's book there is something to add to that I picked up which I had missed earlier.  Nuclear intelligence.  Iwakuni and Atsugi were nuclear attack bases.  Atomic weapons were not stored there at either base.  But, just off shore in naval vessels were nuclear weapons which could be activated at these bases and launched from Iwakuni and Atsugi in an attack on various Asian targets.

So, Oswald had 3 types of intelligence that the Soviet would have been desperate to have.  Radar secrets and operations, U2 intelligence and mechanics.  Oswald's quarters were the same as the repair crews for the U2 at Atsugi.  And, nuclear secrets gathered from at least 3 locations. 

Before Oswald left the Marines he also visited S2 sites in Nevada where nuclear experimentation and testing was done.  

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would like to know who was paying Oswald in that final quarter.  Because when you add that factor to the incredible work by Betsy Wolf--which was also cut out--it would appear that Oswald was an intel project before he got to Russia.

If he wasn't paid, how did he save money for the trip to Russia?  The Marines and the Army pay the same in that time.  1966 I was a private with $90 per month.  Oswald could not have been getting that much in the late 50s.  He never rose above the rank PFC/E2.  Whatever money he had from pay would not generally cover expenses.  It's the same as when Oswald was spending lots of money on high priced Japanese prostitutes.  It was speculated he was in the black market making money to pay for the high price call girl.  But, his money could have easily been provided as part of an intel project.  

Oswald's whole military career involved radar and the U2 program.  One of the fingerprints of intelligence.  He visited several top secret radar and U2 bases just before he left the service.  That is one Oswald did.  The other not so much.  

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

When I start my next band, I'll take the woman next to Croft as my drummer.

btw, this gif starts purposely at the extant z157 split.

 

And, a dancer too.  She seems to be doing what is now called a shuffle dance.

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

A look at the integrity of the man who was in charge of the investigation into the Kennedy Assassination.

https://archive.org/details/TheSecretFileonJEdgarHoover

A pillar of American truth and honesty. ( sarcasm )

Things were known about Hoover when he was the Director of the FBI and throughout his career at the FBI.  No One had the nerve to challenge him.

Someone posted photos of Allen Dulles visiting LBJ.  It is well known that Hoover was close to LBJ.  They were neighbors.  Rightly, or wrongly I have always thought JEH and LBJ were the ringleaders of the JFKA.  But, on seeing those photos of Dulles down at the Johnson ranch made me wonder how close was Hoover, Dulles, and Johnson?

On 3/2/2022 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy seems to misunderstand my point, which is that the two forms of evidence in question are not equally reliable. On the one hand, films and photos in general are very rarely altered.

Can this be proven?  Keep in mind the context of photo editing in 1963.  Most newspapers did edit photos in order to advertise, or make a news story clearer, or simply make a photo clearer.  Ike Altgens was a photo editor with long experience at the AP at the Dallas Morning News.

Altgens said he was on the Triple Underpass at 11:15 AM.  How long was he in Dealey Plaza before 11:15 AM?  He had enough time to photograph all of Dealey Plaza.  Did he?  He claimed that he took only 8 photos.

OBTW, Altgens' wife was a Haliburton.  Wondered if she was connected to the company which had a different name in those days.

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

2 - The blurring is a result of the copying process. I presume Sandy is claiming that it is a physical impossibility for any copying process to produce the blurring effect. Again, if he is, he needs to demonstrate this.

I doubt that he will be able to do so, since it is an uncontroversial fact that the copying of physical films can generate a range of visual anomalies, as can the copying and digital manipulation of digital copies.

Numerous previous claims of alteration, such as John Butler's groundbreaking discovery that the film must have been altered because a copy of a copy of a copy shows Phil Willis with an extra-long leg, have turned out to be enthusiastic misreadings of simple visual anomalies caused by the copying process.

I don't deal with the technical aspects of the film.  I leave that to folks who are more knowledgeable.  Anyone can see a content error.  Some image in a frame is not as it should be.  Jeremy claims that all of this is "copying" errors.  I think he needs to show how copying would stretch Phil Willis' leg to a ridiculous length.  He needs to show that it is not painted into the frame.  Nothing surrounding Phil is distorted except his leg.  The long leg has a shadow painted in.  Would that be a "copying error" too?  The distortion problem applies to Altgen 6 with the VPs security vehicle being greatly distorted.  The folks behind the vehicle are not distorted and the folks in the front of the vehicle are not distorted in a manner similar to the VPs security vehicle.  Film "copying" error or magic camera or photo alteration?  Oh, I forgot Altgens, a photo editor, and crew at the Daily Morning News didn't have time to alter the film.  

In Z 157, does copying errors reverse the top of the VP's security vehicle showing the body going in one direction and the top in another?  Does copying errors leave out the head of the President (film splicing I believe)?   Jeremy should prove his "copying error" theory.  What about simple "missreadings" on the parts you don't like that other's mention. 

Lone Nutism is defined by yours truly as a quasi-religious belief system engendering a world view that allows one to deny the truth and support falsehoods in the Kennnedy assassination.  Jeremy is a supporter of the Warren Commission conclusions and a supporter of a pristine, and unaltered Zapruder Film.  What more needs to be said.

The Forum is clogged with many, many researchers over the years and decades pointing out the anomalies found in the Zapruder film.  

As far as copying errors, he won't explain how that happens.  He just asserts it and moves on as if nothing more need be said.  He doesn't have to prove anything and just make various illogical assertions.  He's said that on numerous occasions. 

On 1/24/2022 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lloyd said:

Certainly does Chris - nice work again!!!

I wonder if any film of the search shows any cops with guns of any sort? Plenty outside carrying shotguns...I'd be surprised if the cops were going in for a search for an alleged armed shooter but were told to leave their weapons outside in case they contaminated the search area???

Here, I have to retract an earlier statement on the Model 8 Remington. 

A bit frustrating on explanations, but Chris D. always does excellent work.  Here again one has to look closely at this gif.  I can't because the images flash by too quickly, so I de-constructed the gif with another program.  And, when it is possible to look at the individual frames of the gif you can clearly see what Chris is talking about.  The man has great eyesight and catches minute things no one has seen before such as the photographer behind Zapruder.  Again, great work.

Here's my interpretation:

There are two rifles in this photo.  I won't swear to this, neither one of the rifles looks like a Carcano.  I may be wrong on this but rifle 1 looks like the sling is attached to the bottom.  The second rifle has some sort of muzzle flash suppressor on the front of the barrel which is not like the Carcano.  The shotgun image has problems I believe.  It will be discussed in the next photo upload.

The different size of the stock grip on the shotgun may indicate cut and paste action in the lower Photo.

Semi-automatic or pump shotguns of that period do not have wooden stocks reaching nearly to the end of the barrel ending in a brass metal piece.  There are two rifles in the image and one shotgun image which may not be real.

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a look at the new article about Duck Duck Go Go  and Conspiracy Theorists in the NYT.

Its behind a wall so I won't link to it.  But its kind of interesting.

I believe Joe Rogan said he voted for or supported Bernie Sanders.  How does that make him a right winger?  If it does the whole country is just one big conspiracy theory.  I too switched to Duck Duck Go because any research I did on Google generally came up with nonsense material.  DD go is not much better.  OBTW, what is wrong with a considering something that is a conspiracy a conspiracy theory.  

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It would be wise for John to seriously consider the criticisms he is receiving for some of his claims.

I do consider any criticism by others seriously.  However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with things I consider false based on what I know.  I don't have to agree with propagandists or bullies.  When I present something on the forum it comes from evidence found in Dealey Plaza, and clearly marked as such.  105+ witnesses who say something different then the official story cannot be ignored.  What's in the AMIPA film cannot be ignored either.  It tells a different story that agrees with several witnesses, particularly Jackie Kennedy.  That story is so different that folks who have had 50+ years of the Z film have to disagree with what happened there.  The Z film is a powerful brain washing instrument.  That is what it was designed to do.  Almost every one fell for it when it debuted in the 70s with its horrible and tragic scenes.  And, it still has that hold on people who believe the film is pristine and without alteration.  If the Z film is altered in the scenes it presents then the other films showing much the same thing have also been tweaked.    

I don't hold the work of Muir, Speers, Cohen, and Bojczuk reliable.  

12 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

I mean how does one explain an asinine statement such as this

There is no need to explain it.  It is asinine and intended to be that way.

12 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

Well John, since you appear to be having trouble grasping the concept of real research,

I don't have any problems with research and Statistics.  I have 24 college hours in research and statistics in three fields.  "Real" research.  And, how is that different from ordinary research, or is it only "real" when you and your buds do it.

I don't trust anything from Pat Speers mainly due to earlier arguments over Alan Smith.  And, his recent research is bias towards his beliefs.  Jeremy and Jonathan are propagandists often using the same kind of unrealistic reasoning that they say others do.

As far as the 6th Floor and the employees there, I don't trust them either.  The biggest problem I have with the Sixth FLoor folks is that they have cordoned off an area (that I call the Sniper's Nest) when you can't prove Oswald was there or shots being fired from there.  Your star witnesses Norman, Williams said shooting occurred on Houston Street before they changed their story, and Jarman also changed his testimony and said shooting came from elsewhere, low and to the left.  

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

eremy moved the goal posts. I said that a large number of corroborating witnesses are likely to be right. Here he is saying that that is not so given that witnesses often make mistakes. While that statement is true, it's only true because he removed the qualifiers "large number" and "corroborating."

 

Tricksy isn't he.  David Josephs put out a list of propaganda thechniques some time back.  Jeremy and his cohorts generally hit many on that list.

3 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

John tried this trick almost exactly three years ago. On that occasion it was 50 witnesses who, according to John, said that JFK wasn't shot where all the films and photos show he was shot.

That's right.  Now the number as expanded to over 105+.  The reason I say 105+ is because the next 8 totaling to about 114  or so are maybe so or maybe not so.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So it's come down to this. Yawn. If you knew anything about this case or the people on this forum you'd know that I have engaged in many a debate with Von Pein and McAdams, and have routinely mopped the floor with them. I have sections on my website about them, and their inability to come to logical conclusions regarding a number of aspects to the case.

As far as yourself, well, it appears you have dreams of being the new Ralph Cinque,

I'll raise you a double yawn.  This is getting boring.  There he is again, Ralph Cinque.  I don't know who this guy is but I was tagged by others with the same reasoning.  I really don't see it or care.  

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And I think you know it. If you didn't you would read my "material" and realize that there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating that Kennedy was just where the Newmans said he was and just where the films show him to have been, at the time of the head shot. 

Yes, I do know it.  If you have read what I said you would know it to.  There is a smaller mountain of evidence saying something different.  I don't deny your witnesses.  About 20% of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza say something different than the official story.  Your witnesses are responsible for the official story.  There are over a hundred witnesses saying something different.  They cannot be ignored as folks have done for the last 50+ years.  The Z film has been shown in court.  I don't believe it ever will be shown again due to its falsity.

I do not hold the films and photos showing Kennedy being shot on Elm Street down by the Grassy Knoll as true.  That 20% I talked about says something is wrong with all that is contained in the official story.  From their stories and the things I have discovered about the Z film I can't believe it is a true depiction of what happened in Dealey Plaza.

If you look at the topics I have introduced, you will see that there are not many in recent times.  Most of my comments are in argument with fellows like you.  If I find something new, I will let you know about it.

Sandy Larsen's got your number.  Being far more eloquent than yours truly, he said it the way it should be said.  Short and to the point.  Go back and read what he said and think about what you are doing.    

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Let me be clear. If I attack you it is not because you are onto something. It s because I'm in a cranky mood and I consider your posts an embarrassment to this forum. It's called the Education Forum, not the "Let's make stuff up because it sounds cool" Forum. 

Making things up is more in your ballpark than mine.  All that I present on the forum is evidence based.  I believe the problem is that you don't like the evidence which disagrees with your thinking.  It has to be changed or nullified.  You have to see if you can bully someone into submitting to your often nonsensical reasoning. 

The exception is when I am speculating about something.  That is generally clearly stated.  I do a lot of speculation.  It is like forming a hypothesis in an experiment.  Then you can test that by other's reactions or evidence you find related to that hypothesis.  It is the opposite of making things up or distorting the things you don't like.  

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Their location was captured in numerous photos and films. Are you saying--really saying--that they ran down the street for 20 or 30 yards before laying down on the grass?

They laid down in the grass where the photographers wanted. 

You didn't mention anything about my witnesses, just some perspective challenge.  Do you guys get taught these things at some school.  Does it go like this?  No matter what is said challenge on something different from a different perspective.

Really.  Is that all?

If you care to notice that the trees obscure the area on front of the TSBD and not Elm Street further down.  The lamppost and R L Thornton sign are close to the SW corner of the TSBD at about 10 or 15 feet.  The shooting is even better from the Dal-Tex.  And, if any shooting came from the rear, it was from either the Court Records Building or the Dal-Tex.  Few would choose the TSBD as a shooting platform. 

Oswald was a combat trained Marine.  If you believe Gerry Hemming than he was actually out in the jungle chasing Huks.  Combat experience.  I don't believe he would have chosen the 6th floor.  I have many witnesses who said they did not hear shooting from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest.  But, they did hear shooting coming from other places.  If someone shot a rifle from the Court Records Building or the Dal-Tex, would you say that shot came from the TSBD or Dal-Tex.  Notice I left out the CRB since Elsie Dorman said a shot came from the Court records building.  

The people who were within 30 to 40 ft of the Sniper's Nest all said that the shots came from elsewhere like to the west.  Two said differently.  Junior Jarmen said the shot came from low and to the left (Dal-Tex).  Elsie Dorman said a shot came from the Courts Record Bulding.  That might be "cherry picking" to you, but this is what the witnesses said. 

Notice the two photographs.  The one on the left-hand makes it look like a long distance to the Triple Underpass.  The one on the right-hand side makes it look like a short distance.

Which do you think it is?  

14 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

I'm not the best debater,and my speech & grammar is far from what others provide.

Well, don't worry about that.  Read my posts for worse.  You will see that 12 years of public school, 6 years of college, 3 years of off and on education in the military, and a career retirement in public education does not cover up my red neck rural upbringing.

Here is some advice.  When you get attacked by someone, often a group of people, throwing around loose charges and ad hominem attacks you will know you have said something important.  Keep it up you could very well be on to something.