John Butler
-
Posts
3,354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by John Butler
-
-
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Simple question, John. Was Bill Newman spreading disinformation when he went on TV at 12:45 PM and said the following: "the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot and the President.
So, you didn't like my solution? I was tempted to leave it at that.
Bill Newman. Possible. Depending on what you think is a concrete standard or monument. I find Bill and Gayle's testimony suspicious just as the faked lying in the grass for the cameras.
"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 on Elm Street. This means that the shooting occurred on Elm Street in front of the TSBD. Newman mentions the “garden” behind which is different than the concrete standard. Newman and wife’s statements are questionable."
That said I will raise you 5 witnesses who said shooting occurred under the trees in front of the TSBD. I have many more witnesses talking about shooting in front of the TSBD. These are 3rd and 4th floor witnesses in the TSBD.
1. Vickie Adams- 11-24-63- She said when the president’s vehicle entered the intersection of Elm and Houston she heard 3 shots. She could not see the shooting since it happened while the presidential limousine was under trees. And, that would be in front of the TSBD.
2. Dorothy Garner- 3-20-64 FBI report- When the shots occurred the presidential vehicle was out of sight, obscured by trees on Elm. This would be in front of the TSBD.
3. Yola Hopson- 12-1-63- FBI report- She heard two or more sounds / firecrackers when the presidential limousine was obscured by trees on Elm. This would be in front of the TSBD.
4. Steven Wilson- 3-25-64- FBI statement- He said he heard 3 shots while the president was obscured by trees on Elm. This would be in front of the TSBD.
5. Ruth Nelson- FBI Report 3 23 64- Ruth said she did not see the p. limo when she heard shots. She was watching the motorcade, but could not see the President. She was standing in the same place as Yola Hopson who said she could not see the President when she heard shots due to the p. limo being obscured by trees in front of the TBSD.
I can print more of these, or you can go back and find the original in either Word doc, or PDF format. I will advise you, being who you are, it may hurt your head. Poor Jeremy says he can't look at my 3000 posts in fear it might hurt (damn editor keeps changing hurt to heard- that's 3 times) his head. So, take care.
-
Hello Guys,
Hmmm... Let's see. Pretending. Avoiding. Misrepresenting. And, now copping out. I don't think so, but maybe on copping out.
"I feel like Al Pacino in The Godfather 3. "They keep pulling me back!"
I tried to read this long discourse by Pat in another thread, but I kept having trouble. My eyes would glaze over, and I would have something like a petit mal incident and wake up wondering what happened.
I tried it again and the same thing happened. My eyes glazed over, and I woke up snoring. I guess that may be "copping out".
But, not to worry Pat, Jeremy, and Jonathan. I think I have come up with a solution. Simply think of the things you want to say or ask the questions you want to have answered. Think of how you would answer those questions and then reverse whatever your thinking was and you will have my answer.
I think that is a neat solution.
-
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Since John prefers to make ridiculous statements--such as implying I'm a LNer or that he has studied the eyewitness statements more than I have--I thought maybe I should remind him that there is a simple question he's avoided.
It's hard to avoid questions that haven't been asked. And, he likes to make things up. I am beginning to think he can't read or is having trouble interpreting simple things when they don't agree with him.
20 hours ago, John Butler said:Let's "pretend" we are talking about witnesses who said something about shooting on Houston Street. Go back and reread the testimony of the following:
Bonnnie Ray Williams
James Jarman (Junior)
Elsie Dorman
Wilma Bond
W. H. Denham
William Downey
Jack Faulkner
Malcom Barkley
Marie Muchmore
C. M. Jones
Charlie Player?
John Solon?
Answer my question first!
-
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
John's response appreciated.
Pat keeps saying I'm pretending this or that. So, I going to pretend to answer his nonsense.
-
56 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Pat, are you aware John's first presence on the site was an assertation and defense of JFK being shot on Main street? While he doesn't mention that anymore others here have refuted other contentions of his consistently. I generally ignore his comments but respect your response and defense, as I did the same regarding his first posts. BS should be countered lest it be believed by those new to facts.
and,
Not the first topics on the forum. This came several years later. AMIPA film. AMIPA film on Main Street. The real Z film. Jackie Kennedy's testimony. Scoff all you want. Deny all you want. You just expose yourself for what you are.
This is part of the evidence suggesting Kennedy was shot more than once in the back on Main Street.
-
31 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
John, your statement that Pat's comments border on stupidity belie your own ignorance. He's talked to witnesses, consulted with other respected researchers, been to the conferences and has an extensive website, and corrected me more than once. What have you done?
Ron,
Where do you think the information I used came from? Whose ignorance? I suggest you read more books. Read witness testimonies. Take a closer look at the events of Dealey Plaza.
What have I done? I have brought out more information people have missed for 50+ Years. What have you done? Read book? Made vulgar rants?
At least I'm not known as the BS or HS man from your rather vulgar rants.
As far as Pat's work? I don't think much of it. It's mostly lone nut nonsense.
OBTW,
Phil Spector is the spitting image of Arlen Specter. And, they should be in the same career fields based on looks.
-
4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Response: First, it's S-P-E-C-T-E-R,
I see nothing wrong with what I said. Well, except misspelling Spector. I usually get Specter right.
Pretending? I'm not pretending about anything. I am not really saying anything either. It is what the witnesses are saying. If you have hundreds and hundreds of witness testimony on your web site, you should perhaps read them. Or, reread them. They say the things you say I am "pretending" to say. That doesn't even make sense.
Let's "pretend" we are talking about witnesses who said something about shooting on Houston Street. Go back and reread the testimony of the following:
Bonnnie Ray Williams
James Jarman (Junior)
Elsie Dorman
Wilma Bond
W. H. Denham
William Downey
Jack Faulkner
Malcom Barkley
Marie Muchmore
C. M. Jones
Charlie Player?
John Solon?
-
If this is a true film from NBC, then Mary's Polaroid was on TV at about !2:45 + time of film 2:26 giving about 3:11 CST.
I had to see it to believe it. I had to hear the announcer say it. I enhanced this slightly, so it is more viewable.
Now, at this point no newspaper publication same day. And, apparently the Polaroid is on TV almost 3 hours after the assassination. I would like to know more of this story. Who had this photo so that it could be seen on TV. We have Costella saying no one smuggled this photo out. So, how did it get on TV and what was the source for NBC to show it.
Anyone know?
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
Since John continues pretending Jean Hill thought she'd been standing near the corner of Houston and Elm, across from the Depository entrance, perhaps we should consult with someone who would really know: Jean Hill.
That borders on stupidity. I'm pretending that Jean Hill said something. Let's go through the facts rather than fancy and rhetoric.
1. Jean Hill did not go before WC interviewer Arlen Spector. Wrong. She did.
2. Arlen Spector did not ask her to identify where she was at on a sketch he drew. Wrong. She did.
3. Jean Hill did not place herself in front of the SW corner of the TSBD. Wrong. She did.
4. Jean Hill said she was standing at the corner of Houston and Elm, across from the Depository entrance as Pat said. Wrong. She didn't.
5. Did John Butler consult with someone who would really know. Yes. Jean Hill's testimony and Hill Exhibit No. 5.
Come on Man... you can do better than that.
-
2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
James Featherstone was the Dallas Times Herald reporter who tried to obtain Moorman's photo for his paper.
I believe "try" was as far as it went. Mary, if memory serves, turned over the Polaroid to Alan Sweat, a Dallas Police Lt. He turned it over to the FBI. The Polaroid didn't surface until 27 hours later. Plenty of time to make alterations.
The thing about the alterations is Mary agreed to them and went right on with saying the Polaroid was what she took. What do you make of that? Willing co-conspirator or unwilling co-conspirator? Why did she ask Jean to wear her red raincoat?
-
2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
It seems to have been shown on TV and distributed to journalists within a few hours. It appeared in newspapers the next day.
Are we backing off on earlier statements? I need to see evidence of Mary's Polaroid on TV 2 1/2 hour after the assassination. You talked about that. But, I don't see the actual thing. Can you provide it? Where is the TV tape?
I need to see a newspaper photo of Mary's Polaroid in a newspaper on the 22nd of November and not on the 23rd of November. Can you do that? I don't need to see Altgens 7 which is what your examples are showing.
Once again and for the last time. I won't be like certain members asking the "eternal unanswerable question".
Can you provide evidence of what you said? Show the tape of Mary's Polaroid on TV 2 1/2 hours after the assassination. Also, can you provide a 22nd of November newspaper copy showing Mary's Polaroid?
I don't want to hear about all those references from various folks. I already know those and have for years.
You need to do better than this.
-
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Mary Ann Moorman, Address: 2832 Ripplewood, Dallas. Age 31, Phone No. DA 1-9390.
Deposes and says
Mrs. Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street between the underpass and the corner of Elm & Houston. I had a Polaroid Camera [sic] with me and was intending to take pictures of President Kennedy and the motorcade. As the motorcade started toward me I took two pictures. As President Kennedy was opposite me I took a picture of him. As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up in the car and said, "My God he had been shot." When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself. I heard three or four shots in all. After the pictures I took were developed, the Picture [sic] of President Kennedy showed him slumped over. When the pictures were developed, they came out real light. These pictures have been turned over to Officers [sic] investigating this incident.
/s/ Mary Ann Moorman
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
These are Mary Moorman’s first statements on the shooting of President Kennedy that she observed.
1. These statements vary from what she said later. But, on the whole her statements are basically consistent over time.
2. First off, she said she was on the grass between the corner of Elm and the Triple Underpass. She said this and never changed this part of her story. Jean Hill disagreed with her and was recorded in Hill Exhibit No. 5.
3. She said she took 2 pictures as the motorcade started towards her. This could be the Glen McBride Polaroid and the alleged head shot Polaroid.
4. She said as the President came opposite from her, she took a Polaroid and a shot rang out. The president slumped over. She did not say anything about a horrendous head shot with brain matter spewing into the air. She just said he slumped over.
5. Then she heard a second shot. Here again, she doesn’t mention a horrible head shot with blood and brain matter spraying out over an area.
6. She said she heard 3 or 4 shots in all. There is some dispute as later she said 3 shots. 3 or 4 shots could have been 3 shots in all, or 4 shots in all. Saying 3 shots later is not a big deal.
7. She said after the Polaroids were developed the picture that showed the president showed that the president was slumped over. This occurred as she heard the first shot. The Polaroids were light in contrast. Here again, there is no terrible description of a head wound.
In this affidavit Mary says that the Polaroid was turned over to officials. She didn’t say anything about someone running off with it.
I believe Ron Bulman, and others have said, that the Moorman Polaroid had been published in a local Dallas Newspaper by 4:00 and on TV about 2 ½ hour after the assassination.
On the other hand, John Costella said it didn’t make the Ap wire photo transmission until 27 hours after the assassination.
In order to reconcile this information Ron or others such as Jeremy need to provide that newspaper copy with the photo. Show it. And, whatever TV tape necessary to show the Polaroid being on TV 2 ½ hours after the assassination.
-
1 minute ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
You can't give any answer, because what you are alleging with the Moorman photograph is absolutely impossible -- ie., the very "rubbish" you accuse others of peddling when they challenge your ludicrous claims.
Read on, McDuff.
-
1 minute ago, John Butler said:
Although it is clear that we still have to try to read between the lines of these often obfuscatory reports, it is nevertheless evident that there is much more to Mary Moorman’s Polaroids than was ever fully comprehended in the past, which may explain the fear displayed by Mary and her husband when David Lifton interviewed her in the early 1970s (see his chapter),
This is something I talked about several times. There is a film out there where Mary, early on, is explaining what happened. She was so nervous she would have said she was on the moon if the interviewer said that. Her response was so raddled that she said basically what the interviewer was saying.
Then the other film that has vanished. I wish I had kept a copy of it. Mary says she was not wearing white slacks in a sullen and disturbed way.
-
23 minutes ago, John Butler said:
What's the point? You wouldn't accept any answer I gave you. It is simply a waste of my time. You might have noticed there comes a certain point over time when I quit answering your rubbish.
Jeremy,
Sorry about the "rubbish" comment. I sometimes get carried away. I lament other folks comments of a similar nature, so I shouldn't do it myself. So, please forgive.
I felt bad about that so I decided to answer your 2 1/2 posting of the Polaroid in a newspaper. John Costella explains this well:
Mary Moorman and Her Polaroids
John P. Costella, Ph.D.
"Just what is going on with Mary Moorman’s Polaroids? (11 pages)
I use the bulk of this chapter to present a number of sworn statements, FBI reports, Secret Service reports, and letters between J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission relating to Mary Moorman’s and Jean Hill’s witnessing of the assassination, and the Polaroids that Mary actually took. These documents range in date from the day of the assassination to the closing days of the Warren Commission. Viewed from a modern vantage point—in which our minds are more open, because we no longer take the events as depicted in the Zapruder film to be dogma—these documents are remarkable.
Firstly, we consistently find that Mary and Jean describe the first shot to the President as impacting at about the time she took her famous Polaroid—whereas we have always assumed, on the basis of the Zapruder film, that this was the last shot. Indeed, Mary made exactly the same statement in the 2003 shoot for Discovery Channel (as will be made clear by David Lifton in the second printing version of this section of his chapter)! This starts to open our eyes to some of the unwarranted assumptions that we have continued to make, even after realising the lack of authenticity of the Zapruder film.
Secondly, we find that there was a veritable “shell game” played with Mary’s Polaroids, in which the FBI, the Secret Service, J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission all tried to make three photos become two. Indeed, only two are now extant, but their numbering implies that there is one missing, which was allegedly given to a Dallas motorcycle policeman and is now lost. Remarkably, the evidence (including reports and statements clearly typographically altered after the fact) suggests that there was at least one additional photo showing the President and his limousine; and it is also likely that some unwanted aspect of the Texas School Book Depository was depicted in at least one photo.
Thirdly, every one of these official reports consistently rebukes the idea that a copy of Moorman’s famous Polaroid was “smuggled” out on the day of the assassination, as folklore maintains, and indeed the AP wirephoto information provided tells us that it went out some 27 hours after the assassination, which explains why it was not published in any major newspaper alongside the Altgens and Cancellare photographs on the day of the assassination.
Although it is clear that we still have to try to read between the lines of these often obfuscatory reports, it is nevertheless evident that there is much more to Mary Moorman’s Polaroids than was ever fully comprehended in the past, which may explain the fear displayed by Mary and her husband when David Lifton interviewed her in the early 1970s (see his chapter), and the continued “shepherding” of her by Gary Mack and The Sixth Floor Museum in recent years. This is a line of research that is only now being opened up, and so it is likely that my best guesses on some of the unknowns will not all turn out to be correct."
I agree with John Costella.
From what I have read there was the notion the Feds taking Mary's Polaroid and then giving it back to her and later coming back to take it again. I think this occurred several times.
You say that the Polaroid was shown 2 1/2 hours after the assassination on TV and Newspapers. Can you provide the exact references to back up those statements.
-
7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
That isn't too much to ask, is it? John has made a claim, so it is up to him to justify his claim. How was the alteration possible, given that there was so little time in which to do it?
What's the point? You wouldn't accept any answer I gave you. It is simply a waste of my time. You might have noticed there comes a certain point over time when I quit answering your rubbish.
-
11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
I assume by "faked" you mean not the original evidence, i.e. grossly altered evidence, and not just that some of the Warren Commission exhibits and testimony were sculpted to conceal, or mislead (which I would agree with).
Well, assuming as much, I need to ask--Are you saying that the evidence in the 26 volumes, and the subsequent reports, suggests Oswald acted alone, and that it's only through realizing that much of this evidence was faked that one can conclude Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy?
Because, if so, you're a lot closer to a LNer than most on this forum, including myself.
Let's take, for example, the witness statements. Do you really think they suggest a lone assassin firing from behind the limousine? Or, as yet another example, the Zapruder film... Do you really think it suggests a bullet entering low on the back of JFK's skull and exploding from the top of his head?
1. Faked means fraudulent. Faked is changing existing evidence to suit the official story.
2. Isn't that what the WC conclusions say? Oswald acted alone is a conclusion of the WC. There was a conspiracy. And, folks have still not realized the extent of it or exactly how it happened.
3. I am not closer to or anywhere near Lone Nutism. My bias is much more radical in the other direction. I believe Kennedy ran a gauntlet of fire from different shooting stations. I believe Kennedy was shot in the head twice. Once from the side using a low caliber, shortened shot. This wound was to the frontal bone (forehead). I don't believe this wound was life threatening at the time.
The second shot came from the front striking Kennedy in the temple area, temporal bone, and exiting to the rear in the occipital/parietal area leaving a gaping wound noticed by the Parkland personnel. I believe, based on photos and films, that Kennedy was shot more than once in the back. This is my interpretation of what I see in films and photos.
4. A large portion, 20%, suggest a different interpretation on how the shooting of Kennedy occurred. These folks say the Zapruder Film is nonsense and the films that show basically the same thing. From analyzing Zapruder content images, I agree.
-
2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Obviously fake, how did it make it into the general media?
Don't know. Didn't someone once say or speculate that someone took a hammer to Kennedy's skull fracturing all of the skull bones we see missing thereby creating a wound such as this photo real or not portrays.
-
9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
John can't or won't answer that question, will he admit that the Moorman photograph is genuine?
Jim Hargroves is a good guy. He provides an answer for everyone of your comments. He has the patience to reply to...
Sorry, I am afraid I am not that way. It is probably due to laziness and contrariness. This is either the third or 4th time I has gone over this idea. Go back and check what I have said over the years and I am sure you will find the answer you are looking for.
-
IMHO, Lone Nutism, based upon the Warren Report has replaced religion, perhaps more correctly become a religion. There are no plots, conspiracies, lies, faked evidence, and other fraudulent material. Everything in the WR is sacrosanct and as true as true can be. If you know your WC conclusions and deny and distort anything else, then you are in and are a bona fide member. There is a fairly long list of people who have done that over time.
-
8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
The case against the "Lone-Nutism" idea does not require that any photos or home movies were faked.
But, it dones require a lot of other evidence to be faked.
-
In reference to the above comment:
"
On this you can see where A, X, B, C, and E are marked. And, their location in relation to the TSBD. Her testimony is as follows concerning where she was at.
Jean Hill- WC testimony, 24 March 1964
Mr. SPECTER - Would you draw a diagram for me in rough outline, starting with Houston Street---
Mrs. HILL - Yes; but I can't do this very well.
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to draw an outline, then, to get your bearing here and realizing that I want your recollection, and I'll ask you the questions. Assume that Houston Street is the street which I am marking Houston. Assume that this is Main Street. Assume that Elm Street curves down in the manner that I am drawing and marking.
Mrs. HILL - All right.
Mr. SPECTER - Assume that the Texas School Book Depository is this large building which I will mark "TSBD." Now, would you place with the letter "A" where you were at the time the President went by?
Mrs. HILL - Well, I would have to place the President first.
Mr. SPECTER - Fine---place him with the letter "X".
Mrs. HILL - All right--if he were here---
Mr. SPECTER - Now, was he in the center of the street or on the side of the street?
Mrs. HILL - He was on the side he wasn't just completely over there, but he was past the center of the street and we were---
Mr. SPECTER - Now, place yourself with the letter "A".
Mrs. HILL - Right there [indicating].
Mr. SPECTER - Make it a big printed "A" for us.
Mrs. HILL - Okay. [Complied with request of counsel Specter.]
Mr. SPECTER - Now, would you place the position you ran to after the President's car went by?
Mrs. HILL - By that time, I'm sure the car was here it was on down a little way and I ran behind here.
Mr. SPECTER - Draw a line to where you ran.
Mrs. HILL - All right--I don't know whether I've got this just right--but I ran approximately right up through here.
Mr. SPECTER - Put a "B" here where you were when you came to a stop on the other side of the street.
Mrs. HILL - These steps.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, where were you when you first noticed the
Mrs. HILL - These steps that go up--I guess you've looked at the site, there are some steps down there that go up to that promenade, or whatever you call it.
Mr. SPECTER - That go in a generally westerly direction?
Mrs. HILL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Beyond the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mrs. HILL - Yes; and I was just on this side
Mr. SPECTER - "This side"---you are meaning---the east of it?
Mrs. HILL - The east of it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you beyond the westernmost point of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mrs. HILL - No.
Mr. SPECTER - You were still in front of that building?
Mrs. HILL - That's right.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, is the letter "B" now in the position where you were when you first saw that man?
Mrs. HILL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Where was that man, indicating with the letter "C," where he was? He was very close to you?
Mrs. HILL - Well, he was at the top of this hill---you don't leave me any space in here I mean, there's a distance in here greater than what is shown here.
Mr. SPECTER - He was between Elm Street and the Depository Building?
Mrs. HILL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And where did you see him going?
Mrs. HILL - I saw him go toward the tracks, toward the railroad tracks to the west?….
Mr. SPECTER - For the purposes of the record, this diagram which was used during the deposition of Mrs. Hill will be marked Hill Exhibit No. 5.
(Instrument referred to marked by the reporter as Hill Exhibit No. 5, for identification.)This discredits her more than anything she may have said later in the eyes of researchers. It completely contradicts the "known" facts of the assassination."
Jean Hill clearly indicates she is in front of the TSBD despite Arlen Spector's misleading directions. He locates a man B, who is in a crowd, location C, who later runs up the hill and goes toward the railroad bridge.
The steps she talks about are the steps from the promenade to the SW corner. This further indicates she was on the SW corner. She clearly states she was not past the western end of the TSBD.
Point D indicates the Triple Underpass.
Spector may have intentionally misdrawn his map to trap Jean Hill into saying something she didn't want to say. Theirs was an adversarial conversation. She said:
"Mrs. HILL - Well, he was at the top of this hill---you don't leave me any space in here I mean, there's a distance in here greater than what is shown here."
Spector says:
"Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to draw an outline,". Not, a specific detailed map.
-
5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Not good, John. First, you claim this was classified top secret until the ARRB. Where do you get this stuff? This was published in the WC's volumes 20H158. Second, you make out this was a drawing made by Hill, and that she placed the building across from herself. She did not. The basic drawing was made by Specter.
Pat,
Did you even read what I said, or are you just distorting what I said to make your illogical points? I first ran across this in Walt Brown's book:
The reference for this doc being hid until the ARRB comes from discussions of ARRB material. I will try to find that reference amongst my many thousands of files. This is not a surveyors document. It is Spectors on site note of what Jean Hill was saying. Of course, it is not accurate like a surveyor's plot.
The reason I asked if you read what I wrote is I clearly listed this as a map drawn by Arlen Spector. It clearly lists the source. If something is marked Top Secret it is not published. Can you show me a copy of this map taken directly from the Warren Report?
1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:Amen, Pat. Meanwhile, we are all still waiting for John Butler to actually explain how the Moorman Polaroid could have been falsified.
From the way you folks are reading what I am saying, you'll never know whether I answered your questions or not. Lone Nutism on the march. Discount whatever is said. Distort or make up what you want in reply. I'm surprised you haven't resorted to "Unger" lines. If you don't know what they are then go back and look up the reference.
5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:Now, she did indicate she was across from the building in her testimony.
Jean talked about the large crowd of people across the street in front of the SW corner of Elm and Houston. She thought they were getting the president's attention and she would not. Therefore, Mary would not get a good Polaroid. So, she shouts "Hey, Mr. President". Mary runs into the street.
Pat, Jeremey, and Jonathan:
Tell me where you can find a large crowd of people in front of the Grassy Knoll? Show me in the Zapruder Film where Mary runs into the street or for that matter even moves.
5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:Jean Hill and Mary Moorman went back to Dealey Plaza on numerous occasions and gave interviews from where they'd been standing. They always stood right near where they are shown in the films and photos.
That's the sad part of this. Jean's change of story. Jean Hill believed folks were out to kill her after a traffic accident. And, she believed she only survived since Gordon Shanklin, chief FBI agent in Dallas, was protecting her with FBI surveillance.
-
5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Jean Hill was not a reliable witness. She was confused about several things, and changed her mind several times.
JB,
That's true. But, it comes afterwards with years of harassment. Jean was made to appear a fool. That was done with intent. That is what she is talking about in her testimony. The Larsen/Flanagan exchange above is one example of that harassment. I think Flanagan had the better of that.
[ Sorry, Sandy I miss read what you said. Sorry.] Added later.
5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:It means nothing that she jotted down a diagram that places the book depository behind the presidential car. Of course, there was an instant when Mary Moorman, the car and the book depository were in that particular alignment. But Hill couldn't have known that the photo in question was taken at that instant, because she wasn't taking the pictures; Mary Moorman was. The diagram was simply the product of a mistaken recollection.
This kind of logic is what you are noted for on the Forum. Nothing is true unless you OK it. Lone Nutism has to survive regardless of what other folks say or the facts that they use.
She didn't jot down the diagram. Arlen Specter did. It launched his career. Jean Hill didn't classify the map as Top Secret. Arlen Specter did. Jean Hill didn't hide a valuable piece of information away for decades. Arlen Specter did.
As I have said earlier, these 3 facts are meaningful at the time they were made. Jean's later behavior casts doubt on whatever she said. But, that is later. At the time there was an effort to discredit her.
The "Other" Zapruder Film
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Pat apparently doesn't like something and terms it BS.
Sandy does say that well. It is mainly the reason I can't read his material.
Sandy continues,
Sandy is saying this better than I could, so I am using his material here.
I wonder if Pat dreams of being the new Von Plein or new John Mcadams? IMHO, people sacrifice a lot when they get caught up in the swirls and twists of Lone Nutism.