John Butler

53 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

PDS: ... and then, by the way… this is just a question… are you absolutely convinced that the man who was “Lee Harvey Oswald” in Russia was, in fact, the man picked up in Dallas in 1963?
JN: Not at all.  And I’ve gone over to the view that in Mexico City that, maybe it’s him, maybe it’s not. So I’m not going to be dogmatic about it. He could have been there and impersonated or could have been not there at all.

Is John Newman saying the original Lee Harvey Oswald may have been in Russia?  I read "Not at all" as the two are different and there was a possibility that Lee Oswald was in Russia.  

And, I am glad to see he has weakened his position on Oswald in Mexico City to "Maybe it's him, maybe it's not".  IMO, that's better than saying one is following the paper trail of Oswald in Mexico City and thinking Oswald was actually there.  If I have misread early Newman than I will stand corrected.

14 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I'm glad you've asked this question, Paul. "Harvey and Lee" adherents have at various points claimed, without a shred of evidence, that Marina was "in on the plot" involving two distinct Oswalds and that she was intimately familiar with both doppelgangers. Not to mention their belief in multiple Marguerite Oswalds running amok across the United States for years ...

Jonathan,

Do you really think anyone really pays attention to your fantasies? 

58 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

If my own car had a half to one inch deep hole dent ( with scrunched metal inches around this as well ) like the one in JFK's inner windshield frame I would have noticed it within one, or in the least, a few days of it happening.

And, you would have probably heard the gunshot.

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John,

You probably already know that Louise Robinson, employed for six weeks in 1953 by Marguerite to clean house in her New York City apartment, claimed that Marguerite told her that she had brought her son to New York so that he could have mental tests performed at the Jacobi Hospital.

This was certainly the era of MK/ULTRA.

I think I once voiced the opinion why would Marguerite choose New York when there were competent psychological people In Dallas or New Orleans.  I answered that it is as said above in another quote, MK/Ultra.  

She must have been ordered to do such.  I think that ties in with Harvey's rebellion and trip to a far western state, Nebraska or some such.

OBTW, I head is clearing up from the opiods.  Gone are the pleasant moods with sun-shiny days with expansive blue skies and clouds.  Now, I am returning to my surly, sour, and darker mood.  Just kidding.

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The default position is that the Muchmore film is unaltered. My position is that until someone proves otherwise, we are obliged to believe that the film is unaltered.

Jeremy,

I posted a gif from frames from the Marie Muchmore film.  I am going to assume you saw it.  I am also going to assume you didn't understand, or you did understand it and ignored as usual things you don't like in favor of proclamations and insults.

Here's what you saw.

1.  3 film breaks or gaps in the film with missing frames.  There are more in the intersection. 

2.  I ended the gif with Phil Willis the "flat headed see-through man". 

3.  I am going to assume you didn't catch the relevance of Phil Willis being in the street and darting in front of Marie Muchmore's camera covering the p.limo for several frames.  To most who don't think about it, it was just something Phil Willis did and I think perhaps, but not sure he testified to doing such.

Well, take a look at the Jay Skaggs photo showing where Phil really was wen the p. limo passed his position.

I don't believe Phil would have had time to leave the street and return to his position on the NW corner of Houston and Main.

Marie Muchmore is in that crowd film with many others.  Only a select few made it to public viewing.

There is another interesting view of Kennedy here that no one as far as I know has commented on in the Jay Skaggs photo.

Notice that Jackie is not shadowed with dark shadows at all.

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

John Butler writes:

According to Richard Trask (Pictures of the Pain, p.214, n.13), the book was called Four Days, the Historical Record of the Death of President Kennedy. The author or publisher is given as "United Press International and American Heritage". Trask doesn't give a precise date for the book's publication; it's just "early 1964".

Pete,

I didn't write that.  Jeremy Bojczuk did.  One has to be careful of posting material that has already been posted.

It is the fault of the word processer not you.

On 5/19/2022 at 3:34 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

According to Richard Trask (Pictures of the Pain, p.214, n.13),

Jeremy,

I have a copy of Richard Trask's Pictures of Pain.  I have as much respect for it as I do the Warren Commission, which is to say none.  It is simply a secondary source for the Warren Commission.  Sure, they cover a lot of incidents and evidence.  But, it leans and is biased towards Warren Commission interpretations.

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I have a problem with ALL the witnesses who had already had the limo pass them. Certainly most of them would have taken their attention off of the limo after it passed. I think it's impossible to determine the percentage of them who saw the slowdown, though the percentage would certainly be much greater than if one counts them all in the calculation.

 

Sandy,

After I did the post on percentages in which I said the East Crosswalk probably could not see the slowdown.  I thought afterwards what about the people in the doorway of the TSBD.  And, some of the people shown in Couch near the TSBD who then moved out towards Elm Street.

So, once again I have to say you are exactly right.  Jeremy's small minority is close to turning into a majority.  If I subtract the people mentioned above then Jeremy's small minority turns into a majority of 50+ percent.

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

...but not as weird as the Harvey Lee "Tex" business.  As you know, John A. thinks American-born LEE was a killer.  Sheesh!

I've always thought that Harvey Oswald and Lee Oswald could be anything.  I believe when they were taken to New York as teens they were taken directly into the MKUltra program.  They were there for years.  John A. maybe right in his thoughts concerning Lee.  Harvey was no squish either.  The DPD knew that and had their biggest men guarding Harvey at the DPD.  From a movie, Harvey was like what Ernest Borgnine called Frank Sinatra, a tough monkey,

Jim,

I thought this was interesting and would make the LNers sit up and pay attention.

Harvey Lee the Hit Man.

Jim,

That is a lot of references for Harvey Lee Oswald going back years before the JFKA.

Any idea who Donald Andrew Wolf was?  The letter is strange with Wolf claiming best bud status with Oswald, and him being one of only 10 friends of Oswald.

On 5/16/2022 at 3:53 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The Muchmore film has had frames removed when the p. limo was in the intersection of Maine and Houston Street.

Actually, I said that and not Jeremy.  His position is that the Muchmore film is unaltered.

This gif shows 3 incidents of breaks in the film.

The opening frame shows the NE corner of Main and Houston.  The next frame is completely different in jumping to a street scene of a green truck.  The film skips to the next frame.  There are two more incidents where we have one scene and we skip immediately to another diffferent scene.  We end the gif with Phil Willis, the flat headed see through man.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If frames were removed, we want to know it. Regardless of any possibility that it provides support for the lone gunman theory.

(I guess I speak only for completely honest researchers. I believe that most researchers are completely honest.)

 

Sandy,

Absolutely right.  One has to go where the evidence leads regardless to whether it affects your beliefs or not.

I have had to give up many of my "original" ideas due to others pointing out the evidence says something different.  The reason I said "original" is that there are many times when I have thought I had something original, I find on reading things from the past someone else has already done that.

I think quibbling over whether the car stopped or slowed down is a false argument.  None of the films show this.  The films are questionable and probably could not serve as evidence in court.  So, that leaves witness testimony indicating a slowing of stopping of the p. limo.  Witness testimony is preferred anyway.  You don't have to have a majority of witnesses for an event to be believable or to be used for reasonable doubt. 

Because a witness did not mention a vehicle stopping or slowing does not mean he didn't see it.  It could simply have been unimportant, or something irrelevant to the witness. 

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The original claim mentioned 59 witnesses, not "80+", but the larger the number, the weaker Horne's case becomes.

So, there has been a witness number change from 59 to 80+.  Let's apply that to the number of possible witnesses that could have seen a car slow or stop.  We'll treat the stop and slowing as the same.  I counted 201 witnesses that could possibly see this event.  I have reported in another post how these numbers were arrived at.  201 witnesses and 80 of these saw a stop or slowing of the p. limo.  That would be 40% of the witnesses.  A minority, but not a small one.

I have a problem with the east crosswalk folks in the intersection of Houston and Elm.  There is 30 people there according to Altgens.  I don't think they could see downhill a stop or slowing of the p. limo.  The angle is not right for that.  If not, someone can correct me with a better study.

So, let's subtract 30 from the 201 witnesses.  This is 171 witnesses.  This gives a percentage of 47%.  Definitely not a small minority.

I also have a problem with the 10 railroad men on the Triple Underpass.  I don't believe they were on the TU, but off to the side.  I am of two minds on this.  Could they witness the car stop/slowing event.  If they couldn't the percentage goes to 50%.

201 witnesses may not be an exact figure, but it includes all the areas that people were in at the time.  I wouldn't argue with 210 or 190 if someone else counted.  I don't think I missed anyone, but it's possible. 

On 5/17/2022 at 9:28 AM, Steve Thomas said:

It is dated November 22, 1963. Heading that list is Harvey Lee Oswald at 605 Elsbeth.

I have to apologize to Steve Thomas on my mix up of Elsbeth and Bentley addresses.  I have 3 new drugs that due wonders to cognition and memory.  Since one is an opiod I am feeling much better.  The others are also addictive with brain and mood changes.  

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The FBI eventually found out about the sale of her film, since it was the publication in a book of several frames from her film that prompted the FBI to track her down. The book didn't mention her by name, but attributed the images to UPI. On 10 February 1964, the FBI contacted UPI, who told them about Muchmore.

The FBI knew about her perjury about filming before the Feb. 18, 1964 302 doc.  It may have been the FBI  learned on 2/10/64.  I think earlier.  It might have taken this long to track down this film.  They may not have realized the implications until they called UPI.  

Regardless, Marie did two things.  1.) Admit that she did film in the intersection of Main and Houston and down Houston towards the intersection of Houston and Elm and, 2.) change her story about hearing a gunshot in the intersection of Main and Houston followed by 2 more.  She changed the shooting area to Elm and Houston.  Here is the FBI 302 for 18 Feb., 1964.

There is nowhere being said by anyone I know that the FBI or any other government agency tracked down and changed these films over night.  I would suspect it was a lengthy process.

One way to check is to see if the photos published in this book match what is seen in the current version of Marie Muchmore.

Since, you mentioned it what was the name of the book?  I don't know of many published within less than 2 months of the assassination.  

So, what is the count?  This is an approximate and I am sure someone could find a minor difference in their count.

Witness count for seeing the car slow-down in Dealey Plaza

So, witnesses need to be counted in that area from the following locations:

1. The intersection of Elm and Houston (Zapruder film).  Houston street folks would not be able to see down the hill to where this incident supposedly took place.  (In Zapruder you can count about 25- In Altgens 5 you can count 30).  Count for the intersection 30.

2. In Front of the TSBD.  This can be taken from the Couch film. Two frames= 42

3. In front of the SW corner of the TSBD (Croft photo) 17

4. SW corner of Elm and Houston (Zapruder) 16

5. In the TSBD witnesses. (2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors) 2^nd Floor=1, 3^rd Floor =1, 4^th Floor =10, and 5^th = 5- Total=17

6.  Mannikin Row- the 19 people before the Stemmons sign. 19

7.  Below the Stemmons sign and the grassy field between Elm and Main (Bronson film) 19

8.  Mary Moorman Polaroid (men on steps) 3

9.  Railroad overpass, Stemmons Highway, and railroad bridges between Stemmons Highway and the Triple Underpass. 1 police officer on TU, 2 officers on railroad tracks between the TU and the Stemmons Street Overpass, and the Stemmons Street Overpass 2.  Total= 15. 

10.  Various SS agents and other vehicle occupants of p. limo, SS agent vehicle, VP vehicle, and Security vehicle for Johnson.  P. limo passengers = 6, SS vehicle = 10, VP vehicle 5, VP Security vehicle 5.  Total = 26

Grand total: 201.

30 people in the intersection not counted.  10 railroad men not counted.  161

At the most the total population of witnesses is 201.  Then 59 witnesses would equal about 30%.  Not a small minority.

And even smaller when the railroad men and intersection people not counted.  161 percentage 59 = 36%

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jeremy,

Are you saying there were 59 witnesses to the car stop?  I would like to confirm that number.  And, this would be out of a population of how many witnesses?  59 witnesses may be a minority (we'll see), but it certainly is not a small minority of the witness who were available to see the car slow/stop.

59 witnesses by Vince Palamara to the p. limo slow/stop incident.  If you took this number and compared it to the general population of witnesses (around 500) then it would be a small minority.  But, all of the general population of witnesses was not there to see what was happening on Elm Street.  So, that raises the question of how many were there in position to see the vehicle slow or stop.  Just from a general recollection of whose who and where they were I would suspect the witness pool to shrink drastically from approximately 500.  I think the number is something like 545, but am not sure.

So, witnesses need to be counted in that area from the following locations:

1. The intersection of Elm and Houston (Zapruder film).  Houston street folks would not be able to see down the hill to where this incident supposedly took place.

2. In Front of the TSBD.  This can be taken from the Couch film.

3. In front of the SW corner of the TSBD (Croft photo)

4. In the TSBD witnesses. (2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors)

5.  Mannikin Row- the 19 people before the Stemmons sign.

6.  Below the Stemmons sign and the grassy field between Elm and Main (Bronson film)

7.  Mary Moorman Polaroid (men on steps)

8.  Railroad overpass, Stemmons Highway, and railroad bridges between Stemmons Highway and the Triple Underpass.

9.  Various SS agents and other vehicle occupants of p. limo, SS agent vehicle, VP vehicle, and Security vehicle for Johnson.

I would think that would get all or most of the witnesses who could have witnessed a slow/stop.

I have a problem with the people standing in the crosswalk at the eastern part of the intersection of Houston and Elm.  Would they be able to see down hill to where the p. limo was when allegedly there was a slow/stop there.  (in front of the Grassy Knoll.)  

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There's an analysis of the statements here, if you want to add up the numbers:

Jeremy,

Are you saying there were 59 witnesses to the car stop?  I would like to confirm that number.  And, this would be out of a population of how many witnesses?  59 witnesses may be a minority (we'll see), but it certainly is not a small minority of the witness who were available to see the car slow/stop.

16 hours ago, David Lifton said:

the "work" simply consisted of smashing the skull. in order to get out  as much brain tissue as possible.

David,

Thanks for your reply.  A new question:

Is smashing the skull to remove the brain, and to remove any bullets, bullet types, or bullet traces such as wound paths.  It just struck that the smashing wound to the skull, the so-called surgery, had to be matched in the in the Zapruder film.  I believe there was plenty of time to get that information to the film alterers.  

29 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Shouldn't that tell you something about your research methods and conclusions?

No.  It is what the evidence shows.  In some cases what is interpreted from the evidence as in the case of Marie Muchmore.  More on this later.

14 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Maybe,just maybe...JFK was not killed in the kill zone from behind.He advanced too far forward & had to get hit by the back-up team in front.Of course this is just a thought at this point & is not an opinion yet

Michael,

That comes closer to my idea/opinion that Kennedy ran a gauntlet on Houston and Elm.  The sequence of shooting is in front of the Court Records building, the intersection of Houston and Elm, and then in front of the TSBD.  And, not down by the Grassy Knoll.  I don't think anyone takes this seriously except for me.  This is what I see in the films and witness testimonies.  But, as I said few if any believe that.  

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There weren't a large number of people who had a good view of the side of the limo, which is what would be required to notice a slowing-down. Relative to that number, I think a good percentage of them reported the slowing down.

 

That's why I asked Jeremy if he could put a number to these witnesses (minority/majority) of the slowdown.  Supposedly, the slowdown occurred in front to the GK or in that general area.  There were not many people in that area below the Stemmons sign who would have seen this close up from the side.  There were not many people there at all.  This needs to be investigated and Jeremy's invalid proclamation for the minority being insufficient to support the claim of a slowdown is proved or disproved.

The same argument goes for my 90+ witnesses who said shooting occurred in front of the TSBD.  It is not 90+ out of 500, but 90+ out of the number of people were around the TSBD when the p. limo went through.  That is a smaller number.  

How much of smaller minority is the folks who said they saw the slowdown as versus the total population of witnesses past the Stemmons sign?  I would bet that is a small number and may be the larger number.  In other words, Jeremy's majority may be imaginary.

On 5/16/2022 at 9:08 AM, Gil Jesus said:

There were no witnesses, although a 14 year old boy

and,

On 5/16/2022 at 9:08 AM, Gil Jesus said:

Finally, the June 1964 FBI interview of Coleman revealed that he told them that neither man he saw resembled Oswald.

I suspect none of the 14 year-old and below kids were believed about what they saw during the JFKA, and before in the Walker incident.