John Butler

If Edward Landsdale and a team of helpers were there supervising the event then the cover up began immediately and was certainly noticeable by 1:15 with the death of Officer Tippit. In surveying the witnesses in Dealey Plaza, I noticed a change in the way witness statements were being made by the early afternoon of the day. There was a change in the way witnesses were describing and locating where the p. limo was when they heard shooting. From the DiEugenio article, "The reason Ford and Dulles could do this is because, in all probability, the Secret Service had absconded with the films..." Not only that, it is my believe they, the Secret Service and the FBI, did that with every film in Dealey Plaza they could lay their hands on that day. Whoever they missed were tracked down later and their film taken. I even believe they black bagged the Elsie Dorman film which was supposedly safe in a lawyer's safe. Robert Croft is a good example of this. Croft left the plaza and went home to Colorado. He was immediately tracked there and his film taken. I believe that his film was taken not only to see and modify if necessary, but to also identify others in the film who had cameras. I posted in another thread the Croft photo and placed a small red x near each person who appeared to have a camera. There were 5 or 6 there across the street from Croft. Who were those people and what happened to their film? I have surveyed all of the visual material on Elm Street and Houston Street looking for unknown camera people before the assassination. There are at a minimum 14 unidentified and likely more if questionable folks are considered. One has to ask where are the films and photos from Houston and Main Street? This was posted in another thread about the films and photos in Dealey Plaza. I believe the government had the films in their possession shortly after the assassination or at a later date. Below are listed the films and photos allowed in Dealey Plaza. Most if not all show signs of alteration or distortion. Jeremy Bojczuk, "In fact, almost all of the photographers and home movie-makers, including Zapruder, left Dealey Plaza without having their cameras or films seized. Here's a partial list I compiled earlier: Oscar Bothun didn't have his camera or film seized: "Shortly after the shooting Mr Bothun apparently went back to work. He seems not to have been stopped or questioned as a witness at the scene" (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain. p.157). Hugh Betzner didn't; he went out of his way to make himself and his photographs known to the police. Phil Willis didn't: "Remaining around the area for about an hour after witnessing the shooting, none of the family was questioned by law enforcement personnel" (Trask, p.179). Willis made his own way to the Kodak plant to get his film processed, and didn't have his camera seized there either. Orville Nix didn't; like Zapruder, he walked out of Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera. He returned later to take some more footage, and again left the scene without having his camera seized. Marie Muchmore didn't; she retained her camera and film until she sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination. Wilma Bond didn't; she wasn't even contacted by the authorities until February 1964. Jim and Tina Towner didn't; they stayed in Dealey Plaza for a while, then went home with their cameras. Robert Croft didn't; he left Dealey Plaza and went home to Denver with his camera. Mark Bell didn't; he walked across Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and went back to work. There is no evidence that the authorities even knew of the existence of Bell's film until several years after the assassination. Robert Hughes didn't; he too left Dealey Plaza without having his home movie camera seized. The first thing the authorities knew about Hughes's film was when he voluntarily handed it to the FBI two days after the assassination. Charles Bronson didn't; he left Dealey Plaza with his still and home movie cameras, and returned the next day to take more footage and still photographs, and again left without having his cameras seized. James Altgens didn't; he waited for a short while in Dealey Plaza and then walked a few blocks to the local newspaper office to get his film developed. As you can see, several of these people didn't come to the attention of the authorities until months or even years later. The authorities clearly weren't too bothered about what the photographs and home movies might show, apart from the obvious 'back and to the left' head snap that was presumably the main reason for keeping the Zapruder film largely away from public view for over a decade."

Andrej, I have just finished re-reading Mary's first and second statements to the authorities. Mary said as she snapped her Polaroid of the president a shot rang out. This was the first shot and in all there were 3 or 4 shots. She later changed this to two or three. If I am recalling correctly she stuck to the idea that the first shot was when she took her Polaroid. This could be what Thompson thought as the 1/9th second. As far as the two holes in the rear of Kennedy's head, I wish there was better photography to examine. The holes appear more occipital then parietal. Here's the best I can do with what I have: This crop which has been lightened does show two light areas in a larger dark area that looks like a mask. This maybe what Thompson was referring to as two shot holes. Or, maybe not. I wonder if the dark spots above Kennedy's head is what Lifton thought were skull fragments? I don't see anything to relate to a skull fragment on the trunk. As far as Kennedy's shoulder, it seems that is just bad quality film rather than a skull fragment. I won't defend that position because the film quality here is so bad. If one examines this closely and compares it to similar frames in Muchmore one could get the idea that the Polaroid and similar scenes in Muchmore were changed to reflect a head shot that would match Zapruder. Then someone else decided that was not necessary and the head ejection plume was mostly removed. The same thing was done to Muchmore frames. Anyway, this frame from Muchmore suggests such an idea. In fact this scene or similar ones from Muchmore is probably the reason that some folks think Mary's Polaroid is taken from the Muchmore film. Here is something that will bring howls of outrage. It is something I played around with after reading Walt Brown's description of Hill Exhibit No. 5, the Top Secret testimony of Jean Hill.

I had to answer my own question, No. 1.

I posted this Croft photo earlier. This photo has always bothered me. There are things in it that are questionable. I have numbered these from 1 to 5. No. 1 is some structure that looks like a Roman aqueduct, but is probably a passenger train. You know, the one the DPD officers spoke of in their statements. The long, slow train that is absent from almost all media in Dealey Plaza. If not a train then what? No. 2- Has to do with the west side building extension that is one story tall and the same color as the TSBD. I don't see that. All I see is something blue. Is that the west side building extension? No. 3- That pickup truck looks awfully large in comparison to the people and other vehicles? No. 4- Where are the reflections on the side of the vehicle. The p. limo had a high polish and is almost directly facing the sun. So, where are the reflections. We should see Croft and the people standing by him. Wonder who they were? No. 5- That last little thing is the rear wheels difference in size of the whitewall in shadow and the larger size in sunlight. I can hear it now. The sunlight caused the bottom part of the wheel's whitewall to become magnified. mmmh? I forgot the 5 or possibly 6 people who have cameras. I guess all there film went bad in processing. I wonder what that film would have shown.

The two DPD officers, Foster and White, said there was a train on the railroad bridge. Foster didn't say that at first, but did later on in testimony. A third DPD officer, Brown, out on the Stemmons Overpass, said the same thing. Altgens 7 said no there was no train. Who do you believe? Altered photos or questionable testimony from 3 DPD officers. Junior Jarman changed his initial testimony at his WC hearing. He said he heard firing from low and to the left. That means the Dal-Tex on a lower floor.

Chris, Sorry, I wasn't able to find that frame. Here is my copy from Costella: I wonder why there is a difference? Costella did do some editing if I am recalling correctly?

Chris, Which Z frame is this? It resembles some of the artwork in several other questionable films. But, it has to be Zapruder. Which?

Yes, but what were all those generals and admirals doing at the autopsy? Folks said they were in charge since this was a military hospital.

I agree to a certain extent. But, I believe the neck and head shot on Elm were lucky shots. It not, then there was a highly skilled shooter in the front. One who may have practiced his shots in a similar location elsewhere. Military people were in those days trained to shoot center mass, the trunk area. The M1/30.06 and M14/7.62 rounds are powerful enough to kill by hydrostatic shock if the wound didn't do it outright. A German Mauser is similar in effectiveness. I don't know about the Carcano. It was a tumbling or twisting round that could strike sideways creating a larger wound. In the CBS tests only a skilled marksman could do what Oswald was purported to have done. And, this was only after several attempts and practice. Shooting from the Railroad Bridge or the Grassy Knoll or the South Knoll is somewhat different from shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Besides, there are about 10 witnesses on 4th and 3rd floor who said shooting came from some place other than the building above them. They were less then 40 feet from the Sniper's Nest.

There are 3 lanes going west towards the Triple Underpass. Richard says Jean said the it (the p. limo) was left of the center lane. If left of the center lane than the p. limo must have been in the outside or south lane near the grass. "not all the way over to the lane she was next to, but definitely not within the center lane marker lines" So, with this description the p. limo was in the left lane. Which makes Hill Exhibit No. 5 a better description of Jean Hill's testimony than not. From the description Jean Hill gave this is more than likely what she was saying. Specter placed the X closer to her than he should. Seeing the things within the limo she saw is more likely from this position. OBTW, this is the crowd that Jean was talking about across the street from her location. There is no other crowd further down except the Manniquin Row folk, and they are not really there according to Bronson.

Again, you can go to HIll Exhibit No. 5 and see how Arlen Specter drew what she said. Position A (Mary and Jean's location) is right next to Position X (p. limo). The p. limo is right next to them and not out in the center lane. Jean Hill said many things that contradicted the official story. Mary and her were on radio and TV with their story very early on day. She had to be discredited. Later, she did it to herself. And, I can't figure if she did that to not be controversial and take some of the criticism off her, or what?

I think we can use Tony's photo for "self authenticating" evidence, or whatever that term was that the Altgens 6 photo is legitimate. This is the first piece of proof that I can accept that Altgens 6 is legitimate or maybe not. I am as confused as the fellows in the video. Maybe I need to take my morning meds.

Tony, Sorry, we'll just have to differ. "a lot of people across the street" Means to me just that. Not up the street to the northeast, but across the street from where Jean Hill was standing. And, that leads to the biggest argument of all. Which I do not want to get into. It seems to me I'm just rehashing old stuff. I am going to sign off on this.

Thanks Tony, That's not a good spot for them. Camera angles may be messing with your line of sight. But, the point is there was not a crowd there below the Stemmons sign. If I got Zapruder right and didn't err they have to be down Elm from Zapruder a bit more. Where is the crowd?

Anyone know the age of that photo? If just after the assassination and not later in years it seems Altgens would have had a difficult time taking a shot of the TSBD doorway due to the trees. I don't think camera angles would apply. So, this must be at a later time. But, looking at the vehicles it maybe not much later.

Mark, I agree to some extent. But, we have to be careful we don't fasten unto our own pre-conceived notions. What I saw of Allmen's testimony he said he was on the corner of Houston and Elm and not about 100 feet down Elm across the street from the SW corner of the TSBD. People pick on Jean Hill not for what she said later, but for what she said at the time. I agree this is unfair treatment, but this is what they first used to discredit her. And, she had to be discredited. The puppy/flowers and the man on the hill/Jack Ruby and other things were used. Her location is the biggest turnoff from both sides. She has to be down from Zapruder and up from the steps on the south side of Elm. People fight over this now and then. Don't move Mary into the street or you will be accused of heresy.

That's an image from the Bell film. The Babushka Lady had not arrived in that area yet. This is clearly seen in a later photo. This is the Lady in Blue disguised as the Babushka Lady. I refer you to the Muchmore film where this transformation is shown. This is about a minute after the assassination and does not reflect where Jean first went up the Hill. Or, if it does it contradicts what she said in her testimony about running there directly after the p. limo left.

100 feet after the turn puts Mary and Jean on the SW corner of Houston and Elm about where Pierce Allman was. That is if a bullet struck the pavement in front of her. And, that is under the trees that so many of TSBD witnesses said that was where the p. limo was when they heard shooting. I don't think people will accept that. It just messes up all of their thinking and work.

I would consider Marion Baker's second statement as an embellishment to fit Roy Truly's story.

Tony, As you said it was a rough map. How do we know that Specter drew a rectangle for a square? He knew what he was doing. When Jean Hill filled it in he had to act in a manner that was professional and accept what she said. I think Hill said he was arrogant and insulting or some such. It was an adversary questioning. He later filed this "inaccurate" drawing away as Top Secret. That says a lot about it's authenticity and accuracy. That definitely is not the official story. It doesn't matter what I think. I have fought this battle before and the argument is still there. Most people believe what they see in the so-called self authenticating films and photos. Divergent thought is not allowed. Let's look at it this way. Jean Hill said she and Mary were directly across the street from a group of people. This caused Jean to yell at the President and attract his attention from that crowd to them so they could take a picture. In the photo I have several ?s representing the crowd that Jean said was across the street. If you consult the various media you will see there is no crowd in that area. So, we must be talking about another area. MJ represents Mary and Jean. I have them there twice since I may have put the first slightly off where the films show they were. I hope I got Zapruder right. I always screw up his location. After looking at it, it doesn't seem right. Jean Hill said exactly where she was. "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."

Pierce Allman said something different. It didn't fit the "known" facts. For this he becomes a false witness. I don't think so. Elsie Dorman captured Pierce Allman and associate. I always forget this guy's name. Terry Ford I believe. They were on the SW corner of the intersection of Houston and Main. Directly across from the SW corner of the TSBD. As far as I know he told basically the same story through time. OBTW, where is his photos and the photos of Ford?

Thanks Chris, At this point I am just about willing to believe anything that folks say about film alteration in Zapruder.

Mark, I also think Jean Hill was an honest and strait forward witness. However, her WC testimony discredits her in the eyes of most researchers (I would say 99%). She said some things that directly contradict the "known" facts of the assassination. This doesn't have anything to do with how many shots or where they landed. It has to do with her location. She said she was somewhere other than where the films and photos show her to be. And, what she said about Kennedy's location when shooting occurred is not something people find credible. After all, there are films and photos that show Mary and Jean down by the Grassy Knoll just forward of the steps coming down to the street on the south side of Elm. This is where most people think the assassination occurred as portrayed in the Zapruder film, the Muchmore film, the Nix film, and other media. She said something different as recorded by Arlen Specter. Specter recorded this information on what he called Hill Exhibit No. 5. This information was so damning that he classified it as Top Secret and hid it away for years, until the time of the ARRB. So, what is Hill Exhibit No. 5 courtesy of Arlen Specter. Jean said she and Mary were not in front of the Grassy Knoll, but rather they were across the street from the Southwest corner of the TSBD. Furthermore, she said the p. limo was not in the middle of the street, but closer to her when shooting occurred. Her location as noted above was at the Southwest corner of the intersection of Elm and Houston. This is really not that legible particularly when it comes to discussing the 5 letters (A, B, C, D, and E) indicating places described. So, this maybe helpful: 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.

Chris, You have to have one set of super eyes to see that in the film. I didn't see it until now. But, there are many kinds of alterations in the film. I am moving more and more towards what John Costella said years ago. He said he thought the film may be built from the ground up. All this leads to the question why make this alteration. Is it part of something else? I thought at one time I could see something wrong with the SS guy behind Clint Hill. I never could figure out why there would be some kind of alteration of SS men. Their were stories of an SS man being shot. I don't know how that would relate, but there is something going on with these kind of alterations of SS men.

Chris, Rethinking this, wouldn't the sun be directly in the face of those on North Elm? What about sun glare and Zapruder? There doesn't seem to be any. The sun on Elm may explain why people were not using their viewers. Point and shoot due to sun glare.