John Butler

Does anyone have information of the replication trials that say how many of these professional experts repeated the head shot on the first trial? That would be their first practice trial. How many? This would be interesting to know. If a large number say 50% did then I would consider a headshot planned and executed properly. As far as Jackie is concerned she was a larger target some distance from the headshot. What bothers me about collateral damage is why wasn't there more than one guy down by the Triple Underpass? If Kennedy is shot from the Grassy Knoll that round would have plowed through his head and traveled on somewhere possibly hitting a motorbike cop or the Secret Service vehicle. Houston Street and Main Street are not far away. Many of the witnesses said there was more than 3 shots. This is an interesting idea. A high powered rifle will shoot through more than one person, perhaps two or three. This more than likely means they were using short rounds. Less powerful due to gun powder cuts lowering the power to about 1000 feet per second. This is beneficial as far as sound goes. There is no breaking the sound barrier and resulting in less noise. There would be more shots like fire crackers or motorbike backfiring. How could the constant backfiring be distinguished from the shooting? A drawback would be less accuracy from a distance. 1000 feet per second is pistol speeds and strength therefore shortening the distance for accuracy.

Mark, Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Whoever this is is not wearing the same clothing. Could be anybody. I don't see friends, more than two people. This is a Bothun photo? I think. This is about less than a minute after the p. limo speeds off. Still time to move to that location from elsewhere. There is enough time for Mannikin Row to disperse. Same problem here. Could be anyone. This is more than a minute and probably a couple of minutes after the assassination. The boy with the white shoulder striped jacket is seen earlier without any boys near him. He is not seen in any earlier frames or photos. The boy in the colored shirt is seen earlier. Still, there is the same problem. Could be anybody. You picture four boys. Where are they in earlier photos and frames? Allen Smith said he had friends. The earlier Bothun photo? directly after the assassination only shows one. These boys could have come from the intersection, or in front of the TSBD or Dal-Tex or from Houston Street. Remember folks were moving swiftly that day. Good examples are Willis and girls, Altgens, Muchmore, etc.

Mark, Thanks for your response: So, now there are 3 people other than me saying there was shooting in front of the TSBD, even though Z frame 190 is said to be at the SW corner of the TSBD. That implies an early shot. Rosemary Willis is said to react to a shot at Z 157. Most of my witness collection of 95+ witnesses are saying shooting occurred at an earlier time than Z 157 or Z 190. Mark said: "This judgement is only with respect to the individual witness, so I may regard two different witnesses as high quality but they completely disagree about what happened in Dealey Plaza (e.g. James Altgens and Jean Hill who were at great variance regarding the shots fired)." I have an easier time dealing with this controversy. I simply reject statements supporting the official version.

I found these photos on the internet. That's not the best evidentiary source, but it is what it is. The questions to ask here is are these images real? Can someone act naturally or fairly natural when he is shot in the head. That's a question for medical people or gunshot analysts. This seems to be the same image as above.

Thanks Mark, I use similar criteria somewhat different about the shooting then yours; 1. The witness statements that are best for consideration are given on 11-22-63. Any after this date must be considered carefully. 2. Some of the later date statements if they reverse or amplify something said earlier due to fear or FBI coercion. This is somewhat hard to judge. 3. The witness statement must be clear on where the witness said they were located. 4. They must say where the p. limo was when the witness heard shooting. 5. Those statements confirming the official story (Warren Commission rulings) are rejected. What I am looking for is those statements that say shooting occurred somewhere other than in front of the Stemmons sign to the Grassy Knoll. This amounts to shooting in the Elm and Houston intersection, in front of the TSBD, on Houston Street, at the Main and Houston intersection, and on Main Street. Those statements that say "on Houston Street, at the Main and Houston intersection, and on Main Street.", are more then I would credit. I have not counted those yet, but there is a sense that there are more than I originally thought. The number on statements saying something different than the WC is 95+.

The two teenage boys you mention here were not boys or teenagers. They were adults. One can be claimed as a teenager but the other has a dark hat and suit on. The teenage boy in question is Allen Smith. His testimony, appearance, and location has been misrepresented. This has been argued before. Where was Allen Smith on November 22, 1963 at or near Dealey Plaza? Pat Speer and Chris Scully have identified and placed Allen Smith, despite his testimony saying something different, in an area I call Mannikin Row. This is the 19 people standing between the Stemmons sign and the lamppost near the SW corner of the TSBD. From Pat Speer’s Chapter 7b: More Pieces in the Plaza he said: “however, researcher Chris Scully looked into Smith and was able to confirm he attended the school he claimed to have attended, and was only 14 at the time of the shooting. Scally also made a tentative ID of Smith as one of the two boys standing under the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Betzner and Willis photos. (Scally's article on Smith can be found in the Winter 2012 Dealey Plaza Echo.) In any event, Scally's article convinced me that Smith's claim of being on Main Street was probably an honest mistake, and that he may very well have been on Elm.” Pat Speer and Chris Scully agree on the notion that Allen Smith was on Elm Street and not on Main Street as he said. They claim he was in a place on Elm Street between the lamppost near the SW corner of the TSBD and the Stemmons sign. I will repeat what Speer said as proof “Scally also made a tentative ID of Smith as one of the two boys standing under the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Betzner and Willis photos.” Actually, there are 3 photos that bear on the question. These are Zapruder frame 140, Betzner 3, and Willis 5. These photos show the people and area I call Mannikin Row. I think that Scully and Speer didn’t realize this or simply overlooked Z 140. You may need to enlarge these photos to see more clearly. There is only one figure, that could possibly be a teenager in these photos. That figure is pointed to with a red arrow. That figure looks more like an adult than a teenager. He is standing near an obvious adult in a hat and business suit. This does not constitute two teenagers. Or more correctly, we do not see “friends”. Allen said he was with friends meaning more than one person. Again quoting from the Pat Speer article: “I was standing on the curb watching the parade along Main street. We were permitted to skip school, if we had a note from our parents, to watch it." "The crowds were cheering, but all at once they changed to screaming. The car was about 10 feet from me when a bullet hit the President in his forehead. The bullets came from a window right over my head in the building in front of which my friends and I were standing." In this quote Smith says “friends”. That means more than one person. In the montage of photos above we see only one person that could possibly be a teenager. There are no other younger males there. It is also clear that there are no buildings behind the area known as Mannikin Row on Elm Street. There is what is commonly called the Arcade or Pergola and not a building with windows on a second or higher floor as indicted by Allen Smith’s testimony. The very familiar Bronson frame gives the lie to Zapruder 140, Betzner 3, and Willis 5 or it affirms it. I believe it affirms the other photos. The arrow points to two familiar figures from the other photos. Both cannot be taken as teenagers. Nor is there more than two figures there as Allen Smith said “friends”. What’s different about this photo? Well, the two figures identified by Scully are standing west of the lady in the blue scarf who is identifiable in the other photos. She has been identified as Carol Reed. In the other 3 photos the two men are standing to the east of the Carol Reed. What’s going on with that? Another thing different in the Bronson frame is that the 19 people group in Z 140 is not present here. What we see in Bronson is a widely separated group extending back to the lamppost that is in different positions and do not number 19 people. Willis has the Umbrella man west of the Stemmons sign and Bronson has him east of the sign. No discussion of a different camera angle from Zapruder can explain this enigma. Why? The 3 photos above Z 140, Betzner, and Willis all show the group basically shoulder to shoulder. To sum up: 1. Allen Smith said he was on Main Street when the president came by. There is no visual proof that Allen Smith was on Elm Street in the area near the Stemmons sign. The four photos in question show a man in a dark or black hat and business suit next to another adult or, someone who could be claimed to be a 14 year old teenager. But, there is no proof that is true. 2. The 4 photos do not show a group of Allen Smith and his “friends”. Allen say he was with friends. Friends being more that one friend and Allen. 3. There is no building on Elm Street near the Stemmons sign that has windows two stories or more above. There simply is no building on Elm Street except the monument or Pergola structures. 4. The assumption that a 14 year old boy would be confused as to where he was at during the assassination is just that, an assumption. 5. Allen Smith is clear enough, and not confused, to state where he was, what he saw, and what he felt in great detail.

Mark, There's a couple of things here to make comment on. I agree Bronson and Moorman show pretty much the same thing. That is there is a large gap of space in what I call Mannikin Row in the Zapruder film. You say this is due to camera angles from where Zapruder is at. What about the angles of Bronson and Moorman? They are at different angles. I really don't see how this can be due to camera angles. (one can't really really on the Moorman photo. There were no 50+ feet tall trees in Dealey Plaza on Nov., 22, 1963. Then there is Willis and Betzner to consider. They too are from different camera angles, but show basically what Zapruder shows from the other side of the street. Betzner shows what Zapruder shows. No gaps or Spaces in the area between the Stemmons sign and the lammpost. The Stemmons sign is behind the woman with the blue scarf. Willis is almost a complete reversal of Zapruder. The woman with the blue scarf is almost covered by the sign as shown in Zapruder. There are no gaps or spaces in the line between the Stemmons sign and the lamppost.

Mark, Who would you consider as a reliable witness? Is it someone in authority? Someone whose statement has been verified by other witnesses? Witnesses who say things that match the Zapruder film or other films and photos? Or, witnesses that do not say things that match the Zapruder film or other films and photos? Where would you place a shot a Z 160? At about the middle of the TSBD? Or at the SW corner of the TSBD? Past the TSBD? At the R L Thornton sign? At the Stemmons sign? David Josephs says a shot at Z 190 would be approximately at the SW corner of the TSBD. He looked at Chris Davidson's Swan Song math and said that concurs. I'm sure one or two of those excellent fellows will correct me if I got that wrong due to bad memory.

Thanks Mark , I didn't know this.

Richard, I said the headshot was lucky and not that they didn't attempt a head shot. What more dramatic expression could the assassins have said then a headshot. Here is what all the plans and thinking of President Kennedy are ultimately worth exploding out of his head. Think about the first point you made. The expert snipers mentioned (professional assassins) could not repeat the shooting of Oswald which includes the headshot. Those that claimed they repeated Oswald's shooting had a great deal of training and practice before hand, improved weapons, and larger targets at shorter range and elevation.

Jean, The WC did claim that Oswald fired 3 shots. Nobody in Dealey Plaza had a stop watch on it. The time you give is I think based on how long it takes to operate a Carcano rifle and fire 3 shots. It really doesn't matter how many seconds. That was not the point that Jim DiEungenio was making. He was saying that Oswald was incapable of making the shots that he allegedly fired and murdered the President. DiEugenio's point was that even experts such as the famous Carlos Hatchcock, the most famous of the Viet Nam War snipers, said he could not do it. And, it has not been replicated contrary to what others may say. As far as debate, I don't much care for that either. I state what I think and folks can either reject it or accept. I'm not going to try and punish someone if they disagree or try to talk them into something at all. If there is any validity in what I speak about others will note it and if not they will ignore, or let you know about what they think. Mr. James Gordon has made the Forum at better place to be to express your thoughts. New folks should feel free to express their thoughts as they wish.

Thanks to Jim DiEugenio for bringing this up again. It should be brought up from time to time to remind people what a difficult bit of shooting that was. Hasn't been replicated as far as I am concerned. No one has done that cold as allegedly Oswald did. Any one saying otherwise needs to look at those replication attempts again as Mr. DiEungenio has pointed out. Joe Bauer makes a good point. The head shot in my opinion was a luck shot. Kennedy's head wound was done by luck rather than skill. I do have to make one remark contrary to Joe's thinking. A football field away is as close as up close at say 50 or 90 feet. To a high powered rifle 90 yards is not a great distance. From any building or place in Dealey Plaza to just under the Triple Underpass is not a great distance for an expert marksman scoped or unscoped. I think we need to understand Marine Corps training. Marines are first and foremost combat infantrymen. They may be assigned another job after training such as radar operator, but they are still required to keep up their combat training skills. At the beginning a Marine undergoes about 2 months of basic infantry training and then an other 2months or so of advanced training. When he is assigned to a line company there is further training to do. It's the same with the army infantry. As I recall we were either operational or training in the army infantry. With that being said ordinary combat infantryman training is not sufficient to pull off that kind of shooting as it is described in the Warren Commission Conspiracy. What about advanced, specialized training like sniper school and actual on the job training as in doing the job of a sniper. Carlos Hathcock and other snipers have pointed out. They couldn't do it. From my military experience shooting at a moving target with a scoped weapon was never considered. Automatic weapons were the right tools for disposing a moving target. A 3 man team with automatic weapons is devastating in an ambush. As a last resort using a semi-automatic weapon with a large magazine would do as a last resort. Automatic or semi-automatic? weapons in Dealey Plaza were not used so multiple shooters, or shooting teams from different angles has nearly the same effect. We were taught in basic training that one should always shoot at the torso. A head hot was usaully and most often a miss. A shot in the torso, due to hydrostatic shock, was always lethal or incapacitating with a high powered weapon. R. Lee Emery showed on one of his shows shooting a dressed turkey with a high powered weapon. The meat was ripped into long strips and shredded into a lethal wound. Ambushing the enemy is a practical and practiced skill taught in the infantry. It was always stressed to use more than one shooter. A military sniper is generally not a lone individual. There are locators, communication and security people. It is generally a two or 3 man team.

Thanks David, CE875 is a reconstruction based on the Zapruder film? What was it based on? And, was done by the FBI? What actual photo material did they use to make their determinations? CE875 looks like a reconstruction based upon he assumptions of the makers. How accurate is it? This has been debated before I would assume several times? From 2015 Robert Prudhomme says: Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) Hi Brad …I believe, for the last 50 years, a lot of researchers have relied upon the WC for ballistics information in this case, instead of doing the work and figuring things out for themselves, and have only succeeded in pushing the original lies from the FBI. J. Edgar and the boys appear to be the main cover up agency for the WC. This Hughes frame appears to have the p. limo headed directly to Roy Truly. The wide turn is probably the only true thing Roy Truly said, truly. It's here that Toni Glover said she saw the president's head explode. Tina Turner's film says different. Tina said the p. limo rounded the corner and she heard a sound. Rosemary Willis said she heard a shot when the p. limo was making the turn onto Elm. It's the battle of the 3 pre-teen girls and the Towner film.

The single greatest cover up involving the motorcade is the turn onto Elm Street from Houston Street and what happened in front of the TSBD. If what happened there was truly known then it would crumble the Warren Commission Conspiracy into dust. Micro-dust. Atomized. Thanks to Marky Tyler I now have 92 witnesses who said that shooting occurred in front of the TSBD, at the intersection of Elm and Houston, and with a small number saying shooting occurred on Main Street and at the Main and Houston Street intersection. There are 8 (if my memory is correct) films that become distorted or skip the area of the Court Records Building/intersection of Elm and Houston. There is the well known Zapruder Gap that covers the p. limo in that area and was not turned off according to Zapruder. Josephs does a fine job of explaining that. There is the Towner film, an unbelievable sham. Many of the photos in this area show signs of alteration such as Altgens 6. The Towner film does not show the same thing as Altgens 6 blatantly. Some films like Muchmore and Hughes do not show the crowds in the eastern crosswalk and northern crosswalk of the intersection of Elm and Houston Street that others do. Jack White once compared Altgens 5 and the Zapruder film's versions of the eastern crosswalk and declared not a single person was the same. 92 witnesses say something happened there. There are many more that say the same thing except they have "immediately past" and "just after" the p. limo went by the TSBD and shots were heard. IMO, you guys are on to something. Keep up the good work.

David, Is there a document or documents somewhere that list the various stations such as position A and any others such as station 7 or position 7 or whatever they are numbered.

Are you saying this is an altered scene?

It is not the first time Robert Oswald had problems remembering dates and events.

Thanks Chris, For another neat and interesting gif demonstration. I think I answered my question a couple of hours later. As much as I wanted that to be camera flash bulb, one has to go with reality. A camera flash would be more diffuse and scattered while that lightened circle had to be something else. As far as the object in PM's hands, your correct. It is far to vague to actually make a call. It could be a camera, coffee cup, a coke, etc. I'm left with it looking like a camera due to PM holding it close to his face with two hands. If it was a camera I could link it to the Prayer Man/Oswald figure on Elm Street by the western end of the TSBD taking photos as the p. limo passed by that one can see in the John Martin film. If that linkage was made it would really screw things up. It would give you 3 Oswalds. And, nobody, including myself, would believe that. You would have the PM figure on Elm St. taking photos as the p. limo goes by and then run to the door way of the TSBD before Marion Baker and become the PM in Darnell/Couch, a Doorway figure in Altgens 6 made up of somebody (Oswald?) and a Billy Lovelady composite who maybe goes up to the 2nd floor. Then we have the Oswald on the 6th floor who walks down the steps after the assassination and meets Truly and Baker at the 3rd or 4th floor. Way to many Oswalds when only two can be seen at the TSBD when one leaves in a Rambler and another takes a bus. One could cut out an Oswald if you said the the figure on the 3rd or 4th floor was someone else. And, that the 6th floor Oswald really came down to the doorway prior to the assassination and was out front with Bill Shelley. And, from there walk up to the 2nd floor for a coke. Way to much speculation going on here.

Chris, I have looked at your .gif and have taken out certain frames that are in a rough sequence: It looks like PM has a camera that has flashed. I would like to get your opinion on that. Is there something going on here that explains the circles of light as something other than a camera? I have thought for years that PM has a camera in his hands rather than a coke or some other object. OBTW, It does look like a woman's face anthropomorphically speaking:

Ron, Operating a lathe probably came from Peter Vronsky in 1992. Vronsky misuses the word "regulator". His version is that Oswald was a lathe operator. Actually, the word regulator means supervisor. Oswald was a supervisor at the Experimential Shop where new products were made. His pay was equivalent to the plant manager. What was he there to make into a new product. Radar equipment to track the U2 most likely.

Richard, There is a lot of fascinating work Jim, John K, myself and others did on the Tippit phone call in this thread. We improved information on the Tippit phone call from what others had done in the past. Still we didn't get to where we wanted to go.

Don't know whether this is helpful. A slightly better gif?

Oswald's language abilities are a mystery that we haven't solved today. The mystery of Oswald in Russia can be brought out of the dark if one considers the question which Oswald was most familiar with secret intelligence gained in the Marines and which Oswald was the most competent in mechanical and electrical concepts and devices. These photos probably haven't been seen in some time. They come from Peter Vronsky in 1992. This was the home of Oswald the "regulator". The next photo shows the place from a different view. This is probably the same wall. If you look closely at both photos they are made of irregular bricks. They were probably formed from brick rubble from bombing during WW11. The inside of the experimental shop looked like this. Not much to look at by today's standards, but this was in the slide rule era of science. Vronsky misuses the word regulator. A regulator was not a machine operator such as a lathe technician. Regulators were supervisors. That's why Oswald was paid as much as the factory manager. It is because he was a high ranking official on par with the factory manager. He was sent to Minsk, which was not an out of the way place, but the leading Russian tech factory for radio and TV devices. Here is where new products were invented. Lee Oswald was a supervisor, not a shop technician. It was Lee Oswald who worked in Aircraft Maintenance and Repair in the fall of 1956. It was Lee Oswald who was in contact for about 1 1/2 years with the Atsugi U2 ground and flight crews. It was Lee Oswald who was sent to many top-secret US bases in the Orient and the US. All of these bases dealt with the U2 and radar. It was Harvey who spent little time in the service working with these things. It was Harvey who was said to not be able to drive. It was Harvey who would not be able to work in this experimental machine shop environment.

Shushkevich was just tutoring Oswald because he was a nice guy? He didn't make reports to the KGB on Oswald's language instructions? Agent or informer or snitch? Is it the same thing? Belarus's first post-Soviet leader, Stanislau Shushkevich, taught Lee Harvey Oswald Russian during the latter's residency in Minsk. Interesting. I would still like to get your answer on whether anyone that you know of conducted tests on the language comparison of the Oswald or Oswalds in the Titovets tapes? I don't know of any and have been searching the internet for that question. There is another question that I would like to get your response. Did the KGB interrogate Oswald? Some say yes, some say no. There are two periods of time early on that Oswald doesn't say much for or about. Oswald, if I am remembering correctly, does not mention an interrogation. These are: Nov- 2-15 Days of utter loneliness. I refuse all reports phone calls. I remain in my room; I am racked with dysentery. Nov 17 - Dec. 30 I have bought myself two self-teaching Russian Language Books. I force myself to study 8 hours a day. I sit in my room and read and memorize words. All meals I take in my room. Rima arranged that. It is very cold on the streets, so I rarely go outside at all. For this month and a-half, I see no one, speak to no-one, except every now and then Rima, who calls the ministry about me... That's almost two months where not much is said by Oswald about what he was doing, his contacts and events. The Nov 18- Dec 30 period is most interesting. Another interesting thing about Oswald is how much money he had to spend in Russia. From his diary, he said he didn't pay his hotel bill, but told the management he would get money from the US. Doesn't sound like good hotel policy. Could be the Russians were helping out? I often walk down strange what if alleys and byways. What if American intelligence and Soviet intelligence were in cooperation in getting Oswald, the defector, into the Soviet Union for intel purposes? The one I am thinking most of is the U2. Oswald was as close to an expert on it as any with his background.