John Butler

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sorry, Mark! But sometimes humour is appropriate.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's better to laugh at the far-out stuff than have the assassination itself turned into a subject of ridicule in the minds of any rational outsiders who happen to visit this forum.

I don't believe you are humorous at all.  I believe you are dead serious in countering the arguments of people you disagree with.  Instead of humor your writings are more in tune with other things, perhaps those listed below.

Goad Opponents

Taunt your opponents. Draw them into emotional responses. Make them lose their cool and become less coherent. Then focus on how “sensitive they are to criticism.”

Shoot the Messenger

Label your opponents “kooks,” “right-wing,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “terrorists,” “conspiracy buffs,” “radicals,” “militias,” “racists,” “religious fanatics,” “sexual deviants,” and so forth. This makes others shrink from supporting you out of fear of gaining the same label.

Change the Subject

Find a way to sidetrack the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic, and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Quote Anti-Conspiracy Experts

Depending on the situation, you may find it useful to point out that people have a psychological need to believe in conspiracy. A number of people — psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and journalists — have written books and articles on this theme. And some even have shown that humans are hard-wired to find connections between events that do not exist.

Deny, Deny, Deny

No matter what evidence is offered, deny it has any relevance, credibility, proof, or logic. No matter what expert is named, deny his or her authority. Deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Deny that witnesses are reliable.

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

•  

 

We can see in the top photo that Sitzman's clothing is light colored. But we see no light colored clothing at all (which would be a light gray in a B&W picture) in Jack White's demo. Therefore we know that she is NOT in front of Zapruder. The top photo shows that Zapruder is wearing dark clothing, which is what we see in White's demo. Which again is consistent with Zapruder standing in front of Sitzman.

In fact, both photos show Zapruder standing closer to the road (and in front of Sitzman) where Kennedy was shot in the head. They appear side-by-side in the Jack White demo only because we are viewing them from the side instead of the front.

I'm not sure what is making what looks like two women's legs in White's demo. But certainly they are not women's legs.

 

If you look closely at the shape of the pedestal, Sitzman's feet are closer to the front of the pedestal than Zapruder's feet.  That can be seen in any of the examples posted.  

On 4/24/2022 at 4:18 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm genuinely puzzled why anyone should think the car's turn on Elm Street was evidence of conspiracy. No-one has explained what was so incriminating that it necessitated altering a home movie.

Sandy,

This should help with that editor problem.  It is Jeremy's unanswerable question tactic.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

John,

I did not write that, Jeremy did. Please remove my name from it.

 

Sorry,

It is the editor that does that when quoting.  I will take care of that right away.

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is typical of the kind of stuff Jack used to present that would quickly get shot down. The outline of Sitzman's skirt has been added to suggest she was in front of Zapruder. But that's just in his head. The image is too blurry. Zapruder could very well be in front and to the side of her. 

Here they are in Willis. 

This is real blurry after several mags.  But, it does show Sitzman first on the pedestal just as it does in Speer's example.

40 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

Jeremy, your response unfortunately tells me that you do not research/study/seek truth in earnest.  You simply look for confirmation of your preconceived convictions.  You then cite these confirmations which are acceptable to you because they are within the mainstream of thought.  If the majority believes it, it must be true, right?  More often than not your responses contain none of the proof you ask of those who question you. 

On this question, I will not take your bait and try to create derision in place of discussion.  I read and process most all postings on this forum seeking information.  My simple rule is:  1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”  I presume that you will be familiar with where this comes from and it will allow you to further categorize me into one of your "bins".  In order to separate/divide people, you must do this.  My best to you.  I will continue to read and study posts on the forum to accumulate new information, opinions and ideas.  I hope you will as well.  Just stop grading everyone else by your scale and then denigrating them when they don't measure up (we all have opinions & scales).  Trying to make someone else's ideas small does not make yours LARGE (or correct).  Now, lets get back on topic and quit commenting on each other.

ditto.

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

And you think you are a reliable judge of people?

BTW, where is your proof that Horne is unreliable?

 

In his vast, but one-sided imagination and rhetoric.  And, with a few ad hominems thrown in for good measure.  If he is not criticizing someone, he is unhappy.

He has absolutely no proof that Doug Horne is unreliable other than his outrageous claim.  

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

• The size of Minox cameras changed from model to model. The bottom-most model shown here is the Minox Riga, and the one to its left is the Minox A.
  
  
  
  These two models are the smallest cameras ever manufactured by Minox. The can be so small because they do not include a built-in light meter -- an external one must be used. They must be "closed" before they will fit in their case, and closing them will make them smaller. I think that the object in the DPD photo is shorter than Minox cameras we see on the internet because the one in the DPD photo is an older model (Riga or A) and is closed.
• That "seam" on the side of the object could just be some tiny print.
• If the camera is flipped over, we would see no dials or lens.

Sandy,

I will add these versions to your types:

There is another kind that I owned when I was in Korea in 1967-1968.  I bought it at a "kimchi" shop.  These were small shops with limited things to sell.  What a Minox camera was doing there I have no idea.  Well, except the Koreans were legendary thieves and rumored to be able to steal anything.  It probably came from 2nd ID intelligence.  I believe these were the same people who kept Oswald's files.

The camera I had was completely featureless.  It appeared to be of brushed aluminum.  It was like the Minox EC and had to be opened to get at the controls.  I bought film for it at the PX.  After I did that the camera vanished from my locked wall locker.  Here's a pic showing from Dec. 1967 showing where I bought the camera.  Frankie's Store in Chang Pa Ri.  It was rumored if you had the money you could buy anything there.

This photo was taken with a Minox camera.  The photography is ok, but the development was not great since I had never developed photos before.  It was a good camera for photographing anything.

Everything in the 2nd division area looked pretty much like this.  No permanent structures could be built since they would be destroyed if there was an invasion by North Korea.    

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

This is typical of the kind of stuff Jack used to present that would quickly get shot down.

The waltz expression concerns their movement on the area they were standing on.  Also, in Jack's example it is not the skirt that is important, but the legs are in front of Zapruder.  Unless one suggests Zapruder had women's legs.  The second example shows basically the same thing seen from a different, perspective angle.

15 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

This discussion has gotten somewhat off topic, but I have no problem with that.  I enjoy reading all the lively arguments on this site.  I think we can put the original question to bed, though.  There is no Minox camera in the subject photo.  The question, as it has been from the very beginning, is not its presence, but why is it absent.  There are multiple DPD personnel who claim it was there, there is also paperwork stating it is there, and there are check marks on listings that say it was there AND transferred to the hands of the FBI.  This is evidence in a murder case (possibly the murder of the century), not someone standing on the sidewalk and witnessing a random event which they had no idea was going to happen and then trying to testify what they saw.  The only inconsistency I see in this is the FBI claim (and the photo now in evidence).  I believe there was information that MORE than one photo was taken of the evidence.  I don't like to speculate as it is not generally beneficial in a world of facts.  If multiple pictures were taken and the camera was simply picked up momentarily for examination by someone, it might explain its absence.  Nothing would have been thought of as amiss if they knew there were other photos already taken (just a thought).

Very well said.

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

f you are basing your conclusion only on the number of witnesses, your conclusion must be that the car didn't stop.

If you are basing your conclusion on the number of witnesses combined with the film evidence, your conclusion must also be that the car didn't stop.

Here's the balance of the evidence about the supposed car-stop:

• Yes, the car stopped: supported by a minority of witness statements but no home movies.
• No, the car didn't stop: supported by a majority of the relevant witness statements and no fewer than four home movies.

What one needs to consider here is reasonable doubt.  Were there enough reasonable, corroborated witnesses to establish reasonable doubt in the vehicle stop notion.  

Myself, I have never considered the p. limo stop or slow down significant except in the notion that perhaps the driver was a co-conspirator ensuring a good shot at the president.  And, I know I will be called out for this.  I don't believe anything we see in the Z film after Z frame 133 actually happened as portrayed on lower Elm Street.

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I just re watched the documentary in my first post and took a page of notes.  I don't see how anyone can watch it objectively and not conclude the assassination involved people in the highest level of our government, and, that the Zapruder film was altered by the CIA at their facility at Hawkeye Works in Rochester New York (not New York City as I said in the first post).

Ron,

I have the same conclusions as you after watching various documentaries on this subject over the years.  Even rewatching them through the years.

All of the things that you note I have also seen.  However, when dealing folks like Jeremy B. you will find he is unconvinced by solid reasoning and adequate proof. 

I have posted a few cointelpro tactics.  You might consider those when someone denigrates your work and understand that you are still right. 

10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I read the article on the limo stop and witness accounts. I am trying to be fair but there are some points that I think are a stretch.  In general witnesses can be unreliable but when they tell a consistent story it is likely correct. The well known account of a classroom experiment in which students witnessed an unexpected event then gave their accounts right afterwards showed 30% of them got the facts wrong. This is cited as proof we can't trust witness accounts. But 70% got it right and that is where corroborating testimony becomes valuable.

You might add to this that witness testimony need to be refuted by direct evidence or other testimony.  Even if that testimony is wrong.  If it can't be proven wrong that it will stand.

That's a good point above.

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

... and ignores the rest.

That is the definition of an ideologue. You can't reason with an ideologue.

 

Sandy,

Do you see any of this from certain people on the Forum:

"Avoid, Avoid, Avoid

Avoid discussing issues head-on. Rather, get your point across by implying it. Avoid the subject of proof or references documenting your own position.

Deny, Deny, Deny

No matter what evidence is offered, deny it has any relevance, credibility, proof, or logic. No matter what expert is named, deny his or her authority. Deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Deny that witnesses are reliable. Cite studies on eyewitness credibility.

Present False Evidence

Whenever possible, manufacture new “facts” to conflict with opponent presentations.

Invoke Authority

Associate yourself with authority, but avoid specifically discussing your credentials, while implying your authority and expertise. Present your argument with “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows.” Then simply dismiss your opponent’s comments without demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

Quote Anti-Conspiracy Experts

Depending on the situation, you may find it useful to point out that people have a psychological need to believe in conspiracy. A number of people — psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and journalists — have written books and articles on this theme. And some even have shown that humans are hard-wired to find connections between events that do not exist. You should familiarize yourself with this literature, and have a ready arsenal of quotes to post.

Fit Facts to Suit Alternate Conclusions

Think like the attorney who manages to make someone else look guilty of the crime his client is charged with — using the same evidence.

Label it a “Wild Rumor”

Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ”wild rumor.”

Change the Subject

Find a way to sidetrack the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic, and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Demand Impossible Proof

No matter what evidence is presented, raise the bar. Demand the kind of proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by.

Demand Complete Solutions

Avoid issues by requiring opponents to solve every detail of the issue.

Label it “An Enigma with No Solution”

Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes people to lose interest.

Grasp at Straw Men

Select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way that appears to debunk all the charges, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Become Indignant

Focus on side issues which can be used to suggest your opponent is critical of some sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit. For example, if your opponent criticizes the Israeli government, call him or her an “antisemite.”

Hit and Run

Briefly attack your opponent — then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon to make new accusations — and never answer any subsequent response.

Goad Opponents

Taunt your opponents. Draw them into emotional responses. Make them lose their cool and become less coherent. Then focus on how “sensitive they are to criticism.”

Question Motives

Twist or amplify any fact which could be used to imply your opponent operates out of a hidden agenda or bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Shoot the Messenger

Label your opponents “kooks,” “right-wing,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “terrorists,” “conspiracy buffs,” “radicals,” “militias,” “racists,” “religious fanatics,” “sexual deviants,” and so forth. This makes others shrink from supporting you out of fear of gaining the same label.

Play the Victim

Select a minor error of your own that was among many, larger problems pointed out by your opponent. Then take the “high road and “confess” your “honest mistake, discovered in hindsight.” Blame it on bad sources. Then accuse your opponent of blowing it all out of proportion and implying worse things which “just aren’t so.” Later, others can reinforce this on your behalf, and “call for an end to the nonsense.” You have already “done the right thing.” This can garner respect, even sympathy, for “’owning up” to your mistake. And in the meantime, all of your opponent’s proof of the more serious issues will be discarded. People will be tired of the subject and will want to move on.

Dirtiest Trick of All, So Far

There is yet another tactic that seems to be in widespread use in forums on the JFK assassination, and it is the ultimate con: Disinformants earn trust by establishing themselves as conspiracy theorists. They often “prove” it by recycling, then repackaging, the stolen work of others. (Since the information is already out there in the ether, they are not really damaging the cover-up.) Or they may present a new theory,one that sounds good but is actually nonsense.

Once established, they abuse this undeserved trust in many ways, including the following: (a) they discredit the work of real researchers, mostly on their say so, rather than providing proof; (b) they attack the reliability of critical eye-witnesses; and (c) they support key points of the official narrative — points not related to their “own” work. For example, while presenting a theory on JFK’s head wound, they may parenthetically slip in support for the single bullet theory, an issue that does not involve the head.

Many of these people are depressingly mediocre in intellect, and are not very good at what they do in any arena. Their dirty work in the JFK arena is also not very good, and frequently arouses suspicion in other researchers, and even in members of the general public. Often, they contrast themselves with those who openly defend the official story, using the tactics described above. They say, “I’m not a spook. That’s a spook!” And they fiercely support each other, using their large numbers to gang up on their accusers, trying to intimidate them, or to just exhaust them with endless confrontation. In the forums they control, they will have the last word."

David,

Thanks for reminding me about cointelpro tactics.  If other folks are like me, I have let those things slip from my mind.  To make up, I have posted a few.  I couldn't find yours (I will search again), but these that I have posted should be adequate.

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

You can't be serious! It's "highly plausible" that there were two Oswalds running around inside the book depository?

Jeremy,

Have you read witness testimony concerning how Oswald left the TSBD?  There are two different accounts of how that happened.

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Contrary to Jim's and the Warren Commission's account, Oswald almost certainly was not on the sixth floor, shooting at JFK.

I think we are getting to Jeremy on "conspiracy stuff".  Nah.  It is just another cointelpro.

"There is yet another tactic that seems to be in widespread use in forums on the JFK assassination, and it is the ultimate con: Disinformants earn trust by establishing themselves as conspiracy theorists. They often “prove” it by recycling, then repackaging, the stolen work of others. (Since the information is already out there in the ether, they are not really damaging the cover-up.) Or they may present a new theory,one that sounds good but is actually nonsense."

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What's highly plausible is that the one and only Oswald's movements during the half hour or so until the assassination were deliberately misrepresented by the Warren Commission, and that his alibi was deliberately misrepresented in the FBI's reports of his interrogations:

• http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi
• http://www.prayer-man.com/then-went-outside-to-watch-p-parade/

More of the same.

I believe Jeremy B. is in denial without proof or evidence to support his positions.  He has to resort to the the tactics listed above to make his point.  Furthermore, he is ......

OBTW, how do you get away saying such things?  I really would like to know so I can do it too.

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

I'm genuinely puzzled why anyone should think the car's turn on Elm Street was evidence of conspiracy. No-one has explained what was so incriminating that it necessitated altering a home movie.

John Butler writes:

In real life, Abraham Zapruder filmed the Zapruder film.

In Jack White world, it was probably Stanley Kubrick, who, as we all know, went on to do something similar in the Arizona desert with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.

In John Butler world, I dread to think who filmed the Zapruder film. Betty Oliver, perhaps. Or the same team of Martian doppelganger lizard people who were responsible for faking all the other home movies and photos from Dealey Plaza.

More cointelpro?

"Grasp at Straw Men

Select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way that appears to debunk all the charges, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Become Indignant

Focus on side issues which can be used to suggest your opponent is critical of some sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit. For example, if your opponent criticizes the Israeli government, call him or her an “antisemite.”

Hit and Run

Briefly attack your opponent — then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon to make new accusations — and never answer any subsequent response.

Goad Opponents

Taunt your opponents. Draw them into emotional responses. Make them lose their cool and become less coherent. Then focus on how “sensitive they are to criticism.”

Question Motives

Twist or amplify any fact which could be used to imply your opponent operates out of a hidden agenda or bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Shoot the Messenger

Label your opponents “kooks,” “right-wing,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “terrorists,” “conspiracy buffs,” “radicals,” “militias,” “racists,” “religious fanatics,” “sexual deviants,” and so forth. This makes others shrink from supporting you out of fear of gaining the same label."

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler writes:

On the contrary, all John has to do is provide evidence to justify his claim. Here it is:

Why is John so reluctant to justify his claim? I've asked him three times now, and he still hasn't come up with anything.

What do we see in the Zapruder film that supports the lone-gunman theory?

I can't answer the unanswerable question.

"Demand Impossible Proof

No matter what evidence is presented, raise the bar. Demand the kind of proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by."

David,

The last statement on this image I thought was really fascinating, but likely to be undoable.

Altogether great info and to the point.

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jeremy somehow missed this in Ron's first post.

It is my opinion, and I reluctantly say it in fear of the censors, that Jeremy sees only what he wants to see.

15 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

who are you to demand that anyone needs to demonstrate any of the three claims?

Well, Jeremy is the all wise and all knowing fellow on the assassination.  He now claims he is a conspiracy theorist saying that the Zapruder shows that and therefore there was no need to alter the film.

4 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Or as I call him…. ‘the lumpy wristed Carousel wife stripping goldigging son BYP imposter.’

Or LWCWSGSBYPI to make it easier to remember.

 

Don't forget Mandarin the assassin.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

According to Jim Marrs, Haire did not discover for nearly 25 years that Oswald had been escorted from the front of the building. Haire clearly had little interest in a newsworthy event that happened right next to his place of work.

This implies that Haire did know and recognize Oswald, or an Oswald double at the back of the theater for 25 years.  As far as having little interest in a newsworthy event, Haire thought he saw the real thing in Oswald being escorted from the theater.  His Oswald was nearly identical to the Oswald taken from the front of the theater.  This is another reason I am changing my opinion on how close the resemblances of the two Oswalds was.  Of course, then there is the problem that a good many people have with facial recognition that needs to be considered.      

32 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

This is probably the weakest argument for alteration I've heard (well, apart from back-to-front cars and extra-long legs).

Another example of ignoring reality for the sake of one's arguments.