Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Hughes And The Cut Apart Policeman

Recommended Posts

Robert Hughes And The Cut Apart Policeman

And, other pecularities

Something must have happened at the intersection of Main and Houston.  Otherwise, if everything was innocent and above board why doctor photos and films showing the area of Main and Houston and later down the street at the Court Records Building.  There are now seven pieces of evidence involving the alteration of the visual record showing the presidential limousine passing through the intersection of Main and Houston and later down the street at the Court Records Building.

  • Altgens 5-  the front tires and other things

  • Marie Muchmore-  the flat headed, see through man, Phillip Willis

  • Elsie Dorman-  the alteration of the film using black paint and other techniques to distort and obscure

  • Patsy Paschal- skips the intersection in filming, also very dark and obscure, and the giant Jackie image on Main Street

  • John Martin-  the see through police helmet

  • 8 assassination films-  skip the events of the limousine passing through the area of the Court Records Building which is far too many for a coincidental occurrence

  • And, now Robert Hughes and the cut apart policeman


Why insert a policeman here?  What is being hidden?

There are some other odd things in Hughes.  We have already seen the Willis family in a Hughes frame that shows them in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

In the following Hughes frame we get to see the Ghost Train of Dealey Plaza.  The crowd appears to be moving in all directions but no one does for a period of about 50-60 frames or maybe 3 seconds.  Odd?  Maybe


DPD Officer J. C. White said he knew nothing of the assassination on Elm Street because a long, slow train passed through during the assassination.  Later others such as Officer J. W. Foster admitted to this train being there.  Lots of luck in trying to find a photo of this train.  Remember, Rosemary Willis’ testimony of the FBI keeping the Willis slides for years.  The train was edited out of the slides. Why?  What is being hidden?

And, for those folks who believe there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza you need to consider shooters outside of Dealey Plaza.  On North Houston Street there are buildings and a construction area that are just a step away as far as rifle distances are calculated.  This might help those counting shots that add up to more than the usual 3 heard.  Shots from that location would probably not be heard above the motorcade noise.  This might be a preferable explanation for unheard shots over suppressed or silenced rifle fire that doesn’t work very well.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


I think this high-quality Hughes frame, showing DPD Sgt. Harkness at the Main/Houston intersection, and reproduced here from Robin Unger's JFK Assassination Photo Gallery, clearly shows that that there is no "cut apart" policeman as you suggest.


Sgt Harkness - Robin JFK Ass Gallery.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


There is some new analysis of a super clear copy of the famous Tom Dillard photo of the TSBD posted at YouTube. If I post the link here, a large image of the video narrator's analysis video will appear that will be distracting to your thread. EF readers (and you) can quickly find the video at YouTube by typing into YouTube's search engine : Analyzing Dillard Image/ JFK Assassination. If the video poster has not corrected the loud volume problem at the video's intro section since I watched & downloaded the analysis video, be sure to lower your headphone volume until the narrator starts talking.

Upon studying the image of what appears to be LHO in the portion of the sniper's nest window next to where a rifle barrel was alleged to have been fired from, notice what appears to be a small camera in front of LHO's face.

If the image of LHO standing behind some boxes is genuine (I believe it is) & not a hoax, LHO was also filming someone or something during the assassination. His camera appears to be pointing south from the TSBD 6th floor window. Perhaps LHO was also filming what was apparently cut out of the films you mentioned.

I posted this info in another thread and a person I believe to be trolling quickly moved to kill interest in it.

Sincerely & Respectfully,

Brad Milch

PS: If the Dillard image of LHO in the sniper's nest window is genuine (I believe it is) & LHO was also filming during the assassination, it indicates to me that he went to visit Marina & his children on the Thursday before the JFK ambush to pick up his camera. His camera equipment may have been what was supposedly in the package Buell Westley Frazier claims LHO carried with him on the shared ride LHO participated in the morning of the JFK ambush. If I am not mistaken, a camera belonging to LHO was missing from the DPD or FBI inventory of his possessions post-assassination.

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Brad Milch said:

I posted this info in another thread and a person I believe to be trolling quickly moved to kill interest in it.

Alas, that is not true whatsoever. The other thread had nothing to do with photographs or the day of the assassination, so why Brad decided to post in it about a photo on the day of the assassination is, well, unkown really. And he directed his post directly to me and I responded, apparently responding to someone asking you a question is 'trolling' and unless one agrees 100% then they are put on 'ignore'. lol


here is the video link that Brad posted in the other thread if you are interested in it John. :) (btw, as Brad said in the other thread - " Possible Hearing Damage Warning! Turn your headphones volume way down during the beginning of the video! ")

A very interesting video indeed. ;)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thread had nothing to do with photographs or the day of the assassination, so why Brad decided to post in it about a photo on the day of the assassination is, well, unkown really. 

Brad did it because Brad tends to get things mixed up throughout this forum.  He seems to be a nice guy but on almost every post I've read from him, he twists and turns and is all over the place.  And he seems to forget that this is a forum, which basically means not everyone is going to agree with one's theories here.  Instead, when someone posts something to debate a thread (like Butler previously did when he thought films of the SW corner of Dealey were altered) he called people who disagreed with it "trolls."  Hence, you're a xxxxx too. It's human nature - when someone is not smart enough to defend an argument they revert to name calling.

Chris Scally is right about the cut policeman.  The split one is an anomaly that probably happened when the film was transferred.  It could also simply be a frame of video dropping during the transfer process. Here's an example of frame drop in video:


As for other shooters, yes, John, many people theorize there are shooters elsewhere than in Dealey Plaza proper. Dal-Tex is not literally the plaza so that can be an example of a shooter outside the plaza.

The construction site you mention is pretty far down from the plaza. The best way to look at it is with this 3D image of the plaza.  How could someone way down past the building be able to fire and hit the limo from that position?  It's not possible.


Edited by Michael Walton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yet, sir," he sniffed, "every man has access to good taste.  Every man and woman, sir."

Risking being a true cad, my favorite podcast begins with music I can't stand to listen to and always skip over - and that chap has his own recording studio and composes and plays his own music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yet, sir," he sniffed, "every man has access to good taste.  Every man and woman, sir."

Taste - and that too.  Years ago when I was producing a new-employee orientation video, I picked intro music that would be "mellow" - not too loud, not too "down," a bit vanilla (it was, after all a way to introduce new employees to the company). I played it back back to my colleague and he sniffed, "Hmm, I don't know about that...try this."  The piece he gave me was a raving, loud, almost metal-like rock and roll piece (of xxxx).  I KNEW this wasn't going to work with the client, but I humored him - "Sure, Art, sure.  Let's give it a whirl."

Needless to say, the client loved the video but the second they heard Art's music, they gave me a WTF look, like "You put the video together but picked THAT music?!" Art was conveniently out of the office that day.  I apologized profusely, played back the other piece for them, they smiled, I re-edited the video with the vanilla music, and the project was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Scally,

Your explanation of the Hughes frame won't fly.  Your frame is not the same as the frame I used.  Your frame was a successful photo edit.  My frame was not.  By the way, where is Sgt. Harkness' big yellow stripes? 

I understand that most people look at a photo and do not see it in detail.  But, you shouldn't have tried to run that gag by a person who is good at image comparison.

This is typical Unger nonsense.  Chris, see if you can get Unger to provide a high quality image of the same frame???  

The visual record is littered with this kind of thing.  As an example, one out of many, the Bell film shows no one on the railroad bridge and the presidential limousine approcaching it.  Just a few frames later the railroad bridge is populated with railroad workers and the limousine has barely moved in its direction to Parkland.

I theorize that:

1.  The frame I used was missed by the editors

2.  Knowing that one frame or so will not be see by someone watching the movie they left it in

3.  There was just to much work to do and skipping a frame lightened the huge burden of editing the Dealey Plaza material.  Mary Moorman's high heels is a good example of that

4.  They knowingly left it in to later prove fraud in the film,  that is if they were caught

The frame I showed is a later frame in the sequence and does show film editing clearly.  There is a "cut apart policeman".

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites


As always I appreciate your comments and will take the time to go through them thoroughly.  They are always informative.

I'm going to need to change my photo id.  They might see how long my arms really are and start accusing me of really being a xxxxx, not just a forum xxxxx. 

I can see someone has edited this post.  Sorry, I will not repeat the same mistake.  As an apologia, it is awful easy to fall into replying in the same ridiculous manner after being attacked.  Maybe this will help others to know there is a watchful eye and they will limit their comments to debate.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I theorize that...

And yet you didn't even bother to click on the You Tube video I posted above explaining dropped frames? It clearly shows that, like the cut policeman, it's a video artifact and nothing more.

Did you even bother to click on the other link showing that it was impossible to fire a shot from the construction site you mention as an "alternative" shooting site?

Your stubbornness in not reading opposing views and perhaps trying to learn something from them is almost as bad as your trolling here, John.

And yes, go ahead and run to the admins and report my horrible post here like you did the other time. As I mentioned, people who can't rightfully defend their theories either revert to name calling or running crying to the admins reporting "abuse."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've been waiting for your barbs and zings when I don't agree with your more reasonable posts.  Your behavior is predictable.  I don't read your posts seriously.  I have done that in the past and found them uninformative and unreliable. 

I've broken what I call the Unger response which I have been using with you.  I've decided not to respond to your attacks some time ago.  However, the running to the editors needs to stop, hence this reply. 



Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

It's human nature - when someone is not smart enough to defend an argument they revert to name calling.

Just like, when someone isn't smart enough to understand a theory, he might call a proponent of the theory "crazy."

Yes, I've seen that done. Many times.


Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...