Mass Hysteria in Dealey Plaza

[Tony Krome]

46 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Hey, it Enrique Palazzo...

Oh wait, no its Milteer.

An LNer's perspective;

But the height of the spectator provided even more conclusive evidence:

The only available height record of Milteer gives his stature as 64 inches. This corresponds to about the seventh statural percentile of American males. That is, about 93 out of 100 adult American men would be taller than Milteer. Also, about 35 percent of adult American females would exceed Milteer's reported height. In contrast, the spectator alleged to be Milteer is taller than 4 of the 7 other males and all of the 16 females in the line of spectators shown in the motorcade photograph. Based upon Milteer's reported height, the probability of randomly selecting a group of Americans where so many are shorter than Milteer's reported height is .0000007. Moreover, an analysis based upon actual measurements of certain physical features shown in the photograph yields a height estimate for the spectator of about 70 inches — 6 inches taller than Milteer's reported stature. (HSCA Volume 6, pp. 242-257)

In short: the spectator wasn't Milteer. He didn't even particularly look like Milteer.

[Ron Bulman]

7 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

An LNer's perspective;

But the height of the spectator provided even more conclusive evidence:

The only available height record of Milteer gives his stature as 64 inches. This corresponds to about the seventh statural percentile of American males. That is, about 93 out of 100 adult American men would be taller than Milteer. Also, about 35 percent of adult American females would exceed Milteer's reported height. In contrast, the spectator alleged to be Milteer is taller than 4 of the 7 other males and all of the 16 females in the line of spectators shown in the motorcade photograph. Based upon Milteer's reported height, the probability of randomly selecting a group of Americans where so many are shorter than Milteer's reported height is .0000007. Moreover, an analysis based upon actual measurements of certain physical features shown in the photograph yields a height estimate for the spectator of about 70 inches — 6 inches taller than Milteer's reported stature. (HSCA Volume 6, pp. 242-257)

In short: the spectator wasn't Milteer. He didn't even particularly look like Milteer.

Then  there's the balding of the guy on the left.  While you can see the part in the dark thick hair of the one on the right. 

[John Butler]

I really didn’t want to come back into this argument with a bunch of LN’s who are ignorant of

various things such as word meaning or how photo alteration was done in the 1960’s and prior.

 

Jeremy,

 

af·ter (afÆtÃr, äfÆ-), prep.

1.   behind in place or position; following behind: men lining up one after the other.

2.   later in time than; in succession to; at the close of: Tell me after supper. Day after day he came to work late.

You are as bad as trollboy Ray Mitcham.  Even “immediately after” was not enough to satisfy him.  After needs to specify when after to be understandable.  If it doesn’t than you can assume it is directly after as in the definition above.

After in your case means down by the Stemmons sign or the Grassy Knoll.  These statements don’t say that.  Your cherry picking a few statements of 50 witnesses and really not providing yourself any ammunition for your contention.

I excluded those statements that say “after” and then specify where the vehicle was past the TSBD such as down by the Grassy Knoll.    

Ron and Tony,

I was aware of the reflection on the limo’s trunk.  What do you think of the reflections on the side of the vehicle?  Does that show the vehicle was there, also?  You fellows need to go back and review how photo editing was done in the 1960’s and prior.  I suggest paying attention to what David Healey has said on the subject.

The reflection on the back of the vehicle simply means that part of the vehicle was there.  It really doesn’t nullify using images from other locations to build a composite image.  Their mistake was the composite image they built was slight larger, hence the mismatch, than the original image when they did the final re-filming of the cut and paste image with the matte.

It is good to see who are LN’s however much they claim not to be and however loudly they claim to be honest JFK researchers.  When you can’t make your argument through false and misleading evidence it is always best to attack the other guy as mad or delusional.  Are you boys forgetting the forum rule about commenting on another’s mental state?  Where is Michael Clark on this?    

Edited April 4, 2019 by John Butler
grammar

[Ray Mitcham]

Butler, you accuse me of being a tr oll and of being a Lone Gunner (whatever that means). Shows again how wrong you are in your assumptions. If you can find any comment of mine anywhere where I support the Lone Nutter position, I will refrain from criticising your mistakes where and whenever they occur. As I know you won't be able to find any, I am quite safe in saying I shall continue to correct your many faux pas in the future. 

Still having problems with chasing shadows?

Edited April 4, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[David Andrews]

If Altgens 5 is altered, can we compare it to the Hughes film to determine any differences, and to explain why the photo (or the film?) is altered at that point on Houston Street?

[John Butler]

David,

The Marie Muchmore film is not a better comparison to Hughes if I am remembering correctly.  But, neither Hughes or Muchmore show much detail. The Altgens photo is superior.

There may be a couple of things.  The reflections on the sides of the limousine in Hughes and Muchmore may differ or a least they appear to differ from the reflections on the side of the limo in Altgens 5.  Hughes and Muchmore match and Altgens doesn't.

Another difference is the crowd down at the intersection of Elm and Houston on the east side near Officer Welcome Barrett.  Jack White first noticed that the crowd there differs from the crowd in the Zapruder film.  Jack said that not a one were the same. 

If you look at Hughes and Muchmore there are not as many people there near Welcome Barrett than what is seen in Altgens 5.  In Muchmore and Hughes there doesn't seem to be anybody behind Barrett.  But, that is difficult to see due to the vagueness of the imagery.

 

and,

When you compare a crop from Altgens 5 with a crop from Altgens 6 concerning Officer Barrett you will be hard pressed to find anyone that is the same.  We have a young black boy in one, Altgens 5, who is not in the other.  We have two young white boys that are in one, Altgens 6, and not in the other.  Actually there are two young black boys in Altgens 5 and not in the other.  Plenty of fellows in white shirts in one but, not in the other. 

Altgens 5 and Altgens 6 or just seconds apart and not even enough time for one crowd to vanish and another take its place.

There is a lady in a dark outfit that may appear to be the same in both photos.  But, the one in Altgens 6 is wearing a short jacket and the one in Altgens 5 is wearing a long coat.  They are not the same woman.

I have no evidence to say what went on just past the corner of Houston and Main after crossing the crosswalk.  I could speculate but, most folk don't like what I say based on evidence.  It will be interesting to see just how mad and deluded I am with this discussion.

Edited April 4, 2019 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

Altgens 6 shows the cop standing on at the North East corner of the junction between Houston and Elm. Altgens 5 shows the cop standing on the South East Corner. Different cops. Different locations.

Not very good at assessing photos are you, John?

Edited April 4, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[Cory Santos]

12 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

An LNer's perspective;

But the height of the spectator provided even more conclusive evidence:

The only available height record of Milteer gives his stature as 64 inches. This corresponds to about the seventh statural percentile of American males. That is, about 93 out of 100 adult American men would be taller than Milteer. Also, about 35 percent of adult American females would exceed Milteer's reported height. In contrast, the spectator alleged to be Milteer is taller than 4 of the 7 other males and all of the 16 females in the line of spectators shown in the motorcade photograph. Based upon Milteer's reported height, the probability of randomly selecting a group of Americans where so many are shorter than Milteer's reported height is .0000007. Moreover, an analysis based upon actual measurements of certain physical features shown in the photograph yields a height estimate for the spectator of about 70 inches — 6 inches taller than Milteer's reported stature. (HSCA Volume 6, pp. 242-257)

In short: the spectator wasn't Milteer. He didn't even particularly look like Milteer.

Your analysis, while interesting, still is not proof its not him.  Is it your research or did you read it somewhere?

[Tony Krome]

3 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Your analysis, while interesting, still is not proof its not him.  Is it your research or did you read it somewhere?

Not mine, that's from McAdams who attempts to debunk the claim. I think he resembles Milteer

[Joe Bauer]

13 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

 

I find enough similarities between the Dallas pic and the one of Milteer leaning against a tree to feel they could very well be the same person.

First:

They are both wearing glasses and the glasses on both men have a similar style and shape with exactly the same eye glass length top-to-bottom and with bottoms free of a rim.

Both pics show the glasses sitting upon their noses at the same level and no higher than their eyebrows.

Both men have similar face shapes and features. Square jaws, similar mouths and noses. Both men share the same skin tone and hair color. Their forearms seem very similar in shape, length, muscle tone, skin tone and even hair growth.

Both men seem close in age although the tree leaning Milteer may be younger at the time of that pic?

Both men have very similar builds and body shape.

Both pics show them wearing similar short sleeved shirts with a similar style and light color. They even look like the same shirt!

Obviously Milteer dressed this way.

And notice both men wearing belts and belts of similar style and color?

Similar shirt wearing style and even color, belt wearers with similar styles, eye glass wearers with similar styles and resting positions ... heck, even their ears match up!  These two guys absolutely do look very much alike.

The wind was blowing quite vigorously in Dallas on 11,22,1963. Check films that show flags waving noticeably and many men kept their hats on and women their head scarfs. Remember the heavily draped "Babushka Lady?"

Obviously the Dallas man wasn't a hat wearer and I'll guess Milteer wasn't either.

I must believe that the Miami police department ( and other agencies ) had more photos of Milteer.

The fact that they took him so seriously as a threat to JFK they went to a lot of effort to tape him using an informant (Willie Somersett) and after what they heard on those tapes Milteer must have shot even higher ( near the top? ) of their JFK threat list...or should have.

The lone height description of Milteer is 5 feet 4 inches? What source is that from?

Was there ever even a very minor effort to corroborate this height with other sources other than one?

Yes, the Dallas man looks to be 5 inches taller.

Milteer bragged to Willie Somerset that he was in Dallas on 11,22,1963.

Milteer was a serious person ( with money ) who carried out real and serious activities in his White Council agenda which included planned violence.

He drove often and long distances ( over several states in the South ) in this endeavor. He was based in Georgia but here he is in Miami just before JFK arrives there. He drove to D.C. for some nefarious reason before this ( documented. )

Diving to Dallas would easily fit his mobile activities profile.

Lastly, take a look at the faces of the other people around the Dallas man as JFK drives by. Notice every one of them is smiling except the Milteer look-a-like?

The Dallas Milteer looking fellow isn't just "not smiling."

He face is contorted with a look of absolute disdain, even hate!

 It's a very obvious, stark and disturbing contrast imo.

The photo of Milteer leaning against a tree is relaxed and smiling.

But after hearing Milteer's own words on the secret Miami recording where he talks of getting JFK with no qualms and even says "it's in the workings" clearly erases any doubt as to his murderous hate feelings toward JFK.

The hateful expression on the face of the Dallas Milteer look-a-like as JFK is approaching fits the real Milteer to a tee.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

When you compare a crop from Altgens 5 with a crop from Altgens 6 concerning Officer Barrett you will be hard pressed to find anyone that is the same.  We have a young black boy in one, Altgens 5, who is not in the other.  We have two young white boys that are in one, Altgens 6, and not in the other.  Actually there are two young black boys in Altgens 5 and not in the other.  Plenty of fellows in white shirts in one but, not in the other.

Ray Mitcham writes:

Quote

Altgens 6 shows the cop standing on at the North East corner of the junction between Houston and Elm. Altgens 5 shows the cop standing on the South East Corner. Different cops. Different locations.

Not very good at assessing photos are you, John?

How embarrassing! It's difficult to believe that anyone could be so stupid or deluded. No, he must be doing this deliberately. It's all a big wind-up, surely?

John Butler writes:

Quote

It will be interesting to see just how mad and deluded I am with this discussion.

I think you've given us the answer to that one.

[Ray Mitcham]

I look forward to his excuses, Jeremy.

But he'll accuse me yet again of trolling him, when all I do (for factual reasons, is constantly point out his errors.

[John Butler]

You two fellows need to check your vision, get glasses or better glasses, or at least look at the evidence.  I don't think you boys have looked at the evidence, maybe in a cursory way at best.  Two photos and two films put Officer Welcome Barrett in the intersection and not on either the northeast or southeast corner of the intersection of Houston and Elm.

1.  Altgens 5

2.  Altgens 6

3.  Marie Muchmore film

4.  Robert Hughes

and, the Tina Towner does show an officer on the southeast corner but it is not Welcome Barrett.  That particular officer is Edgar Smith.  Officer Barret is shown in the intersection where he said he was in his WC testimony.  That makes 6 sources including his testimony.  Learn to look at the evidence on hand not the evidence in your warped and deluded minds.

Stop your trolling activities and get a life.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0

16 minutes ago, John Butler said:

You two fellows need to check your vision, get glasses or better glasses, or at least look at the evidence.  I don't think you boys have looked at the evidence, maybe in a cursory way at best.  Two photos and two films put Officer Welcome Barrett in the intersection and not on either the northeast or southeast corner of the intersection of Houston and Elm.

1.  Altgens 5

2.  Altgens 6

3.  Marie Muchmore film

4.  Robert Hughes

and, the Tina Towner does show an officer on the southeast corner but it is not Welcome Barrett.  That particular officer is Edgar Smith.  Officer Barret is shown in the intersection where he said he was in his WC testimony.  That makes 6 sources including his testimony.  Learn to look at the evidence on hand not the evidence in your warped and deluded minds.

Stop your trolling activities and get a life.

 

Reply from Butler

"You two fellows need to check your vision, get glasses or better glasses, or at least look at the evidence.  I don't think you boys have looked at the evidence, maybe in a cursory way at best.  Two photos and two films put Officer Welcome Barrett in the intersection and not on either the northeast or southeast corner of the intersection of Houston and Elm."

 

At which intersection?  Where do you place him, John?

 

In Zapruder frame 84, this the cop shown in Altgens5 (Yellow arrowed)

 

 

Give up while your losing, John.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]