Dealey Plaza Witness Survey

[John Butler]

Just now, John Butler said:

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 Moorman and Bronson in what I call Mannikin Row as seen 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.

 

[Joe Bauer]

6 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

The angle of trajectory for the head shot is tricky to judge due to the slightly leftward direction of JFK's head at frame Z312:

However, I do agree with you that a shot entering the rear centre of the skull would indeed exit the right side in this scenario (especially if it was fired from a different angle such as the Dal-Tex building).  This is also consistent with what you seen in the Zapruder frames Z314-Z320, and also the autopsy photos.

The Dal-Tex is also mentioned regarding JFK's back and throat wound because the trajectory seems too flat to come from a high position like the sixth floor TSBD window.

Ultimately what is required to sort this out is a high quality 3D rendering of Dealey Plaza that can explore each of these potential sniper locations and see which one is most consistent with the physical evidence.  Each of the 3D models I have seen over the years has been purely to bolster the sixth floor sniper scenario, thus wilfully ignoring all other lines of inquiry.  Perhaps even more grievous is that these models very often get the wound locations wrong such as the entrance wound being placed in the neck when it should be lower down on the back.  The other "trick" is where JFK is made to lean forward to raise the back wound above the throat wound, as the HSCA did:

 

None of these contortions are consistent with the photos and films such as the Croft photo just a few seconds before the wound was inflicted:

 

 

Just making general unscientific comments ( although common sense ones imo ) about bullet trajectory angles versus the 6th floor location because of the photos shown here that once again raise the same questions in my mind as they have for so many others for 57 years.

Over the years I have seen perhaps half a dozen Dealey Plaza bullet trajectory models ( using highly scientific computer analysis ) presented here and on other on-line venues. Many of which were extremely detailed and calculated by persons so beyond my academic level knowledge of geometry, physics and rifle and bullet science and bullet wound expertise I wouldn't even begin to contemplate or weigh in as to their validity.

It seems to me that most of them also showed that bullets fired from the TXSBD 6th floor snipers lair could do the injurious damage to JFK and Connally that they incurred.

I still can't legitimately argue or debate those computerized model findings in any scientific educated way.

Yet, my layman common sense eyes still see a problem with the 6th floor height and right back angle of trajectory versus the paths of bullet entry and exit into JFK, then Connally, then a baseball sized right rear impact obliteration hole in JFK's skull as described by every attending Parkland physician combined with skull fractures on the right side of the top of JFK's skull cap leading to a top right skull bone blowout just above JFK's right ear.

All damage to the top right and top right "side" of JFK's cranium. None to the left.

I agree that JFK's head is turned "slightly" to his left in Z312. It is also leaning down slightly as well. This JFK head turning position "might" help explain how a shot from the right back 6th floor TXSBD location could have come in from that right back angle and entered more squarely into JFK's upper skull to have some chance at creating all the damage on strictly the top right side of JFK's skull.

Yet, from looking at all the photos of building and window locations ( especially the TXSBD 6th floor one ) versus JFK's limo and body positions at the moment of bullet impact body and head injuries to JFK and Connally, including all of JFK's skull injuries on only the right side, even with JFK's slight head turns, I still can't help but strongly consider one or more shots coming into JFK's limo from another location.

I agree with you M. Tyler, that a new perspective of angles showing the "entire Dealey Plaza building and JFK limo location scene" in one shot ( an aerial view? ) with super imposed close ups of JFK's upper body and head movements and positions at the "exact moments" just before and during the bullet strikes ( as we see with your single 312 Z film frame ) may be more helpful in validating or invalidating the TXSBD 6th floor only conclusion.

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[John Butler]

23 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Sadly it's rather grainy, but I think you can just make out the two teenage boys on the left who appear in the Bronson photo just to the right of the umbrella man.  Alas with grainy or blurred photos it's not ideal for analysis.  It's rather irritating that it didn't come out as clearly as the other Moorman photos:

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 Tyler]

18 hours ago, John Butler said:

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.

Assessing witness reliability and quality is a very important question and worthy of an explanation.  In the case of this witness survey it is a very specific set of criteria relating to witness statements that have been made public.  The best quality witnesses tick these boxes:

• Gave statements in 1963 or 1964.
• Gave enough information to measure the timing of the first shot heard.
• Gave enough information to measure the timing of the last shot heard.
• The statements were clear and unambiguous.

For example if someone didn't put a statement onto the record until an interview in 1985, I regard this as less reliable due to human memory being fallible and open to suggestion from media reports.

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).

Corroboration with other witnesses, films and photos is useful but not necessary to regard a witness as good quality.  For the purposes of the survey I am judging the witness in terms of how much useful information they give regarding the shots.  Typically if a witness goes into some detail this probably means they were paying more attention and are therefore more reliable.

The films and photos that you mention are just the same as the human witnesses in the sense that they given us information, but not the full story.  For example the Zapruder film is useful for certain measuring purposes (e.g. the cars moving along Houston Street at the top of the frame), but it can be over-analysed such as with the so called jiggle analysis making us think that a shot was fired.  Maybe a jiggle was really Abraham Zapruder wobbling for some innocent reason on his pedestal?  I am especially skeptical of the early jiggles Z133-Z160 because he had only just started his camera and was setting the framing in those first two seconds.

18 hours ago, John Butler said:

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.

At frame Z190 the limo was roughly at the corner of the main TSBD building, and just moving in front of the walled extension area to the west.  For frame Z160 here is an animation frame which is my best estimate:

The limo looks to be perpendicular to roughly the final 2 windows of the TSBD out of 7 windows in total, which is in the final third of the building.

[Mark Tyler]

18 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Just making general unscientific comments ( although common sense ones imo ) about bullet trajectory angles versus the 6th floor location because of the photos shown here that once again raise the same questions in my mind as they have for so many others for 57 years.

Over the years I have seen perhaps half a dozen Dealey Plaza bullet trajectory models ( using highly scientific computer analysis ) presented here and on other on-line venues. Many of which were extremely detailed and calculated by persons so beyond my academic level knowledge of geometry, physics and rifle and bullet science and bullet wound expertise I wouldn't even begin to contemplate or weigh in as to their validity.

It seems to me that most of them also showed that bullets fired from the TXSBD 6th floor snipers lair could do the injurious damage to JFK and Connally that they incurred.

I still can't legitimately argue or debate those computerized model findings in any scientific educated way.

Yet, my layman common sense eyes still see a problem with the 6th floor height and right back angle of trajectory versus the paths of bullet entry and exit into JFK, then Connally, then a baseball sized right rear impact obliteration hole in JFK's skull as described by every attending Parkland physician combined with skull fractures on the right side of the top of JFK's skull cap leading to a top right skull bone blowout just above JFK's right ear.

All damage to the top right and top right "side" of JFK's cranium. None to the left.

I agree that JFK's head is turned "slightly" to his left in Z312. It is also leaning down slightly as well. This JFK head turning position "might" help explain how a shot from the right back 6th floor TXSBD location could have come in from that right back angle and entered more squarely into JFK's upper skull to have some chance at creating all the damage on strictly the top right side of JFK's skull.

Yet, from looking at all the photos of building and window locations ( especially the TXSBD 6th floor one ) versus JFK's limo and body positions at the moment of bullet impact body and head injuries to JFK and Connally, including all of JFK's skull injuries on only the right side, even with JFK's slight head turns, I still can't help but strongly consider one or more shots coming into JFK's limo from another location.

I agree with you M. Tyler, that a new perspective of angles showing the "entire Dealey Plaza building and JFK limo location scene" in one shot ( an aerial view? ) with super imposed close ups of JFK's upper body and head movements and positions at the "exact moments" just before and during the bullet strikes ( as we see with your single 312 Z film frame ) may be more helpful in validating or invalidating the TXSBD 6th floor only conclusion.

 

Hopefully a new 3D model will explore the angle of fire from all gunman locations (buildings from behind high or low, knoll, etc) and by doing so will not cherry pick a favoured scenario.  That way the strengths and weaknesses of all theories can be assessed relative to the physical evidence.

The other problem with past 3D animations is that their data was never published for peer review so we had to just assume they had created an accurate model.  Although these old 3D models always made nice TV presentations, the accuracy could not be verified independently.

[John Butler]

35 minutes ago, Mark Tyler said:

 The best quality witnesses tick these boxes:

• Gave statements in 1963 or 1964.
• Gave enough information to measure the timing of the first shot heard.
• Gave enough information to measure the timing of the last shot heard.
• The statements were clear and unambiguous.

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+. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by John Butler

[John Butler]

52 minutes ago, Mark Tyler said:

Assessing witness reliability and quality is a very important question and worthy of an explanation.  In the case of this witness survey it is a very specific set of criteria relating to witness statements that have been made public.  The best quality witnesses tick these boxes:

• Gave statements in 1963 or 1964.
• Gave enough information to measure the timing of the first shot heard.
• Gave enough information to measure the timing of the last shot heard.
• The statements were clear and unambiguous.

For example if someone didn't put a statement onto the record until an interview in 1985, I regard this as less reliable due to human memory being fallible and open to suggestion from media reports.

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).

Corroboration with other witnesses, films and photos is useful but not necessary to regard a witness as good quality.  For the purposes of the survey I am judging the witness in terms of how much useful information they give regarding the shots.  Typically if a witness goes into some detail this probably means they were paying more attention and are therefore more reliable.

The films and photos that you mention are just the same as the human witnesses in the sense that they given us information, but not the full story.  For example the Zapruder film is useful for certain measuring purposes (e.g. the cars moving along Houston Street at the top of the frame), but it can be over-analysed such as with the so called jiggle analysis making us think that a shot was fired.  Maybe a jiggle was really Abraham Zapruder wobbling for some innocent reason on his pedestal?  I am especially skeptical of the early jiggles Z133-Z160 because he had only just started his camera and was setting the framing in those first two seconds.

At frame Z190 the limo was roughly at the corner of the main TSBD building, and just moving in front of the walled extension area to the west.  For frame Z160 here is an animation frame which is my best estimate:

The limo looks to be perpendicular to roughly the final 2 windows of the TSBD out of 7 windows in total, which is in the final third of the building.

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.

[Mark Tyler]

18 hours ago, John Butler said:

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.

I think touring through the photos helps follow the two teenagers in the post assassination chaos.  At the beginning these two are in the Bronson photo (one with a light blue shirt showing):

After the shooting they retreat to the pergola shelter as shown in the Bothun photo:

Then Grant captures them head on, showing one with a light shirt exposed and the other zipped up (matching the Bronson photo, but sadly in black and white so we don't see the blue of the shirt):

Notice the white markings on the shoulders.  The first two Cabluck photos show the boys running across the knoll chasing Haygood:

The best quality image of all is Cancellare who gets the detail of the boys wearing spectacles:

Notice that boy A has slightly lighter trousers in these photos which matches the Bronson boy on the left:

Getting the verified identity of these two is another matter but this is the photographic record.  Allen Smith probably just made a mistake when he said "Main Street", as his description of being 10 feet away at the fatal shot means it was Elm Street and those two teenagers in the photos above will be the best match.

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

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.

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.

 

John,

This should fulfill some of your criteria.

Whether it was from a firecracker for diversion purposes or a shot, it appears someone tried to disguise it in the version Groden supplied.

The red x is Station# 2+99 = JFK within the limo at extant z133

The distance difference between the red x and Euins LOS line intersecting JFK within the limo is right at the gap between the end of Towner and the beginning of extant Z133.

Please note the jump in the Hughes' film approx 9 frames after the window flash appears.

in the context of Myers multi-sync project, it occurs less than a second before extant z133.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2X37WWQUAN0a0XvKOi1GjVJ7dypGY0H/view?usp=sharing

 

[Joe Bauer]

On 8/31/2020 at 6:58 AM, Mark Tyler said:

The angle of trajectory for the head shot is tricky to judge due to the slightly leftward direction of JFK's head at frame Z312:

 

 

 

 

The following slow motion version of the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK's skull cap being damaged on the right top ( you can see it bulging upward ) with the end result being a blowing out of skull bone on the extreme far right side just above JFK's right ear.

Without an accompanying panoramic view of the entire Dealey Plaza area behind JFK's limo "at the exact time of the JFK head shot" it's hard to figure exactly how far back "and to the left" the so-called 6th floor TXSBD shooter's window was relative to a straight line back behind JFK's limo.

The degree of this angle relative to JFK's limo position and JFK's upper body and head position at the time of impact is obviously the key piece of bullet trajectory origin evidence.

The so-called baseball sized entry wound hole in JFK's skull has always been depicted by Parkland Doctors in the right back side area and as everyone can see the missile continued through the top of JFK's skull culminating with that extreme right "side" blowout above JFK's right ear. 

How well has it been proven that the TXSBD shooter's perch ( even considering some head tilting of JFK just prior to the shot ) was at an angle that a shot from there could enter the back right side of JFK's skull, continue along the right top area and then blow out that far right side above the right ear as well?

Again, the 6th floor window was also on the right side of JFK and his limo at the moment of head shot impact.

The old saying is "two wrongs don't make a right", but in this case...do THREE rights...make a wrong?

Or could "all right" be all wrong?

1:34NOW PLAYING

 

Zapruder film Zoomed in plus SUPER SLOW MOTION (HIGH QUALITY)

 

ertGaming

•

1.2M views8 years ago

 

That Zapruder film video I uploaded in October, now even slower.

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[John Butler]

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.  

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

John,

This should fulfill some of your criteria.

Whether it was from a firecracker for diversion purposes or a shot, it appears someone tried to disguise it in the version Groden supplied.

The red x is Station# 2+99 = JFK within the limo at extant z133

The distance difference between the red x and Euins LOS line intersecting JFK within the limo is right at the gap between the end of Towner and the beginning of extant Z133.

Please note the jump in the Hughes' film approx 9 frames after the window flash appears.

in the context of Myers multi-sync project, it occurs less than a second before extant z133.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2X37WWQUAN0a0XvKOi1GjVJ7dypGY0H/view?usp=sharing

 

Thanks Chris,

Wow!  A photo of what could be shooting from Houston street.  Elsie Dorman said that she heard shooting coming from the Court Records building.   Junior Jarman said much the same as Bonnie Williams and Harold Norman, but he later changed his testimony to say "low and to the left".  This could be Dal-Tex or the Court Records Building.

Yep.  I see the difference in Hughes.

Amos Euins is in my witness list.  Until recently I had 54 witnesses (with Mark Tyler's list of witnesses I have added more) and now that number has gone to 98.  These are witnesses that heard and saw something different than the official story.

That particular red x (great graphic) would fit more witnesses than Amos Euins.  OBTW, I am a little leery of his testimony, but used it anyway.

Once again thanks.

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Please note the jump in the Hughes' film approx 9 frames after the window flash appears.

There are 8 films that go haywire in that area.  Skipped frames and distorted film covers up what really happened there.  These films are where I first got the idea to see if there were any witnesses who saw something there or around the TSBD.

There are lots.  I'm still working on the list and will post the MS Word doc after it is completed.  This work contains source references that can easily be checked.  The witness statements contain what the witness said and not what I said.  

If I was to theorize I would say something like there is more to it then shooting at the Elm and Houston intersection.

Given time, a good defense lawyer digging into the Warren Commission volumes could have set Oswald free based on the testimony contained there and generally overlooked for 56 years since the WC.

[John Butler]

Looking at Hughes again,  I ran across something interesting and made a .gif.  Another cut apart policeman?  Maybe?  Definetly film tapering in Hughes.  Can you see the extra film added with all the little x's.

Looks like I am wrong on those Xs.  I don't know what they are.

Edited September 1, 2020 by John Butler

[John Butler]

As the earlier post suggests there may have been tampering or simply film distortion or blemish.

Well, more of the same from Hughes:

In the Dealey Plaza films and photos one can see all kinds of weird things.  And, we have a tendency to anthropomorphize those objects.  This looks like a man with a camera or gun.  He has sunglasses, a tie, and a dark shirt.  But, the image is too big for the window and may be nothing more than a film blemish or distortion.  

One could go all conspiratorial and say this was put there to show the people in charge of the cover up where the shooting really came from.   Or, Not.