Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

See the source image

The numeral may be altered. See the shadow on the inner curl?😢

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 324
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Not good, John. First, you claim this was classified top secret until the ARRB. Where do you get this stuff? This was published in the WC's volumes 20H158. Second, you make out this was a drawing made by Hill, and that she placed the building across from herself. She did not. The basic drawing was made by Specter.

Pat,

Did you even read what I said, or are you just distorting what I said to make your illogical points?  I first ran across this in Walt Brown's book:

Jean-Hill-Top-Secret.jpg  

The reference for this doc being hid until the ARRB comes from discussions of ARRB material.  I will try to find that reference amongst my many thousands of files.  This is not a surveyors document.  It is Spectors on site note of what Jean Hill was saying.  Of course, it is not accurate like a surveyor's plot.  

The reason I asked if you read what I wrote is I clearly listed this as a map drawn by Arlen Spector.  It clearly lists the source.  If something is marked Top Secret it is not published.  Can you show me a copy of this map taken directly from the Warren Report?

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Amen, Pat. Meanwhile, we are all still waiting for John Butler to actually explain how the Moorman Polaroid could have been falsified.

From the way you folks are reading what I am saying, you'll never know whether I answered your questions or not.  Lone Nutism on the march.  Discount whatever is said.  Distort or make up what you want in reply.  I'm surprised you haven't resorted to "Unger" lines.  If you don't know what they are then go back and look up the reference.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, she did indicate she was across from the building in her testimony.

Jean talked about the large crowd of people across the street in front of the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  She thought they were getting the president's attention and she would not.  Therefore, Mary would not get a good Polaroid.  So, she shouts "Hey, Mr. President".  Mary runs into the street.

Pat, Jeremey, and Jonathan:

Tell me where you can find a large crowd of people in front of the Grassy Knoll?  Show me in the Zapruder Film where Mary runs into the street or for that matter even moves.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Jean Hill and Mary Moorman went back to Dealey Plaza on numerous occasions and gave interviews from where they'd been standing. They always stood right near where they are shown in the films and photos.

That's the sad part of this.  Jean's change of story.  Jean Hill believed folks were out to kill her after a traffic accident.  And, she believed she only survived since Gordon Shanklin, chief FBI agent in Dallas, was protecting her with FBI surveillance.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reference to the above comment:

"

On this you can see where A, X, B, C, and E are marked.  And, their location in relation to the TSBD.  Her testimony is as follows concerning where she was at.

Jean Hill- WC testimony, 24 March 1964

Mr. SPECTER - Would you draw a diagram for me in rough outline, starting with Houston Street---
Mrs. HILL - Yes; but I can't do this very well.
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to draw an outline, then, to get your bearing here and realizing that I want your recollection, and I'll ask you the questions. Assume that Houston Street is the street which I am marking Houston. Assume that this is Main Street. Assume that Elm Street curves down in the manner that I am drawing and marking.
Mrs. HILL - All right.
Mr. SPECTER - Assume that the Texas School Book Depository is this large building which I will mark "TSBD." Now, would you place with the letter "A" where you were at the time the President went by?
Mrs. HILL - Well, I would have to place the President first.
Mr. SPECTER - Fine---place him with the letter "X".
Mrs. HILL - All right--if he were here---
Mr. SPECTER - Now, was he in the center of the street or on the side of the street?
Mrs. HILL - He was on the side he wasn't just completely over there, but he was past the center of the street and we were---
Mr. SPECTER - Now, place yourself with the letter "A".
Mrs. HILL - Right there [indicating].
Mr. SPECTER - Make it a big printed "A" for us.

Mrs. HILL - Okay. [Complied with request of counsel Specter.]
Mr. SPECTER - Now, would you place the position you ran to after the President's car went by?
Mrs. HILL - By that time, I'm sure the car was here it was on down a little way and I ran behind here.
Mr. SPECTER - Draw a line to where you ran.
Mrs. HILL - All right--I don't know whether I've got this just right--but I ran approximately right up through here.
Mr. SPECTER - Put a "B" here where you were when you came to a stop on the other side of the street.
Mrs. HILL - These steps.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, where were you when you first noticed the
Mrs. HILL - These steps that go up--I guess you've looked at the site, there are some steps down there that go up to that promenade, or whatever you call it.
Mr. SPECTER - That go in a generally westerly direction?
Mrs. HILL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Beyond the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mrs. HILL - Yes; and I was just on this side
Mr. SPECTER - "This side"---you are meaning---the east of it?
Mrs. HILL - The east of it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you beyond the westernmost point of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mrs. HILL - No.
Mr. SPECTER - You were still in front of that building?
Mrs. HILL - That's right.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, is the letter "B" now in the position where you were when you first saw that man?
Mrs. HILL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Where was that man, indicating with the letter "C," where he was? He was very close to you?
Mrs. HILL - Well, he was at the top of this hill---you don't leave me any space in here I mean, there's a distance in here greater than what is shown here.
Mr. SPECTER - He was between Elm Street and the Depository Building?
Mrs. HILL - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And where did you see him going?
Mrs. HILL - I saw him go toward the tracks, toward the railroad tracks to the west?

….

Mr. SPECTER - For the purposes of the record, this diagram which was used during the deposition of Mrs. Hill will be marked Hill Exhibit No. 5.
(Instrument referred to marked by the reporter as Hill Exhibit No. 5, for identification.)

This discredits her more than anything she may have said later in the eyes of researchers.  It completely contradicts the "known" facts of the assassination."

Jean Hill clearly indicates she is in front of the TSBD despite Arlen Spector's misleading directions.  He locates a man B, who is in a crowd, location C, who later runs up the hill and goes toward the railroad bridge.

The steps she talks about are the steps from the promenade to the SW corner.  This further indicates she was on the SW corner.  She clearly states she was not past the western end of the TSBD.

Point D indicates the Triple Underpass.

Spector may have intentionally misdrawn his map to trap Jean Hill into saying something she didn't want to say.  Theirs was an adversarial conversation.  She said:

"Mrs. HILL - Well, he was at the top of this hill---you don't leave me any space in here I mean, there's a distance in here greater than what is shown here."

Spector says:

"Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to draw an outline,".  Not, a specific detailed map.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

From the way you folks are reading what I am saying, you'll never know whether I answered your questions or not.  Lone Nutism on the march.  Discount whatever is said.  Distort or make up what you want in reply.  I'm surprised you haven't resorted to "Unger" lines.  If you don't know what they are then go back and look up the reference.

But you didn't answer the question, at all. There is irrefutable proof that the Moorman photo was shown on television within 2.5 hours of the assassination. As Jeremy pointed out, this photo then appeared in newspapers all over the world the following day. Quoting Jeremy, "can you come up with a plausible technical explanation of how this alteration might have been done in the very limited time available?" Where did the plotters get the "new" Grassy Knoll background from to substitute into the "actual" original photo? How do you account for the fact that Moorman herself tried to sell the original photo at one point? Was she trying to sell a forgery? Please show us how someone could even forge a Polaroid photo to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It's strange that the drawing was published by the Warren Commission given that it was (apparently) classified as Top Secret.

 

Virtually everything published in the 26 volumes was originally classified as Top Secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Butler writes:

Quote

She didn't jot down the diagram.  Arlen Specter did.

It makes no difference who created the diagram. My point was that Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid cannot have been altered (by removing the book depository from the background and replacing it with the grassy knoll) because the picture was taken from behind the car, not in front of it.

The only way the picture could have been taken from behind the car and have the book depository in the background is if Moorman and Hill had been standing roughly opposite the main entrance to the depository. We know that they weren't, for the reasons Pat Speer has given.

Even if John wants to believe that the diagram is accurate, the relative positions of Moorman and the depository wouldn't have allowed Moorman to photograph the car from behind with the depository in the background.

Dozens of photographs and at least four home movies show Moorman and Hill standing roughly opposite Zapruder. Surely not even John Butler would claim that every single one of those films and photos were faked!

Or maybe he would:

Quote

this alteration of all, I say all, films and photos that show anything to do with the assassination.

I don't know if John was pulling our collective leg when he made that ridiculous pronouncement. I hope he was.

If he's still claiming that the Moorman photo was altered, could he please address the problem that has been pointed out several times now and which he has still not answered?

The problem is that if John's all-powerful masterminds altered the photo, they would have had a very limited amount of time in which to do so.

How does John think they did it? Did they snap their fingers and say "hey presto!", or was there more to it than that? John should feel free to give as detailed an explanation as he can manage.

How was it possible to alter the Moorman photo before it was shown on television and distributed to the press on the afternoon of the assassination?

If John can't or won't answer that question, will he admit that the Moorman photograph is genuine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When challenged to prove his far-fetched claims of massive photo alteration, John Butler resorts to implying that his critics support the lone-gunman idea. "Lone-Nutism" is the word he uses.

I'm not a "Lone-Nutist". As far as I'm aware, Pat and Jonathan are not "Lone-Nutists" either. Very few people on this forum appear to be "Lone-Nutists".

You don't need to be a "Lone-Nutist" to be unconvinced by the idea that this or that photo or home movie was faked.

Not only that, but you don't need to claim that any photos or home movies were faked in order to question the "Lone-Nutism" idea.

The case against the "Lone-Nutism" idea does not require that any photos or home movies were faked.

Does John not grasp this fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The case against the "Lone-Nutism" idea does not require that any photos or home movies were faked.

But, it dones require a lot of other evidence to be faked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, Lone Nutism, based upon the Warren Report has replaced religion, perhaps more correctly become a religion.  There are no plots, conspiracies, lies, faked evidence, and other fraudulent material.  Everything in the WR is sacrosanct and as true as true can be.  If you know your WC conclusions and deny and distort anything else, then you are in and are a bona fide member.  There is a fairly long list of people who have done that over time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John can't or won't answer that question, will he admit that the Moorman photograph is genuine?

Jim Hargroves is a good guy.  He provides an answer for everyone of your comments.  He has the patience to reply to...

Sorry, I am afraid I am not that way.  It is probably due to laziness and contrariness.  This is either the third or 4th time I has gone over this idea.  Go back and check what I have said over the years and I am sure you will find the answer you are looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Butler writes:

Quote

Go back and check what I have said over the years and I am sure you will find the answer you are looking for

John has made approximately 3,000 comments on this forum. If I ever have a day with nothing better to do, I may trawl through them, even though the task would make my brain hurt.

Until then, could John please set aside a couple of minutes to explain to us how the Moorman photo could have been extensively altered on the afternoon of the assassination, before it was shown on TV and distributed to journalists?

That isn't too much to ask, is it? John has made a claim, so it is up to him to justify his claim. How was the alteration possible, given that there was so little time in which to do it?

If John can't come up with an explanation, will he be brave enough to admit that he was wrong, and that the Moorman photo is genuine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, John Butler said:

But, it dones require a lot of other evidence to be faked.

I assume by "faked" you mean not the original evidence, i.e. grossly altered evidence, and not just that some of the Warren Commission exhibits and testimony were sculpted to conceal, or mislead (which I would agree with). 

Well, assuming as much, I need to ask--Are you saying that the evidence in the 26 volumes, and the subsequent reports, suggests Oswald acted alone, and that it's only through realizing that much of this evidence was faked that one can conclude Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy?

Because, if so, you're a lot closer to a LNer than most on this forum, including myself. 

Let's take, for example, the witness statements. Do you really think they suggest a lone assassin firing from behind the limousine? Or, as yet another example, the Zapruder film... Do you really think it suggests a bullet entering low on the back of JFK's skull and exploding from the top of his head?

I have studied both these aspects and have recorded what I discovered on my website, and it's 100% clear that two loud sounds were heard quite close together around the time of the head shot, and that the fatal shot impacted at the top of Kennedy's head, leaving the small entrance wound discovered at autopsy unaccounted for, and evidence for a second bullet to the head and a second shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I assume by "faked" you mean not the original evidence, i.e. grossly altered evidence, and not just that some of the Warren Commission exhibits and testimony were sculpted to conceal, or mislead (which I would agree with). 

Well, assuming as much, I need to ask--Are you saying that the evidence in the 26 volumes, and the subsequent reports, suggests Oswald acted alone, and that it's only through realizing that much of this evidence was faked that one can conclude Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy?

Because, if so, you're a lot closer to a LNer than most on this forum, including myself. 

Let's take, for example, the witness statements. Do you really think they suggest a lone assassin firing from behind the limousine? Or, as yet another example, the Zapruder film... Do you really think it suggests a bullet entering low on the back of JFK's skull and exploding from the top of his head?

1.  Faked means fraudulent.  Faked is changing existing evidence to suit the official story.

2.  Isn't that what the WC conclusions say?  Oswald acted alone is a conclusion of the WC.  There was a conspiracy.  And, folks have still not realized the extent of it or exactly how it happened.

3.  I am not closer to or anywhere near Lone Nutism.  My bias is much more radical in the other direction.  I believe Kennedy ran a gauntlet of fire from different shooting stations.  I believe Kennedy was shot in the head twice.  Once from the side using a low caliber, shortened shot.  This wound was to the frontal bone (forehead).  I don't believe this wound was life threatening at the time.    

The second shot came from the front striking Kennedy in the temple area, temporal bone, and exiting to the rear in the occipital/parietal area leaving a gaping wound noticed by the Parkland personnel.  I believe, based on photos and films, that Kennedy was shot more than once in the back.  This is my interpretation of what I see in films and photos.

4.  A large portion, 20%, suggest a different interpretation on how the shooting of Kennedy occurred.  These folks say the Zapruder Film is nonsense and the films that show basically the same thing.  From analyzing Zapruder content images, I agree.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

That isn't too much to ask, is it? John has made a claim, so it is up to him to justify his claim. How was the alteration possible, given that there was so little time in which to do it?

What's the point?  You wouldn't accept any answer I gave you.  It is simply a waste of my time.  You might have noticed there comes a certain point over time when I quit answering your rubbish.

Edited by John Butler
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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...