The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[John Butler]

23 minutes ago, John Butler said:

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.

Jeremy,

Sorry about the "rubbish" comment.  I sometimes get carried away.  I lament other folks comments of a similar nature, so I shouldn't do it myself. So, please forgive.

I felt bad about that so I decided to answer your 2 1/2 posting of the Polaroid in a newspaper.  John Costella explains this well:

Mary Moorman and Her Polaroids

John P. Costella, Ph.D.

"Just what is going on with Mary Moorman’s Polaroids? (11 pages)

I use the bulk of this chapter to present a number of sworn statements, FBI reports, Secret Service reports, and letters between J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission relating to Mary Moorman’s and Jean Hill’s witnessing of the assassination, and the Polaroids that Mary actually took. These documents range in date from the day of the assassination to the closing days of the Warren Commission. Viewed from a modern vantage point—in which our minds are more open, because we no longer take the events as depicted in the Zapruder film to be dogma—these documents are remarkable.

Firstly, we consistently find that Mary and Jean describe the first shot to the President as impacting at about the time she took her famous Polaroid—whereas we have always assumed, on the basis of the Zapruder film, that this was the last shot. Indeed, Mary made exactly the same statement in the 2003 shoot for Discovery Channel (as will be made clear by David Lifton in the second printing version of this section of his chapter)! This starts to open our eyes to some of the unwarranted assumptions that we have continued to make, even after realising the lack of authenticity of the Zapruder film.

Secondly, we find that there was a veritable “shell game” played with Mary’s Polaroids, in which the FBI, the Secret Service, J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission all tried to make three photos become two. Indeed, only two are now extant, but their numbering implies that there is one missing, which was allegedly given to a Dallas motorcycle policeman and is now lost. Remarkably, the evidence (including reports and statements clearly typographically altered after the fact) suggests that there was at least one additional photo showing the President and his limousine; and it is also likely that some unwanted aspect of the Texas School Book Depository was depicted in at least one photo.

Thirdly, every one of these official reports consistently rebukes the idea that a copy of Moorman’s famous Polaroid was “smuggled” out on the day of the assassination, as folklore maintains, and indeed the AP wirephoto information provided tells us that it went out some 27 hours after the assassination, which explains why it was not published in any major newspaper alongside the Altgens and Cancellare photographs on the day of the assassination.

Although it is clear that we still have to try to read between the lines of these often obfuscatory reports, it is nevertheless evident that there is much more to Mary Moorman’s Polaroids than was ever fully comprehended in the past, which may explain the fear displayed by Mary and her husband when David Lifton interviewed her in the early 1970s (see his chapter), and the continued “shepherding” of her by Gary Mack and The Sixth Floor Museum in recent years. This is a line of research that is only now being opened up, and so it is likely that my best guesses on some of the unknowns will not all turn out to be correct."

I agree with John Costella.

From what I have read there was the notion the Feds taking Mary's Polaroid and then giving it back to her and later coming back to take it again.  I think this occurred several times.    

You say that the Polaroid was shown 2 1/2 hours after the assassination on TV and Newspapers.  Can you provide the exact references to back up those statements.

[John Butler]

1 minute ago, John Butler said:

Although it is clear that we still have to try to read between the lines of these often obfuscatory reports, it is nevertheless evident that there is much more to Mary Moorman’s Polaroids than was ever fully comprehended in the past, which may explain the fear displayed by Mary and her husband when David Lifton interviewed her in the early 1970s (see his chapter),

This is something I talked about several times.  There is a film out there where Mary, early on, is explaining what happened.  She was so nervous she would have said she was on the moon if the interviewer said that.  Her response was so raddled that she said basically what the interviewer was saying. 

Then the other film that has vanished.  I wish I had kept a copy of it.  Mary says she was not wearing white slacks in a sullen and disturbed way.  

[Jonathan Cohen]

35 minutes ago, John Butler said:

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.

You can't give any answer, because what you are alleging with the Moorman photograph is absolutely impossible -- ie., the very "rubbish" you accuse others of peddling when they challenge your ludicrous claims.

[John Butler]

1 minute ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

You can't give any answer, because what you are alleging with the Moorman photograph is absolutely impossible -- ie., the very "rubbish" you accuse others of peddling when they challenge your ludicrous claims.

Read on, McDuff.

Edited February 25, 2022 by John Butler

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I was unaware of some site history provided by Pat Speer from which he judged the Z film alteration debate had ended. I don't think that was an accurate assessment as the site does not portray such a consensus. Jefferson Morley has suggested he has become more persuadable of alteration. I try to read lots of differing views and I would say the non-alterationists have failed to seal a consensus, why? Because every theory needs too big a leap to convince the majority. 

I was not old enough to be shocked by the first showing of the Z film. Due to the circumstances of its release I can see it stamped an indelible impression on those watching. It had been hidden and the truth was revealed!! Or was it? 

Would it be fair to say that a lot of anomalies in evidence, other than the film (the survey plat, witness evidence, moving head wounds as some examples) have to be ignored if the Z film is genuine?

[John Butler]

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Mary Ann Moorman, Address: 2832 Ripplewood, Dallas. Age 31, Phone No. DA 1-9390.

Deposes and says

Mrs. Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street between the underpass and the corner of Elm & Houston. I had a Polaroid Camera [sic] with me and was intending to take pictures of President Kennedy and the motorcade. As the motorcade started toward me I took two pictures. As President Kennedy was opposite me I took a picture of him. As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up in the car and said, "My God he had been shot." When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself. I heard three or four shots in all. After the pictures I took were developed, the Picture [sic] of President Kennedy showed him slumped over. When the pictures were developed, they came out real light. These pictures have been turned over to Officers [sic] investigating this incident.

/s/ Mary Ann Moorman

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

/s/ Aleen Davis

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

These are Mary Moorman’s first statements on the shooting of President Kennedy that she observed.

1.      These statements vary from what she said later.  But, on the whole her statements are basically consistent over time.

2.     First off, she said she was on the grass between the corner of Elm and the Triple Underpass.  She said this and never changed this part of her story.  Jean Hill disagreed with her and was recorded in Hill Exhibit No. 5.

3.     She said she took 2 pictures as the motorcade started towards her.  This could be the Glen McBride Polaroid and the alleged head shot Polaroid.

4.     She said as the President came opposite from her, she took a Polaroid and a shot rang out.  The president slumped over.  She did not say anything about a horrendous head shot with brain matter spewing into the air.  She just said he slumped over.

5.     Then she heard a second shot.  Here again, she doesn’t mention a horrible head shot with blood and brain matter spraying out over an area.

6.     She said she heard 3 or 4 shots in all.  There is some dispute as later she said 3 shots.  3 or 4 shots could have been 3 shots in all, or 4 shots in all.  Saying 3 shots later is not a big deal.

7.     She said after the Polaroids were developed the picture that showed the president showed that the president was slumped over.  This occurred as she heard the first shot.  The Polaroids were light in contrast.  Here again, there is no terrible description of a head wound.

In this affidavit Mary says that the Polaroid was turned over to officials.  She didn’t say anything about someone running off with it.

I believe Ron Bulman, and others have said, that the Moorman Polaroid had been published in a local Dallas Newspaper by 4:00 and on TV about 2 ½ hour after the assassination.

On the other hand, John Costella said it didn’t make the Ap wire photo transmission until 27 hours after the assassination.

In order to reconcile this information Ron or others such as Jeremy need to provide that newspaper copy with the photo.  Show it.  And, whatever TV tape necessary to show the Polaroid being on TV 2 ½ hours after the assassination.

Edited February 26, 2022 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Sorry about the "rubbish" comment.  I sometimes get carried away.  I lament other folks comments of a similar nature, so I shouldn't do it myself. So, please forgive.

No problem! We all get carried away sometimes.

Quote

You say that the Polaroid was shown 2 1/2 hours after the assassination on TV and Newspapers.  Can you provide the exact references to back up those statements.

It seems to have been shown on TV and distributed to journalists within a few hours. It appeared in newspapers the next day.

I can give you the relevant passages from Trask's Pictures of the Pain. Firstly, from p.238, the time of the TV screening:

<quote>
By about 3:16 CST, NBC was again reporting through its WBAP affiliate on witnesses to the shooting, and Moorman's photo of the President was shown on camera followed by a filmed interview of the two women.
</quote>

Trask cites "NBC ibid. [telecast, 11/22/1963, from videotape at The Kennedy Library], TNN-222." It may well be available online somewhere, if anyone needs further confirmation.

Here, from p.242, is what happened to the photo:

<quote>
The women later recalled that at the press room they allowed the pictures to be examined, and they were out of Moorman's physical custody on several occasions. According to researcher Gary Mack, who spoke extensively with Moorman some 20 years after the events, the assassination photo was quickly taken to the Dallas Times Herald offices, which shared a photo lab with UPI. The photo was copied there and returned to Moorman at the Sheriff's Office. ...

Copies of Moorman's assassination photo had been made by the press, possibly without Moorman's permission. ... According to Hill, Moorman "... sold the rights, the publishing rights of it, not the original picture, but they had already -- AP and UPI had already picked it up because Featherstone stole it."
</quote>

Notes:

• James Featherstone was the Dallas Times Herald reporter who tried to obtain Moorman's photo for his paper.
• Trask attributes the Mack claim to "Lecture of Gary Mack at the Pittsburgh, PA, conference, 11/19/1998."
• Hill's statement comes from her Warren Commission testimony at WC Hearings and Exhibits, vol.6, p.220: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35#relPageId=230.

Costella refers to "the idea that a copy of Moorman’s famous Polaroid was 'smuggled' out on the day of the assassination, as folklore maintains". It wasn't "folklore", but Jean Hill herself, who claimed that the photo had been removed by newspaper reporters while she and Moorman were in the Sheriff's office on the afternoon of the assassination.

For an example of Moorman's photo appearing in newspapers the following day, here's the front page of The Fresno Bee on Saturday 23rd:

https://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres48.jpg

That website gives links to plenty of front pages from the days after the assassination, so you may be able to find other examples:

https://www.downhold.org/lowry/JFK-NUPFRONTS.html

What do we see in the background of the photo on the front page of The Fresno Bee? It's the grassy knoll, not the book depository.

Any nefarious alteration, such as John's suggestion that the background was replaced, must have been done before those newspaper reporters copied the photo.

Does John have a plausible explanation of how such a complex alteration could have been done in the limited time available?

Edited February 26, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Eddy Bainbridge asks:

Quote

Would it be fair to say that a lot of anomalies in evidence, other than the film (the survey plat, witness evidence, moving head wounds as some examples) have to be ignored if the Z film is genuine?

As with any complex body of evidence, there are inconsistencies and contradictions. You'll need to decide which items of evidence ought to be discarded and which should be believed.

It's an uncontroversial fact that witnesses are fallible and often make mistakes. It's also an uncontroversial fact that making significant alterations to photos and home movies is not a trivial task, especially when there is only a limited amount of time available.

It's easy to resolve a contradiction between witnesses' recollections and, say, the Moorman photo or the Zapruder film. We have an obvious, plausible explanation for how the witnesses might be wrong, but we don't yet have an equally plausible explanation for how the physical evidence might have been manipulated.

Until someone comes up with a plausible explanation (and the more detailed it is, the more plausible it becomes), we must assume that the images are authentic and any witnesses who contradict them are mistaken.

It boils down to the fact that the burden of proof is on those who claim that this or that photo or film has been altered. So far, no-one has come up with the necessary proof.

As for the "moving head wounds", I'd recommend looking at Pat Speer's website. See Pat's recent comment on this thread:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27630-the-other-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=455253

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It seems to have been shown on TV and distributed to journalists within a few hours. It appeared in newspapers the next day.

Are we backing off on earlier statements?  I need to see evidence of Mary's Polaroid on TV 2 1/2 hour after the assassination.  You talked about that.  But, I don't see the actual thing.  Can you provide it?  Where is the TV tape?

I need to see a newspaper photo of Mary's Polaroid in a newspaper on the 22nd of November and not on the 23rd of November.  Can you do that?  I don't need to see Altgens 7 which is what your examples are showing.

Once again and for the last time.  I won't be like certain members asking the "eternal unanswerable question".

Can you provide evidence of what you said?  Show the tape of Mary's Polaroid on TV 2 1/2 hours after the assassination.  Also, can you provide a 22nd of November newspaper copy showing Mary's Polaroid?

I don't want to hear about all those references from various folks.  I already know those and have for years.

You need to do better than this.

Edited February 26, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

James Featherstone was the Dallas Times Herald reporter who tried to obtain Moorman's photo for his paper.

I believe "try" was as far as it went.  Mary, if memory serves, turned over the Polaroid to Alan Sweat, a Dallas Police Lt.  He turned it over to the FBI.  The Polaroid didn't surface until 27 hours later.  Plenty of time to make alterations.

The thing about the alterations is Mary agreed to them and went right on with saying the Polaroid was what she took.  What do you make of that?  Willing co-conspirator or unwilling co-conspirator?  Why did she ask Jean to wear her red raincoat?

Edited February 26, 2022 by John Butler

[Mark Tyler]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Can you provide evidence of what you said?  Show the tape of Mary's Polaroid on TV 2 1/2 hours after the assassination.  Also, can you provide a 22nd of November newspaper copy showing Mary's Polaroid?

At time 2:26:10 in this video the Polaroid appears in the NBC broadcast:

It's a bit blurry, but it's a good likeness for the image we have all seen many times.

[Pat Speer]

Since John continues pretending Jean Hill thought she'd been standing near the corner of Houston and Elm, across from the Depository entrance, perhaps we should consult with someone who would really know: Jean Hill.

(3:30 PM 11-22-63 KRLD radio interview, as transcribed by David Lifton, and posted on the Education Forum, 6-30-11) (When asked if she was 10-15 feet from the limousine, as described by Mary Moorman moments before) “Not anymore than that at all…we were looking right at the President. We were looking at his face. As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him. And he grabbed his hands cross his ch--when two shots rang out. He grabbed his hands across his chest. I have never seen anyone killed, or in pain before like that but there was this odd look came across his face, and he pitched forward onto Jackie’s lap. And, uh, she immediately, we were close enough to even hear her, and everything, and she fell across him and says, “My God, he’s been shot”… (When asked if she'd noticed the people around her) "There was no one around us on our side of the street. We had planned it that way; we wanted to be to be down [there] by ourselves. That’s the reason we had gotten almost to the Underpass, so we’d be completely in the clear." (When asked the response in the motorcade) "The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt, and about that time 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn’t register with me. Mary was, huh, had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg, saying “Get, get down, they’re shooting, get down, they’re shooting, and I didn’t even realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And just about that time, well, of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away. And some of them pulled over to the side and started running up the bank. There’s a hill on the other side… And the shots came from there... After they were momentarily stopped—after the first two shots... then they sped away real quickly.”

On 2/24/2022 at 11:15 AM, John Butler said:

 

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Since John continues pretending Jean Hill thought she'd been standing near the corner of Houston and Elm, across from the Depository entrance, perhaps we should consult with someone who would really know: Jean Hill.

That borders on stupidity.  I'm pretending that Jean Hill said something.  Let's go through the facts rather than fancy and rhetoric.

1.  Jean Hill did not go before WC interviewer Arlen Spector.  Wrong.  She did.

2.  Arlen Spector did not ask her to identify where she was at on a sketch he drew.  Wrong.  She did.

3.  Jean Hill did not place herself in front of the SW corner of the TSBD.  Wrong.  She did.

4. Jean Hill said she was standing at the corner of Houston and Elm, across from the Depository entrance as Pat said.  Wrong.  She didn't.

5. Did John Butler consult with someone who would really know.  Yes.  Jean Hill's testimony and Hill Exhibit No. 5.

Come on Man... you can do better than that.

Edited February 26, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

If this is a true film from NBC, then Mary's Polaroid was on TV at about !2:45 + time of film 2:26 giving about 3:11 CST.

I had to see it to believe it.  I had to hear the announcer say it.  I enhanced this slightly, so it is more viewable.

Now, at this point no newspaper publication same day.  And, apparently the Polaroid is on TV almost 3 hours after the assassination.  I would like to know more of this story.  Who had this photo so that it could be seen on TV.  We have Costella saying no one smuggled this photo out.  So, how did it get on TV and what was the source for NBC to show it.

Anyone know?  

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

That borders on stupidity.  I'm pretending that Jean Hill said something.  Let's go through the facts rather than fancy and rhetoric.

1.  Jean Hill did not go before WC interviewer Arlen Spector.  Wrong.  She did.

Response: First, it's S-P-E-C-T-E-R, John. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Apparently you think I said Hill never spoke to Specter. Well, that would be weird, seeing as I've had her testimony on my website for 15 years. 

2.  Arlen Spector did not ask her to identify where she was at on a sketch he drew.  Wrong.  She did.

Response: Once again, you seem to be pretending I said something I never said. As discussed in a prior post, Specter drew the drawing. She then placed herself on the drawing--nearly halfway down to the underpass, across from the steps. This is not where you claim she was "really" standing. Why can't you admit this and why do you continue to pretend she was in disguise near Houston and Elm?

3.  Jean Hill did not place herself in front of the SW corner of the TSBD.  Wrong.  She did.

Response: Once again, you seem to be pretending I said something I never said. She did place herself across from an over-sized TSBD. She had no choice on this, seeing as Specter had made it stretch almost halfway to the underpass. It's also true that the TSBD had a western loading dock and that she may have, accurately, as it turns out, recalled that she and Mary were standing across the street from the western edge of the entire building, as opposed to the 7 story structure. And yet, let's say this is inconclusive. Where you claim she was "really" standing was not across from the SW corner of the building, John. It was across from the middle of the building. Hill Exhibit 5 does not support your theory. Not even close. 

4. Jean Hill said she was standing at the corner of Houston and Elm, across from the Depository entrance as Pat said.  Wrong.  She didn't.

Response: It is you who are making out that she said that, not I. You keep pretending that she placed herself where you claim she was "really" standing. Which is perhaps 30 feet to the west of the depository entrance. She did nothing of the kind. She placed herself almost halfway to the underpass, across from the steps.

5. Did John Butler consult with someone who would really know.  Yes.  Jean Hill's testimony and Hill Exhibit No. 5.

Response: Hogwash. You cherry-picked a few elements of her story and tried to twist it into supporting your ridiculous theory. And got caught. I spent hundreds if not thousands of hours creating a database of witness statements. While Ms. Hill ended up making some questionable statements, her statements regarding her location at the time of the shooting--near the car at the time of the head shot and across from the steps--are not among them. 

Come on Man... you can do better than that.

Response: I just have. I remember when you first came to this forum. At that time, if I'm not mistaken, you were pretending the witness evidence suggested the shots were fired as the limo turned onto Houston. Now, if I read you correctly, you are pretending the head shot occurred when Kennedy was right out in front of the depository. I present hundreds and hundreds of witness statements on my website, and have placed the location of these witnesses when possible. And this work has largely been confirmed by Mark Tyler. And your suggestion that Kennedy was struck in the head before he passed Mary Woodward et al is just ridiculous. So let's be clear. Is that what you are saying? That Kennedy was struck in the head just after he turned the corner? And that all the witnesses, such as Bill Newman, who said he was struck in the head down by the steps, were mistaken, or worse?

My response in bold. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Pat Speer