The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

My response in bold. 

Pat, maybe John has Arlen Specter confused with Phil Spector.

John, your statement that Pat's comments border on stupidity belie your own ignorance.  He's talked to witnesses, consulted with other respected researchers, been to the conferences and has an extensive website, and corrected me more than once.  What have you done?  

Pat, are you aware John's first presence on the site was an assertation and defense of JFK being shot on Main street?  While he doesn't mention that anymore others here have refuted other contentions of his consistently.  I generally ignore his comments but respect your response and defense, as I did the same regarding his first posts.  BS should be countered lest it be believed by those new to facts.

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Response: First, it's S-P-E-C-T-E-R,

I see nothing wrong with what I said.  Well, except misspelling Spector.  I usually get Specter right.

Pretending?  I'm not pretending about anything.  I am not really saying anything either.  It is what the witnesses are saying.  If you have hundreds and hundreds of witness testimony on your web site, you should perhaps read them.  Or, reread them. They say the things you say I am "pretending" to say.  That doesn't even make sense. 

Let's "pretend" we are talking about witnesses who said something about shooting on Houston Street.  Go back and reread the testimony of the following:

Bonnnie Ray Williams

James Jarman (Junior)

Elsie Dorman

Wilma Bond

W. H. Denham

William Downey

Jack Faulkner

Malcom Barkley

Marie Muchmore

C. M. Jones

Charlie Player?

John Solon?

 

[John Butler]

31 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

John, your statement that Pat's comments border on stupidity belie your own ignorance.  He's talked to witnesses, consulted with other respected researchers, been to the conferences and has an extensive website, and corrected me more than once.  What have you done?  

Ron,

Where do you think the information I used came from?  Whose ignorance?  I suggest you read more books.  Read witness testimonies.  Take a closer look at the events of Dealey Plaza.  

What have I done?  I have brought out more information people have missed for 50+ Years.  What have you done?  Read book?  Made vulgar rants?

At least I'm not known as the BS or HS man from your rather vulgar rants. 

As far as Pat's work?  I don't think much of it.  It's mostly lone nut nonsense. 

OBTW,

Phil Spector is the spitting image of Arlen Specter.  And, they should be in the same career fields based on looks.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

56 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Pat, are you aware John's first presence on the site was an assertation and defense of JFK being shot on Main street?  While he doesn't mention that anymore others here have refuted other contentions of his consistently.  I generally ignore his comments but respect your response and defense, as I did the same regarding his first posts.  BS should be countered lest it be believed by those new to facts.

and,

Not the first topics on the forum.  This came several years later.  AMIPA film.  AMIPA film on Main Street.  The real Z film.  Jackie Kennedy's testimony.  Scoff all you want.  Deny all you want.  You just expose yourself for what you are.

This is part of the evidence suggesting Kennedy was shot more than once in the back on Main Street.

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

While we're on the subject of John Butler misrepresenting what his critics have written, here's another example. He asks:

Quote

Are we backing off on earlier statements? ... 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.

If you go back to page 3, you'll find my first reference to when the photo appeared in newspapers:

Quote

Pat pointed out that "the photo was shown on television around 2 1/2 hours after the shooting". That's true, but it isn't the only problem. Copies were made that afternoon and distributed to journalists. The photo appeared in many newspapers the following day.

"The following day" was the 23rd. The newspaper front page I gave a link to, and which included the Moorman photo, was dated Saturday 23rd. For John's information, here again is that example of Moorman's photo on the front page of a newspaper on the day after the assassination:

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

John continues:

Quote

The Polaroid didn't surface until 27 hours later.  Plenty of time to make alterations.

As Richard Trask explained, and as Jean Hill confirmed, the Polaroid was copied and circulated among journalists on the afternoon of the assassination, not 27 hours later.

As I explained, any alterations must have been made before those copies were circulated, because the background that John claims is a fake was present in the copies that were published in newspapers the next day.

Thanks to Mark's detective work, we know that the Moorman photograph showed the grassy knoll in the background at around 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the assassination. Again, this demonstrates that the alterations John proposes must have been done before then.

How was the Moorman photo faked in the limited time available?

As far as I can tell, the closest John has come to explaining how his supposed alteration was done is his statement that there was "Plenty of time to make alterations."

He needs to explain how it was done, not merely assert that it happened. The more detail John can go into, the more credible his explanation will be.

John could start by demonstrating that altering a Polaroid in that way was actually possible. As Jonathan asked earlier, "Please show us how someone could even forge a Polaroid photo to begin with."

Alternatively, John could admit that:

• Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid is genuine.
• Moorman and Hill were standing roughly opposite Zapruder, where they claimed to have been standing, and where dozens of photos and films show them to have been standing.
• None of those dozens of images were faked to hide Moorman and Hill's presence near the corner of Elm and Houston Streets.
• John's claim about "this alteration of all, I say all, films and photos that show anything to do with the assassination" is utter nonsense.
• JFK wasn't shot on Houston Street or Main Street or Atlantis or Mars, but on Elm Street, just as all those photos and home movies show.

[Mark Tyler]

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

(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”…

The first day evidence is so important, and these very early interviews are like gold dust as they seem to debunk many of the weaker theories.  Here is the original radio interview of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman at 1:41:00 in this video:

As others have mentioned, Jean Hill is not the most reliable of witnesses, mainly due to her changing her story in her later years.  However, her testimony throughout 1963 and 1964 seems very consistent with what dozens of other witnesses independently reported in their statements, so I don't think she can be casually dismissed as wrong about everything.

[Pat Speer]

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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?

Since John prefers to make ridiculous statements--such as implying I'm a LNer or that he has studied the eyewitness statements more than I have--I thought maybe I should remind him that there is a simple question he's avoided.

So let's be clear: Were Bill and Gayle Newman telling a fib when they went on TV within minutes of the assassination and said Kennedy was shot as he passed them? 

And, if so, why did Bill Newman tell the nation he thought the shot came from behind him?

I mean, if he was put on TV to mislead the nation--why would he mislead them into thinking the fatal shot was fired from west of the depository?

John's response appreciated. 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/26/2022 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

 

Not so if there are numerous witnesses to the same thing and only a few witnesses to the opposite.

 

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

John's response appreciated. 

Pat keeps saying I'm pretending this or that.  So, I going to pretend to answer his nonsense.

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Since John prefers to make ridiculous statements--such as implying I'm a LNer or that he has studied the eyewitness statements more than I have--I thought maybe I should remind him that there is a simple question he's avoided.

It's hard to avoid questions that haven't been asked.  And, he likes to make things up.  I am beginning to think he can't read or is having trouble interpreting simple things when they don't agree with him.

20 hours ago, John Butler said:

Let's "pretend" we are talking about witnesses who said something about shooting on Houston Street.  Go back and reread the testimony of the following:

Bonnnie Ray Williams

James Jarman (Junior)

Elsie Dorman

Wilma Bond

W. H. Denham

William Downey

Jack Faulkner

Malcom Barkley

Marie Muchmore

C. M. Jones

Charlie Player?

John Solon?

Answer my question first!

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, John Butler said:

It's hard to avoid questions that haven't been asked.  And, he likes to make things up.  I am beginning to think he can't read or is having trouble interpreting simple things when they don't agree with him.

Answer my question first!

What a cop out. I have written books of material on the witnesses and what they said. I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours and near that amount in money pouring through newspapers, books, and articles and reporting on what was said in these materials. My website has far and away the most complete collection of witness statements ever complied. 

When one looks at these statements in the context of where these witnesses were standing, it becomes quite clear that the first shot rang out as Kennedy was passing the Thornton Freeway sign. 

 

[John Butler]

Hello Guys,

Hmmm... Let's see.  Pretending.  Avoiding.  Misrepresenting.  And, now copping out.  I don't think so, but maybe on copping out.

"I feel like Al Pacino in The Godfather 3. "They keep pulling me back!"

I tried to read this long discourse by Pat in another thread, but I kept having trouble.  My eyes would glaze over, and I would have something like a petit mal incident and wake up wondering what happened.

I tried it again and the same thing happened.  My eyes glazed over, and I woke up snoring.  I guess that may be "copping out".

But, not to worry Pat, Jeremy, and Jonathan.  I think I have come up with a solution.  Simply think of the things you want to say or ask the questions you want to have answered.  Think of how you would answer those questions and then reverse whatever your thinking was and you will have my answer.

I think that is a neat solution.

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I claimed that, in the absence of a plausible explanation of how an image might have been altered, we should assume that any witnesses who contradict the image are mistaken.

Sandy Larsen disagreed:

Quote

Not so if there are numerous witnesses to the same thing and only a few witnesses to the opposite.

If witnesses are all we have, then numbers might be significant. It's more likely that the majority will be correct than that the minority will be correct, all other factors being equal.

But in a contest between witnesses and images, the images have a built-in advantage. We always have a plausible explanation of why witnesses might be mistaken: the uncontroversial fact that witnesses often make mistakes.

We don't always have a plausible explanation of why an image might be inauthentic. What we do have is a plausible explanation of why the image is likely to be authentic: the uncontroversial fact that altering images is not a trivial task.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that a photo or home movie has been altered. The claim needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted. As John Butler has discovered, explaining how an image was altered is much more difficult than it might at first appear.

Incidentally, Sandy's earlier point about blurring in certain frames of the Zapruder film has been taken up at the ROKC forum, with contributions from a couple of people with relevant professional experience:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2517p50-looks-like-more-photo-manipulation-from-h-l-land#38358

That thread includes a link to another thread, where the discussion continues.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler seems to be sticking with his claim that the Moorman photo was altered by having its book-depository background replaced by a grassy-knoll background. But he still hasn't come up with an explanation of how this might have been done.

We know that the photo's current grassy-knoll background existed as early as two and a half hours after the assassination. Any alteration must have been made within those two and a half hours.

It's up to John to provide a plausible explanation of how it might have been done. He doesn't seem to have even tried to provide any explanation at all.

Let's see if we can help John. Here are a couple of possible explanations:

• The conspirators snatched the photo, took it to the mobile photo-alteration lab near Dealey Plaza that was being used to add face masks to the Altgens photos, and snapped their fingers and said "hey presto!", and that's how the background changed from the book depository to the grassy knoll.
• Creatures from the Planet Zog snatched the photo, beamed it up to their spaceship, put it into one of their super-duper intergalactic warp-factor-ten photo-alteration machines, and out popped an altered photo.

Those are the most plausible explanations I can think of. Can John come up with anything better?

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, John Butler said:

Hello Guys,

Hmmm... Let's see.  Pretending.  Avoiding.  Misrepresenting.  And, now copping out.  I don't think so, but maybe on copping out.

"I feel like Al Pacino in The Godfather 3. "They keep pulling me back!"

I tried to read this long discourse by Pat in another thread, but I kept having trouble.  My eyes would glaze over, and I would have something like a petit mal incident and wake up wondering what happened.

I tried it again and the same thing happened.  My eyes glazed over, and I woke up snoring.  I guess that may be "copping out".

But, not to worry Pat, Jeremy, and Jonathan.  I think I have come up with a solution.  Simply think of the things you want to say or ask the questions you want to have answered.  Think of how you would answer those questions and then reverse whatever your thinking was and you will have my answer.

I think that is a neat solution.

 

Yet another cop out.

Simple question, John. Was Bill Newman spreading disinformation when he went on TV at 12:45 PM and said the following: "the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot and the President. I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker, cause he looked, you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in front of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple."

Simple question: yes or no. You can do it.