The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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.

So, you didn't like my solution?  I was tempted to leave it at that.

Bill Newman.  Possible.  Depending on what you think is a concrete standard or monument.  I find Bill and Gayle's testimony suspicious just as the faked lying in the grass for the cameras.

"Bill Newman- in a Dallas Sheriff’s Office statement made on 11-22-63 said he was standing just west of the concrete standard (the monument) at the corner of the TSBD when he heard shots as the presidential limousine came toward him on Elm Street.  This means that the shooting occurred on Elm Street in front of the TSBD.  Newman mentions the “garden” behind which is different than the concrete standard.  Newman and wife’s statements are questionable."

That said I will raise you 5 witnesses who said shooting occurred under the trees in front of the TSBD.  I have many more witnesses talking about shooting in front of the TSBD.   These are 3rd and 4th floor witnesses in the TSBD.

1.     Vickie Adams- 11-24-63- She said when the president’s vehicle entered the intersection of Elm and Houston she heard 3 shots.  She could not see the shooting since it happened while the presidential limousine was under trees.  And, that would be in front of the TSBD.

2.     Dorothy Garner- 3-20-64 FBI report- When the shots occurred the presidential vehicle was out of sight, obscured by trees on Elm.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

3.     Yola Hopson- 12-1-63- FBI report- She heard two or more sounds / firecrackers when the presidential limousine was obscured by trees on Elm.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

4.     Steven Wilson- 3-25-64- FBI statement- He said he heard 3 shots while the president was obscured by trees on Elm.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

5.     Ruth Nelson- FBI Report 3 23 64- Ruth said she did not see the p. limo when she heard shots.  She was watching the motorcade, but could not see the President.  She was standing in the same place as Yola Hopson who said she could not see the President when she heard shots due to the p. limo being obscured by trees in front of the TBSD. 

I can print more of these, or you can go back and find the original in either Word doc, or PDF format.  I will advise you, being who you are, it may hurt your head.  Poor Jeremy says he can't look at my 3000 posts in fear it might hurt (damn editor keeps changing hurt to heard- that's 3 times) his head.  So, take care.   

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by John Butler

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, John Butler said:

So, you didn't like my solution?  I was tempted to leave it at that.

Bill Newman.  Possible.  Depending on what you think is a concrete standard or monument.  I find Bill and Gayle's testimony suspicious just as the faked lying in the grass for the cameras.

"Bill Newman- in a Dallas Sheriff’s Office statement made on 11-22-63 said he was standing just west of the concrete standard (the monument) at the corner of the TSBD when he heard shots as the presidential limousine came toward him on Elm Street.  This means that the shooting occurred on Elm Street in front of the TSBD.  Newman mentions the “garden” behind which is different than the concrete standard.  Newman and wife’s statements are questionable."

That said I will raise you 5 witnesses who said shooting occurred under the trees in front of the TSBD.  I have many more witnesses talking about shooting in front of the TSBD.   These are 3rd and 4th floor witnesses in the TSBD.

1.     Vickie Adams- 11-24-63- She said when the president’s vehicle entered the intersection of Elm and Houston she heard 3 shots.  She could not see the shooting since it happened while the presidential limousine was under trees.  And, that would be in front of the TSBD.

2.     Dorothy Garner- 3-20-64 FBI report- When the shots occurred the presidential vehicle was out of sight, obscured by trees on Elm.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

3.     Yola Hopson- 12-1-63- FBI report- She heard two or more sounds / firecrackers when the presidential limousine was obscured by trees on Elm.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

4.     Steven Wilson- 3-25-64- FBI statement- He said he heard 3 shots while the president was obscured by trees on Elm.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

5.     Ruth Nelson- FBI Report 3 23 64- Ruth said she did not see the p. limo when she heard shots.  She was watching the motorcade, but could not see the President.  She was standing in the same place as Yola Hopson who said she could not see the President when she heard shots due to the p. limo being obscured by trees in front of the TBSD. 

I can print more of these, or you can go back and find the original in either Word doc, or PDF format.  I will advise you, being who you are, it may hurt your head.  Poor Jeremy says he can't look at my 3000 posts in fear it might heard his head.  So, take care.   

 

Uhhh... I hope you realize that from the perspective of those in the TSBD, the trees blocked off their view for some distance beyond where they were sitting/standing. 

As far as the Newmans...EEGADS!  The Newmans said from the beginning that they lay on top of their children after seeing JFK's head explode in front of them. Their location was captured in numerous photos and films. Are you saying--really saying--that they ran down the street for 20 or 30 yards before laying down on the grass? And, if so, do you think they were deliberately deceiving the public when they indicated the fatal shot came from behind them, from a location west of the TSBD? In your scenario, after all, a shot from behind them would have been coming from the TSBD...

Edited February 28, 2022 by Pat Speer

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Their location was captured in numerous photos and films. Are you saying--really saying--that they ran down the street for 20 or 30 yards before laying down on the grass?

They laid down in the grass where the photographers wanted. 

You didn't mention anything about my witnesses, just some perspective challenge.  Do you guys get taught these things at some school.  Does it go like this?  No matter what is said challenge on something different from a different perspective.

Really.  Is that all?

If you care to notice that the trees obscure the area on front of the TSBD and not Elm Street further down.  The lamppost and R L Thornton sign are close to the SW corner of the TSBD at about 10 or 15 feet.  The shooting is even better from the Dal-Tex.  And, if any shooting came from the rear, it was from either the Court Records Building or the Dal-Tex.  Few would choose the TSBD as a shooting platform. 

Oswald was a combat trained Marine.  If you believe Gerry Hemming than he was actually out in the jungle chasing Huks.  Combat experience.  I don't believe he would have chosen the 6th floor.  I have many witnesses who said they did not hear shooting from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest.  But, they did hear shooting coming from other places.  If someone shot a rifle from the Court Records Building or the Dal-Tex, would you say that shot came from the TSBD or Dal-Tex.  Notice I left out the CRB since Elsie Dorman said a shot came from the Court records building.  

The people who were within 30 to 40 ft of the Sniper's Nest all said that the shots came from elsewhere like to the west.  Two said differently.  Junior Jarmen said the shot came from low and to the left (Dal-Tex).  Elsie Dorman said a shot came from the Courts Record Bulding.  That might be "cherry picking" to you, but this is what the witnesses said. 

Notice the two photographs.  The one on the left-hand makes it look like a long distance to the Triple Underpass.  The one on the right-hand side makes it look like a short distance.

Which do you think it is?  

Edited March 1, 2022 by John Butler

[Gary Murr]

Edited ny Admin

“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?”

As Jeremy Bojczuk accurately indicated to you in this thread, James Featherstone, a court reporter for the Dallas Times Herald, had seen Mary Moorman with her camera and it was he who took Mary and Jean Hill to the press room in the Dallas County Criminal Courts Building, which also was the location of the Dallas Sheriff’s Department. In referring to Mary’s Polaroid picture at a “Reporters Remember Conference” held in Dallas on November 20, 1993, Featherstone readily admitted that he “wanted that picture, period”, his rationale at the time being a thought that this might be “the only picture [of the assassination] in existence.” Featherstone further indicated at this same 1993 conference that Mary agreed to give him the image and both she and Jean Hill accompanied him to the press room in the Criminal Courts Building at which time he interviewed both women and then called the Times Herald re-write desk to pass along the content of their interviews.

WBAP television newsman Jim Darnell was also in the press room of the Criminal Courts Building and his 1:21 p.m. CST interview of Jean Hill was one of the very first such interviews of an assassination witness played over the NBC network via WBAP’s Tom Whalen. Later in the afternoon NBC cameraman Henry Kokajan joined Darnell at the Court Building. Kokajan had arrived at the Court Building with WBAP’s only sound camera, which had been set up at the Trade Mart in anticipation of the Kennedy luncheon. At approximately 3:16 p.m., CST, NBC utilized once again their WBAP affiliate to report on witnesses to the assassination and it was at this time that the Moorman Polaroid was filmed by Kokajan, shown on camera, in advance of the filmed interview of both Mary Moorman and Jean Hill. So yes, the NBC television footage is a “true film!”

[One of the best source materials for information on the NBC coverage of the assassination weekend is found in the book “There Was A President”, Ridge Press, New York, published in New York by Random House, 1966. Information regarding Darnell and Kokajan can be found in NBC videotape at the Kennedy Library, Columbia Point, Boston, Massachusetts, specifically reel TNN255-R1; “NBC telecast, 11/22/63.”]

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/28/2022 at 2:57 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If witnesses are all we have, then [larger numbers of them in agreement] 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.

 

Jeremy moved the goal posts. I said that a large number of corroborating witnesses are likely to be right. Here he is saying that that is not so given that witnesses often make mistakes. While that statement is true, it's only true because he removed the qualifiers "large number" and "corroborating."

 

On 2/28/2022 at 2:57 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/28/2022 at 2:57 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

 

Thanks Jeremy.

Apparently the phenomenon of selective blurring in Zapruder is well known among some researchers and there are multiple experts who agree that the phenomenon cannot be explained.

I actually predicted selective blurring years ago back when I saw that Chris Davidson thought that the Z film was filmed at 36 fps and that frame removal had been used to speed the car up around Z313. I wondered if it was possible to remove frames around Z313 from an 18 fps film and not introduce jerkiness in the motion picture. I studied the film and came to the conclusion that it could be done, though it would require the introduction of blurring in key places to remove jerkiness where the film transitions from the "frames-not-taken-out" portion to the "frames-taken-out" portion of the film.

I lost interest at around that time, probably displaced by some other topic of interest.

Then a couple weeks ago I recalled my prediction when someone on this thread (Chris Davidson?) made a comment regarding Zapruder blurring. That's when I decided to look and see if I could actually identify an instance of the blurring I predicted. (Maybe Chris or somebody else pointed to blurring at ~Z310... I don't recall... because that is where I first looked) It was only after I found an instance of selective blurring that I realized it was actually proof of alteration, because it cannot be present in an unaltered film. Yay!

BTW, the frames being scrutinized over on the ROKC forum are somewhere else in the film... 302, 303, and 304 I believe. It looks like Ed LeDoux agrees with me, though he posted it in the Debunked section.

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/28/2022 at 3:00 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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?

 

It would be wise for John to seriously consider the criticisms he is receiving for some of his claims.

I personally appreciate it when my ideas are scrutinized and challenged -- free of charge! -- by others who know of evidence that contradicts what I believe. Because I don't want to get bogged down believing things that aren't true.

 

[Chris Davidson]

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks Jeremy.

Apparently the phenomenon of selective blurring in Zapruder is well known among some researchers and there are multiple experts who agree that the phenomenon cannot be explained.

I actually predicted selective blurring years ago back when I saw that Chris Davidson thought that the Z film was filmed at 36 fps and that frame removal had been used to speed the car up around Z313. I wondered if it was possible to remove frames around Z313 from an 18 fps film and not introduce jerkiness in the motion picture. I studied the film and came to the conclusion that it could be done, though it would require the introduction of blurring in key places to remove jerkiness where the film transitions from the "frames-not-taken-out" portion to the "frames-taken-out" portion of the film.

I lost interest at around that time, probably displaced by some other topic of interest.

Then a couple weeks ago I recalled my prediction when someone on this thread (Chris Davidson?) made a comment regarding Zapruder blurring. That's when I decided to look and see if I could actually identify an instance of the blurring. (Or maybe Chris or somebody else pointed to blurring at Z310 or Z311... I don't recall.) It was only after I found an instance of it that I realized it was actually proof of alteration because it could not be present in an unaltered film. Yay!

BTW, the frames being scrutinized over on the ROKC forum are somewhere else in the film... 302, 303, and 304 I believe. It looks like Ed LeDoux agrees with me, though he posted it in the Debunked section.

 

Sandy,

That would have been 48fps = slow motion mode on the B/H 414 camera.

The same concept as an automobile that slows down thus creating more frames in the same time/distance span regardless of the frame rate.

I didn't introduce anything related to blurring.

But, while most of my filming with the B/H 414 I previously owned(40 year old camera) involved panning moving vehicles, I do have a few frames where no panning was involved.

Sync problems among the different films is readily apparent at Nix/Z411. Bell provides the supporting frame for it.

 

 

 

 

 

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

eremy moved the goal posts. I said that a large number of corroborating witnesses are likely to be right. Here he is saying that that is not so given that witnesses often make mistakes. While that statement is true, it's only true because he removed the qualifiers "large number" and "corroborating."

 

Tricksy isn't he.  David Josephs put out a list of propaganda thechniques some time back.  Jeremy and his cohorts generally hit many on that list.

Edited March 1, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

12 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

I mean how does one explain an asinine statement such as this

There is no need to explain it.  It is asinine and intended to be that way.

 

12 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

Well John, since you appear to be having trouble grasping the concept of real research,

I don't have any problems with research and Statistics.  I have 24 college hours in research and statistics in three fields.  "Real" research.  And, how is that different from ordinary research, or is it only "real" when you and your buds do it.

I don't trust anything from Pat Speers mainly due to earlier arguments over Alan Smith.  And, his recent research is bias towards his beliefs.  Jeremy and Jonathan are propagandists often using the same kind of unrealistic reasoning that they say others do.

As far as the 6th Floor and the employees there, I don't trust them either.  The biggest problem I have with the Sixth FLoor folks is that they have cordoned off an area (that I call the Sniper's Nest) when you can't prove Oswald was there or shots being fired from there.  Your star witnesses Norman, Williams said shooting occurred on Houston Street before they changed their story, and Jarman also changed his testimony and said shooting came from elsewhere, low and to the left.  

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It would be wise for John to seriously consider the criticisms he is receiving for some of his claims.

I do consider any criticism by others seriously.  However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with things I consider false based on what I know.  I don't have to agree with propagandists or bullies.  When I present something on the forum it comes from evidence found in Dealey Plaza, and clearly marked as such.  105+ witnesses who say something different then the official story cannot be ignored.  What's in the AMIPA film cannot be ignored either.  It tells a different story that agrees with several witnesses, particularly Jackie Kennedy.  That story is so different that folks who have had 50+ years of the Z film have to disagree with what happened there.  The Z film is a powerful brain washing instrument.  That is what it was designed to do.  Almost every one fell for it when it debuted in the 70s with its horrible and tragic scenes.  And, it still has that hold on people who believe the film is pristine and without alteration.  If the Z film is altered in the scenes it presents then the other films showing much the same thing have also been tweaked.    

I don't hold the work of Muir, Speers, Cohen, and Bojczuk reliable.  

Edited March 1, 2022 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

18 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I don't trust anything from Pat Speers mainly due to earlier arguments over Alan Smith.  And, his recent research is bias towards his beliefs.  Jeremy and Jonathan are propagandists often using the same kind of unrealistic reasoning that they say others do.

It's hard to fathom this comment from John Butler, the undisputed king of "unrealistic reasoning" on this forum, who believes every film and photo taken in Dealey Plaza is altered but refuses to give even the most basic explanation for how this could have possibly been accomplished. Beyond the fact that he can't even bother to spell Pat Speer's name correctly, John continues to labor under the false impression that I am a "lone nut" adherent and/or a "propagandist." Propagandist for ... what, exactly? That the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza is genuine?

[Jamey Flanagan]

Gentlemen, can we all please get back on topic? Because all of you are never going to agree or to give an inch to the other side so that makes this exercise pointless and just leads us further away from the topic at hand. Anyone have anything else to add on the Zapruder film, it's copies, the Geraldo showing, etc?

[Gary Murr]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

I don't hold the work of Muir, Speers, Cohen, and Bojczuk reliable.  

Well, its rather apparent that your massive "24 college hours in research and statistics..." did not involve spelling since you appear to be unable to correctly spell my last name. I can only assume that you also believe that I am some "lone nut" proponent who believes in the Warren Commission and Oswald's singular guilt, why else would you consider by work [obviously something you know absolutely nothing about] unreliable. 

[Ron Bulman]

On 2/23/2022 at 1:09 PM, Mark Knight said:

For those wondering if Mark Knight is still around.