The Shifting Single-Bullet Theory--It Always "Works" No Matter What

[John Mytton]

CORRECTION: After I posted the above-quoted paragraph in my previous reply, I started getting the gnawing feeling that I had erred on when I did the reenactment and in what move the video got destroyed. The more I thought about it, the more I began to suspect that I'd done the reenactment when we lived in Georgia and that the tape got destroyed in our move from Georgia to Texas. For one thing, as I thought back about our move from England, I recalled that the British movers were very careful with our stuff and used a ton of wrapping paper to make sure nothing got broken. After doing a little searching, I found the third edition of my Zapruder film alteration article and confirmed my suspicion that I did the reenactment with Jacob in 1998 and that the VHS tape got destroyed when our household goods were shipped from Georgia to Texas.

I've edited the original reply by adding a correction notice and by striking out the incorrect statements about when the reenactment was done and when the VHS tape got destroyed.

I appreciate the clarification but the where and when is irrelevant, more info on the how would definitely help you! Because under reasonable circumstances, a virtually indestructible VHS tape is highly unlikely to be destroyed. Did your movers clobber the tape with a sledge hammer because with your hostile attitude I wouldn't doubt it!

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is getting tiring, you keep presenting the same endless wall of words of regurgitated garbage but I just couldn't let some of the idiocy in this laughable post go by without highlighting just how delusional you really are.

Once again you come across as a teenager who is losing the argument and who resorts to a bunch of name-calling and yelling to vent his frustration.

I notice you said nothing about Dr. David Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. Here's the link again for your convenience:

"The Zapruder Film Controversy"
https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf

My responses are grounded in physics, science and perspective whereas your weak attempts of refutation are based on your opinions, biased observations and maintaining this unseen conspiracy just so you can move a few more books, I've seen this before with the likes of Jim DiEugenio, another clown who never met a conspiracy he didn't like, and just so he also could maintain the rage and sell just 1 more book or sell 1 more deceptive DVD. Pathetic!

No, your responses consist of endless evasions, demonstrably bogus arguments, and juvenile name-calling. You said your phony limo slowdown is "obvious," yet even Dr. Alvarez, an ardent WC apologist, said he could only find one brief slowdown in the Zapruder film, and it was not your bogus slowdown. The slowdown he found, which he only detected via careful frame-by-frame analysis, is the split-second, virtually imperceptible slowdown in Z295-304, a slowdown that you yourself did not notice.

You would have us believe that the dozens of eyewitness accounts of the limo stopping or markedly slowing are all describing a half-second slowdown in the Zapruder film that no one noticed until Alvarez detected it with frame-by-frame analysis. This is your idea of a response "grounded in physics, science and perspective"?

1. I'll tackle this nonsense first, you say you moved and your VHS tapes which in my experience are virtually indestructible, were "crushed", Hahahaha, you can throw 1 of those solid bad boys against a wall and they will still function, did you also pack Big Ben and London Bridge on top of them and even then I doubt they would be "crushed beyond recovery"? What a Dildo!

I address this below, but I have to chuckle at your description of VHS cassettes, which are made of plastic, as "virtually indestructible." Really? I remember my kids accidentally stepping on a couple of them and ruining them as a result. You should do a reenactment where you throw a VHS tape up against a wall with enough force to simulate, say, 120 pounds being applied to the top or bottom. Yeah, let's see you do that and then try to play it. Let's see it.

2. I have never doubted the reasoning on doing an originally unfilmed re-enactment, I wholeheartedly endorse the Baker time trial and the confirmation that Oswald had ample time to arrive at the 2nd floor Lunchroom.

Wrong. The WC Baker-Oswald reenactment proved no such thing. Even some WC apologists have admitted that the Commission's reenactment was unrealistic. Yet, here you are you repeating the debunked claim that it proved Oswald had ample time to get into the second-floor lunchroom. Why don't you venture to explain how he could have done that without being seen by Truly, who was running ahead of Baker and who was already on the third-floor steps when Baker got on the second-floor landing and saw Oswald through the door window? You might read these articles first, before you embarrass yourself further:

Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12wAiq3B9Sc1BfBc7qay2vYswNrcQY_Rt/view

The Baker-Oswald Encounter
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view

But asking me to prove/disprove another 1 of your dreamed up fantasies goes beyond the pale, It's YOUR problem not mine and it's up to YOU to provide evidence, it's as simple as that! Besides since the event was filmed and I have supplied a stabilized GIF of what actually happened, therefore makes any further involvement from me to be redundant! It happened as said and looks perfectly normal.

You can holler and scream and stomp your feet like a bratty teen all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that your "stabilized GIF" shows Brehm Jr. behind his father one moment and then standing calmly beside him and clapping just 0.61 seconds later, just as we see in the Zapruder film.

To see how vacuous and unrealistic your argument is, see how long it takes you just to reach for and grasp a cup while sitting at your desk. I'll bet my 401Ks that it will take you right around 1 second to do this, even if you're trying to do it quickly. Yet, you would have us believe that Brehm Jr. was standing behind his father one moment and then, just 0.61 seconds later, had magically moved about 2 feet and was calmly standing beside his father and clapping. 

No wonder you refuse to do a reenactment. No wonder you don't want to try to prove your claim that there's nothing unusual or unnaturally rapid about the boy's movements.

When I did my reenactment with my son Jacob, Jacob tried 12 times to duplicate Brehm Jr.'s feat. With a stopwatch in hand, I timed each attempt. Jacob's times were 0.97, 0.99, 0.89, 0.92, 1.03, 0.92, 0.89, 0.99, 0.97, 0.85, 0.82, and 0.77 seconds, as compared to Brehm junior’s amazing time of 0.56 seconds or 0.61 seconds. For his last three attempts, Jacob was practically jumping out from behind the chair, but it took him time to steady himself and to start clapping his hands.

Anyone can try this experiment at home and see how impossibly fast Brehm Jr. performs his movements.

3. I see you have doubled down on your "camera angles were quite similar", and even though I supplied a graphic which completely destroyed your bizarre observation, you keep repeating your stupidity? Am I secretly on Candid Camera or is this some sort of alien experiment on the the concept of gullibility?

Once again the angles are NOT even remotely similar and the change of perspective accounts for the varying distances between Clint and Jackie. This is basic Kindergarten perspective 101!

This is just more of your dishonest, erroneous bluster. Anyone with two working eyes can see that the camera angles are quite similar. That's why both Z380 and the corresponding Nix frame show the rear wheel on their side, show their end of the rear bumper, show the respective sides of Jackie's and Hill's bodies. This would not be the case if the viewing angles were markedly different. Apparently you just don't care or realize that your own Dealey Plaza-diagram graphic shows that the viewing angles are not all that different.

Again, as is readily apparent to anyone who isn't committed to denying what they can see, in Z380 Jackie's head is clearly at least 3 feet from Hill's head, and Jackie's right hand and Hill's hands are at least 1 foot apart, but in the Nix frame their heads almost appear to be touching, with no space between them, and Hill's left hand appears to be beyond Jackie's right hand. You can delude yourself into believing that this is just a gigantic optical illusion caused by drastically different camera angles, but few people are going to join you in your self-delusion.

4. Your Zapruder PDF is total lunacy, and I disproved a number of your amateur observations, like Malcom Summers leg being splayed forward which is proved because his left shoe is covering his right ankle, again Basic Perspective 101.

If anyone is displaying "lunacy," it's you. You are denying what is plainly visible. Look at Summers' left leg in Z353. It is mostly extended and is at least 6 inches off the ground. His left leg is virtually parallel with his right leg. You can't tell me that you don't see this.

But look at his left leg in the very next frame, Z354. His left foreleg is bent markedly backward. You can tell this just by the fact that his left foot is now directly above his right foot, whereas in Z353 his left foot is extended beyond his right foot. Again, you can't tell me that you don't see this. 

And then look at his position in Z356, just three frames or 3/18ths of a second later. It's very different from how he looks in Z353. Not only are his legs in a noticeably different position, but his left arm and upper body are in a noticeably different position. I know you can see these things. Anyone can see them. They are self-evident.

Sorry, but down here on Earth, humans can't whip their legs, arms, and upper bodies from and into such different positions that quickly.

I could go on and on and on refuting your amateur observations but everyone has their limit and I'm rapidly approaching mine, go ahead and believe what you want but in the centuries to come, the events in Dealey Plaza are already in the history books and these wacky theories of yours will soon be forgotten and true history will prevail, as it always does.

You're the amateur here. You've proved that over and over again. Is "John Mytton" even your real name? Do you have a website? If not, why not? Have you published any articles or books on the JFK case? If not, why not? I've asked you this before, and you ducked it.

Btw, your often repeated defence of "2/3 of the Western World believes..." malarkey is based on random selective polls of people who basically don't know the evidence beyond a few nuggets of CT nonsense and when the evidence is revealed to a jury as in the TV trial of Oswald, the jury had no qualms in convicting Oswald, and that's the fact Jack! Just imagine a jury being exposed to your endless unproven ludicrous accusations, you'd be thrown out of Court on your ass and probably sent to a Psychiatric Asylum. JohnM

Yeah, of course, Mr. Bloviating Teenager. "Random selective polls"? Uh, polls of this nature are supposed to be random. That's the whole idea. You continue to show a poor level of education.

Let's say this: How about if you find me a random or at least a large-sample poll done by a recognized/reputable organization that found that a majority of the respondents believed in the lone-gunman theory? Hey? Find me one reputable poll that has found this.

As for the guilty verdict in the "TV trial of Oswald," I assume you're referring to the Showtime mock Oswald trial that was held in London in 1986. What about the other mock Oswald trials? Any clue?

As you may or may not know, the 1992 A&E mock Oswald trial ended with Oswald's acquittal. The three 2013 mock Oswald trials held in Texas all ended in hung juries, with about 3/4ths of a selected focus group that watched one of the trials voting that a conspiracy had been involved. The 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial held in San Francisco ended in a hung jury, with three of the five jurors dismissed during voir dire voting for acquittal. The 1967 Yale Law School mock Oswald trial ended in a hung jury.

So, gee, I guess the case against Oswald isn't as "overwhelming" as you keep claiming it is. Hey? Why do you suppose that even Dallas police chief Jesse Curry said no one had been able to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands? Why do you suppose that even Norman Mailer said he could have gotten acquitted in a trial?

And, you should understand that many of the jurors who voted guilty in the mock trials said they did not believe that Oswald acted alone. Even the majority of the jurors in the Clay Shaw trial said they believed a conspiracy had killed JFK. Saying that Oswald was guilty is not automatically the same thing as saying there was no conspiracy. Many people who believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy also believe that Oswald fired shots and was part of the conspiracy.

I appreciate the clarification but the where and when is irrelevant, more info on how, under reasonable circumstances, a virtually indestructible VHS tape could possibly be destroyed would definitely help you. Did your movers clobber the tape with a sledge hammer because with your hostile attitude I wouldn't doubt it!JohnM

"Virtually indestructible VHS tape"?! Anyone who has owned VHS tapes will recognize your comment as clownish. Anyway, as I explained, the reenactment tape and several other tapes were crushed and damaged beyond recovery because they were packed in a flimsy cardboard box and with no padding. You need more "clarification" than that? Okay, the plastic cassettes that encased the magnetic tapes were crushed so badly that they cracked and broke into pieces--they were, after all, made of plastic. The magnetic tape inside the reenactment cassette was cut and twisted as a result of the crushing and cracking of the cassette.

[John Mytton]

Once again you come across as a teenager who is losing the argument and who resorts to a bunch of name-calling and yelling to vent his frustration.

No, your responses consist of endless evasions, demonstrably bogus arguments, and juvenile name-calling. You said your phony limo slowdown is "obvious," yet even Dr. Alvarez, an ardent WC apologist, said he could only find one brief slowdown in the Zapruder film, and it was not your bogus slowdown. The slowdown he found, which he only detected via careful frame-by-frame analysis, is the split-second, virtually imperceptible slowdown in Z295-304, a slowdown that you yourself did not notice.

You would have us believe that the dozens of eyewitness accounts of the limo stopping or markedly slowing are all describing a half-second slowdown in the Zapruder film that no one noticed until Alvarez detected it with frame-by-frame analysis. This is your idea of a response "grounded in physics, science and perspective"?

I address this below, but I have to chuckle at your description of VHS cassettes, which are made of plastic, as "virtually indestructible." Really? I remember my kids accidentally stepping on a couple of them and ruining them as a result. You should do a reenactment where you throw a VHS tape up against a wall with enough force to simulate, say, 120 pounds being applied to the top or bottom. Yeah, let's see you do that and then try to play it. Let's see it.

Wrong. The WC Baker-Oswald reenactment proved no such thing. Even some WC apologists have admitted that the Commission's reenactment was unrealistic. Yet, here you are you repeating the debunked claim that it proved Oswald had ample time to get into the second-floor lunchroom. Why don't you venture to explain how he could have done that without being seen by Truly, who was running ahead of Baker and who was already on the third-floor steps when Baker got on the second-floor landing and saw Oswald through the door window? You might read these articles first, before you embarrass yourself further:

Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12wAiq3B9Sc1BfBc7qay2vYswNrcQY_Rt/view

The Baker-Oswald Encounter
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view

You can holler and scream and stomp your feet like a bratty teen all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that your "stabilized GIF" shows Brehm Jr. behind his father one moment and then standing calmly beside him and clapping just 0.61 seconds later, just as we see in the Zapruder film.

To see how vacuous and unrealistic your argument is, see how long it takes you just to reach for and grasp a cup while sitting at your desk. I'll bet my 401Ks that it will take you right around 1 second to do this, even if you're trying to do it quickly. Yet, you would have us believe that Brehm Jr. was standing behind his father one moment and then, just 0.61 seconds later, had magically moved about 2 feet and was calmly standing beside his father and clapping. 

No wonder you refuse to do a reenactment. No wonder you don't want to try to prove your claim that there's nothing unusual or unnaturally rapid about the boy's movements.

When I did my reenactment with my son Jacob, Jacob tried 12 times to duplicate Brehm Jr.'s feat. With a stopwatch in hand, I timed each attempt. Jacob's times were 0.97, 0.99, 0.89, 0.92, 1.03, 0.92, 0.89, 0.99, 0.97, 0.85, 0.82, and 0.77 seconds, as compared to Brehm junior’s amazing time of 0.56 seconds or 0.61 seconds. For his last three attempts, Jacob was practically jumping out from behind the chair, but it took him time to steady himself and to start clapping his hands.

Anyone can try this experiment at home and see how impossibly fast Brehm Jr. performs his movements.

This is just more of your dishonest, erroneous bluster. Anyone with two working eyes can see that the camera angles are quite similar. That's why both Z380 and the corresponding Nix frame show the rear wheel on their side, show their end of the rear bumper, show the respective sides of Jackie's and Hill's bodies. This would not be the case if the viewing angles were markedly different. Apparently you just don't care or realize that your own Dealey Plaza-diagram graphic shows that the viewing angles are not all that different.

Again, as is readily apparent to anyone who isn't committed to denying what they can see, in Z380 Jackie's head is clearly at least 3 feet from Hill's head, and Jackie's right hand and Hill's hands are at least 1 foot apart, but in the Nix frame their heads almost appear to be touching, with no space between them, and Hill's left hand appears to be beyond Jackie's right hand. You can delude yourself into believing that this is just a gigantic optical illusion caused by drastically different camera angles, but few people are going to join you in your self-delusion.

If anyone is displaying "lunacy," it's you. You are denying what is plainly visible. Look at Summers' left leg in Z353. It is mostly extended and is at least 6 inches off the ground. His left leg is virtually parallel with his right leg. You can't tell me that you don't see this.

But look at his left leg in the very next frame, Z354. His left foreleg is bent markedly backward. You can tell this just by the fact that his left foot is now directly above his right foot, whereas in Z353 his left foot is extended beyond his right foot. Again, you can't tell me that you don't see this. 

And then look at his position in Z356, just three frames or 3/18ths of a second later. It's very different from how he looks in Z353. Not only are his legs in a noticeably different position, but his left arm and upper body are in a noticeably different position. I know you can see these things. Anyone can see them. They are self-evident.

Sorry, but down here on Earth, humans can't whip their legs, arms, and upper bodies from and into such different positions that quickly.

You're the amateur here. You've proved that over and over again. Is "John Mytton" even your real name? Do you have a website? If not, why not? Have you published any articles or books on the JFK case? If not, why not? I've asked you this before, and you ducked it.

Yeah, of course, Mr. Bloviating Teenager. "Random selective polls"? Uh, polls of this nature are supposed to be random. That's the whole idea. You continue to show a poor level of education.

Let's say this: How about if you find me a random or at least a large-sample poll done by a recognized/reputable organization that found that a majority of the respondents believed in the lone-gunman theory? Hey? Find me one reputable poll that has found this.

As for the guilty verdict in the "TV trial of Oswald," I assume you're referring to the Showtime mock Oswald trial that was held in London in 1986. What about the other mock Oswald trials? Any clue?

As you may or may not know, the 1992 A&E mock Oswald trial ended with Oswald's acquittal. The three 2013 mock Oswald trials held in Texas all ended in hung juries, with about 3/4ths of a selected focus group that watched one of the trials voting that a conspiracy had been involved. The 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial held in San Francisco ended in a hung jury, with three of the five jurors dismissed during voir dire voting for acquittal. The 1967 Yale Law School mock Oswald trial ended in a hung jury.

So, gee, I guess the case against Oswald isn't as "overwhelming" as you keep claiming it is. Hey? Why do you suppose that even Dallas police chief Jesse Curry said no one had been able to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands? Why do you suppose that even Norman Mailer said he could have gotten acquitted in a trial?

And, you should understand that many of the jurors who voted guilty in the mock trials said they did not believe that Oswald acted alone. Even the majority of the jurors in the Clay Shaw trial said they believed a conspiracy had killed JFK. Saying that Oswald was guilty is not automatically the same thing as saying there was no conspiracy. Many people who believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy also believe that Oswald fired shots and was part of the conspiracy.

"Virtually indestructible VHS tape"?! Anyone who has owned VHS tapes will recognize your comment as clownish. Anyway, as I explained, the reenactment tape and several other tapes were crushed and damaged beyond recovery because they were packed in a flimsy cardboard box and with no padding. You need more "clarification" than that? Okay, the plastic cassettes that encased the magnetic tapes were crushed so badly that they cracked and broke into pieces--they were, after all, made of plastic. The magnetic tape inside the reenactment cassette was cut and twisted as a result of the crushing and cracking of the cassette.

1. Once again, in a topic analysing the visual record, I provide irrefutable visual evidence whereas you provide your amateur opinion! Nuff said!

2. Another week goes by and again the same old story story about how you did the "Brehm's son" experiment yada yada yada, and now you provide a challenge that anybody can do this at home, so why the heck haven't you done this at home and filmed it with your phone and posted it here. The experiment itself could be set up in minutes and completed in less than a literal second? Waiting... Zzzzz...

3. Why hasn't 1 member jumped to your defence, in virtually every thread I post in, the CT members form a pack mentality and love to attack me and debate me and try and beat/humiliate me, but here, all I hear are crickets, could it be because they see my replies as being grounded in science and your amateur responses as being , well, amateurish?

4) I have a Youtube channel and my JFK videos have over a half a million views, how many books have you sold? LOL!

The first part of my following video required element isolation, video matting and compositing 11 layers of video, mattes, effects, music and speech.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

1. Once again, in a topic analysing the visual record, I provide irrefutable visual evidence whereas you provide your amateur opinion! Nuff said!

2. Another week goes by and again the same old story story about how you did the "Brehm's son" experiment yada yada yada, and now you provide a challenge that anybody can do this at home, so why the heck haven't you done this at home and filmed it with your phone and posted it here. The experiment itself could be set up in minutes and completed in less than a literal second? Waiting... Zzzzz...

3. Why hasn't 1 member jumped to your defence, in virtually every thread I post in, the CT members form a pack mentality and love to attack me and debate me and try and beat/humiliate me, but here, all I hear are crickets, could it be because they see my replies as being grounded in science and your amateur responses as being , well, amateurish?

4) I have a Youtube channel and my JFK videos have over a half a million views, how many books have you sold? LOL!

The first part of my following video required element isolation, video matting and compositing 11 layers of video, mattes, effects, music and speech.

JohnM

4) I have a Youtube channel and my JFK videos have over a half a million views, how many books have you sold? LOL!

The first part of my following video required element isolation, video matting and compositing 11 layers of video, mattes, effects, music and speech.

That's Mytton speak for; I copied Bugliosi's BS list of evidence and I infringed on copyright to make a pathetic video that nobody is really interested in.

[John Mytton]

That's Mytton speak for; I copied Bugliosi's BS list of evidence and I infringed on copyright to make a pathetic video that nobody is really interested in.

Thanks for watching my video with thousands of views and almost a thousand comments!

Btw how about you being the first member here to defend Griffiths accusations of Zapruder alteration.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Thanks for watching my video with thousands of views and almost a thousand comments!

Btw how about you being the first member here to defend Griffiths accusations of Zapruder alteration.

JohnM

I watched your pirate video a long time ago and even then it looked like the work of an amateur.

As for Zapruder, I have no opinion about it due to a lack of knowledge. I've always accepted it as it is, despite the fact that I do know that people more knowlegable than me have argued that is manipulated.
In the bigger scheme of things, the Zapruder video does not provide crucial evidence beyond the fact that it shows Kennedy being shot.

[John Mytton]

I watched your pirate video a long time ago and even then it looked like the work of an amateur.

As for Zapruder, I have no opinion about it due to a lack of knowledge. I've always accepted it as it is, despite the fact that I do know that people more knowlegable than me have argued that is manipulated.
In the bigger scheme of things, the Zapruder video does not provide crucial evidence beyond the fact that it shows Kennedy being shot.

I watched your pirate video a long time ago....

Again, thanks for watching.

I've always accepted it as it is...

Exactly, if it looked to be altered, this fact would stick out like a sore thumb, even to the casual viewer.

...the Zapruder video does not provide crucial evidence beyond the fact that it shows Kennedy being shot.

Precisely, so why alter it at all, what could that possibly achieve? Because for some reason Griffith thought it was of vital importance to alter Brehm's son, because most likely Griffith believes Brehm's son was another assassin?
The film shows to the casual uninformed viewer that Kennedy goes back and to the left, so why wouldn't "they" alter this most crucial aspect in the Film?

JohnM