-
Hoffman Hill & Oliver
-
Are there still people in this world who think Ed Hoffman and Beverley Oliver are credible witnesses?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/D0q8sL3g/The-Hoff-zpsbhfrcf6f.gif)
JohnM
-
Are there still people in this world who think Ed Hoffman and Beverley Oliver are credible witnesses?
Why did your comment exclude Jean Hill?
-
The lesson is that one's theory of the JFKA should be informed exclusively by statements contemporaneous with the event or within a matter of days thereafter. Whether we're talking about CT-friendly witnesses or LN-friendly ones, it's absolutely inevitable that stories change, always in the direction of getting "better" and usually more elaborate, as time passes and the witness is exposed to other material and starts to enjoy his or her 15 minutes of fame. This is true across all areas of weirdness in which I've been involved. I even have to guard against this in my own recollections of anomalous experiences I've had. I've occasionally been asked to recount them for books or studies, and I definitely have to rein myself in and avoid the temptation to make them just a bit "better." There is also, of course, the fallibility of memory; as we are exposed to other material, we unconsciously start to incoporate it into our own "memories" and believe it really happened to us. Yet, how much JFKA theorizing is predicated on these long-after-the-fact statements and supposed recollections?
-
Yeah, eyewitnesses can be wrong. But they can also be making accurate/astute observations amidst the muddle of their inaccurate story. Jean Hill has been ridiculed for decades with respect to her claiming there was a, "dog in the middle of the seat....", inside the JFK Limo. And this ridicule includes the above puffed up, "FBI employee by day...". There was a "Lamb Chop" hand puppet inside the JFK Limo. Specifically, this "Lamb Chop" hand puppet was on the back seat between JFK and Jackie. Jean Hill was the only person inside Dealey Plaza to see this Lamb Chop/"Dog" inside the JFK Limo. The point being, "Do NOT throw the baby out with the bath water". There can be specks of truth within an inaccurate eyewitness story.
-
Are there still people in this world who think Ed Hoffman and Beverley Oliver are credible witnesses?
What i did is i watched & read every thing that Hoffman said, & i read every thing that he supposedly said.
And i can clearly see that Hoffman was indeed on the overpass at that time.
But 99.9% of what he said was krapp.
-
Why did your comment exclude Jean Hill?
Jean Hill actually witnessed the shooting even though not everything she said was spot on. Hoffman and Oliver were frauds.
-
Yeah, eyewitnesses can be wrong. But they can also be making accurate/astute observations amidst the muddle of their inaccurate story. Jean Hill has been ridiculed for decades with respect to her claiming there was a, "dog in the middle of the seat....", inside the JFK Limo. And this ridicule includes the above puffed up, "FBI employee by day...". There was a "Lamb Chop" hand puppet inside the JFK Limo. Specifically, this "Lamb Chop" hand puppet was on the back seat between JFK and Jackie. Jean Hill was the only person inside Dealey Plaza to see this Lamb Chop/"Dog" inside the JFK Limo. The point being, "Do NOT throw the baby out with the bath water". There can be specks of truth within an inaccurate eyewitness story.
Nah, the Lamb Chop puppet was in the getaway car.
Actually, here is a thread from the Ed Forum started by Jack White (EEK!) with a photo in which the bouquet of white flowers carried by Jackie does indeed look quite a bit like Lamb Chop: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/12420-jfk-holds-lambchop/. The consensus of the more intelligent folks seems to be that this was, alas, the bouquet. For the record, no hand puppets were injured in the flurry of bullets and, contrary to vicious rumor, Shari Lewis was not between JFK's knees at the time.
I grew up in the Lamb Chop era. Too insipidly stupid for me even as a 6-year-old. Nothing worse than a bad ventriliquist, eh?
-
Yeah, eyewitnesses can be wrong. But they can also be making accurate/astute observations amidst the muddle of their inaccurate story. Jean Hill has been ridiculed for decades with respect to her claiming there was a, "dog in the middle of the seat....", inside the JFK Limo. And this ridicule includes the above puffed up, "FBI employee by day...". There was a "Lamb Chop" hand puppet inside the JFK Limo. Specifically, this "Lamb Chop" hand puppet was on the back seat between JFK and Jackie. Jean Hill was the only person inside Dealey Plaza to see this Lamb Chop/"Dog" inside the JFK Limo. The point being, "Do NOT throw the baby out with the bath water". There can be specks of truth within an inaccurate eyewitness story.
This is why I don't put Jean Hill in the same category as Hoffman and Oliver. She was definitely in Dealey Plaza and was close to the limo when the fatal shot struck. I'm not surprised that she mistook a puppet for a small dog. I think she later embellished some of the things she claimed to have seen but I'll give her a pass on the small dog.
-
McAdams on Jean Hill:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/jhill.htm
-
So where is the Babushka lady film? She was holding a camera. It was capturing the close up perspective view better than any other camera person. Coincidence?
-
Your intrepid Factoid-Buster is now hot on the trail (or perhaps that should be tail) of the Lamb Chop Factoid. Here is another thread from the Ed Forum, this time in 2010 and once again started by Jack White (EEK!): https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15477-why-was-this-man-carrying-a-toy-dog/.
It seems pretty clear there was no Lamb Chop in the limousine, unless Jackie used to call Greer "Lamb Chop" in their more informal moments. Probably I'll just let this factoid die a peaceful death.
Just a thought, Royell: Maybe that's why Officer Haygood had his glove off - to accomodate Lamb Chop if necessary for a clean getaway? "Do not leave the scene without Lamb Chop, Officer Haygood Imposter."
Oh, wait, here is a 10-second YouTube video clearly showing Jackie holding Lamb Chop at Love Field. Except I don't see any Lamb Chop unless this was her pet name (pet name - get it?) for JFK, as in "Why are you porking that 17-year-old intern, Lamb Chop?"
-
So where is the Babushka lady film? She was holding a camera. It was capturing the close up perspective view better than any other camera person. Coincidence?
This is an example of trying to make a point by raising a question. Questions are no evidence. You need answers.
-
Your intrepid Factoid-Buster is now hot on the trail (or perhaps that should be tail) of the Lamb Chop Factoid. Here is another thread from the Ed Forum, this time in 2010 and once again started by Jack White (EEK!): https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15477-why-was-this-man-carrying-a-toy-dog/.
It seems pretty clear there was no Lamb Chop in the limousine, unless Jackie used to call Greer "Lamb Chop" in their more informal moments. Probably I'll just let this factoid die a peaceful death.
Just a thought, Royell: Maybe that's why Officer Haygood had his glove off - to accomodate Lamb Chop if necessary for a clean getaway? "Do not leave the scene without Lamb Chop, Officer Haygood Imposter."
Oh, wait, here is a 10-second YouTube video clearly showing Jackie holding Lamb Chop at Love Field. Except I don't see any Lamb Chop unless this was her pet name (pet name - get it?) for JFK, as in "Why are you porking that 17-year-old intern, Lamb Chop?"
I can direct you where to see images of the "Lamb Chop" hand puppet inside the JFK Limo. Just let me know.
-
I can direct you where to see images of the "Lamb Chop" hand puppet inside the JFK Limo. Just let me know.
Don't direct me, my good man - post 'em! Is either Imposter Haygood's hand or Shari Lewis' head visible in any of them?
-
The only issue on Beverly Oliver not being the Babushka lady is who was she, and why nobody ever came forward. The woman had to have friends and family that knew she was there but nothing.
And good old Posner another one who tells tall tales.
-
The only issue on Beverly Oliver not being the Babushka lady is who was she, and why nobody ever came forward. The woman had to have friends and family that knew she was there but nothing.
And good old Posner another one who tells tall tales.
I was far less impressed with Posner than I was with Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. I never liked the way Posner acted like he was riding to the rescue of the WCR, which did not need to be rescued. In promoting his book, Posner fed off many CT myths, such as WC saying the shots were fired in under 6 seconds. That was never a conclusion of the WC but Posner acted like it was.
-
Don't direct me, my good man - post 'em! Is either Imposter Haygood's hand or Shari Lewis' head visible in any of them?
YOU TUBE
Search - "JFK: One Day in America - Who Killed JFK? | Mega Episode | National Geographic" by - National Geographic
29:30 - The Black Nose, Black Eyes, and Floppy Ear are clearly visible as Jackie sits in the JFK Limo and holds/looks at "Lamb Chop".
-
YOU TUBE
Search - "JFK: One Day in America - Who Killed JFK? | Mega Episode | National Geographic" by - National Geographic
29:30 - The Black Nose, Black Eyes, and Floppy Ear are clearly visible as Jackie sits in the JFK Limo and holds/looks at "Lamb Chop".
Uh, no. Your talent for seeing things no one else can see is duly noted. I captured a screenshot of 29:30 but don't know how to post it. I see nothing but the flowers Jackie has in her hands in the YouTube clip I posted. Being a diligent factoid-buster, I reviewed numerous photos of Jackie at Love Field and in the limousine, and I saw absolutely nothing that looked like the Chopmeister. I would delighted if Lamb Chop was actually there, but I fear he was not.
Here is the Jack White photo, in which "Lamb Chop" actually looks to be the purse of a woman on the sidewalk. The image is from the Martin film. Jack, who was known as Mr. Rohrshach Test of the JFKA, claimed JFK's hand was inside Lamp Chop!
Below the image is the relevant portion of the Martin film. "Lamb Chop" is CLEARLY the purse of a woman on the sidewalk.
I swear to God, just when you think this stuff can't get any nuttier ...
(https://media.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-667-1204853588.jpg)
-
Uh, no. Your talent for seeing things no one else can see is duly noted. I captured a screenshot of 29:30 but don't know how to post it. I see nothing but the flowers Jackie has in her hands in the YouTube clip I posted. Being a diligent factoid-buster, I reviewed numerous photos of Jackie at Love Field and in the limousine, and I saw absolutely nothing that looked like the Chopmeister. I would delighted if Lamb Chop was actually there, but I fear he was not.
Here is the Jack White photo, in which "Lamb Chop" actually looks to be the purse of a woman on the sidewalk. The image is from the Martin film. Jack, who was known as Mr. Rohrshach Test of the JFKA, claimed JFK's hand was inside Lamp Chop!
Below the image is the relevant portion of the Martin film. "Lamb Chop" is CLEARLY the purse of a woman on the sidewalk.
I swear to God, just when you think this stuff can't get any nuttier ...
(https://media.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-667-1204853588.jpg)
(1) Do you know what "Lamb Chop" looks like? (2) We can see a BLACK NOSE, BLACK EYES, and a FLOPPY EAR. (3) Maybe it's the equipment that you are viewing JFK Assassination images on? (4) There are several film frames that make up 29:30. Do you have the ability to view 29:30 frame-by frame? (5) LAMB Chop's dimpled Wool/Fur matches what we are seeing Jackie holding at 29:30. That is nowhere close to what you would see from "flowers".
-
Is it more appropriate to give the First Lady some beautiful flowers or a hand puppet toy? Now I can imagine some exceptions like a cute Koala in Australia.
To me, the size and shape fits flowers and besides there's nothing that looks like legs or arms.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdVH16Zh/jackie-flowers-or-lambchopp.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/y8WkcfCz/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop.gif)
JohnM
-
Is it more appropriate to give the First Lady some beautiful flowers or a hand puppet toy? Now I can imagine some exceptions like a cute Koala in Australia.
To me, the size and shape fits flowers and besides there's nothing that looks like legs or arms.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdVH16Zh/jackie-flowers-or-lambchopp.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/y8WkcfCz/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop.gif)
JohnM
"The hand is quicker than the eye". Seeing this frame-by-frame tells the tale. There are numerous versions of "Lamb Chop". Some do Not have a body. No legs or arms.
-
"The hand is quicker than the eye". Seeing this frame-by-frame tells the tale. There are numerous versions of "Lamb Chop". Some do Not have a body. No legs or arms.
Two Screen grabs @29:25 with highlighted FLOWERS!
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJLTVzLM/jackie-flowers-e.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hjMrZSMZ/jackie-flowers-red-a.jpg)
Since the video you linked had sections that were poor quality with blown out whites, here's the same again with a little less brightness.
(https://i.postimg.cc/63z0b9zm/jackie-flowers-d.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/JnKqY1Kv/jackie-flowers-red.jpg)
JohnM
-
Ya gotta admit, this Lamb Chop thing is the most interesting factoid that has surfaced in months, maybe years. If a passable Lamb Chop is not in the new Mafia-oriented movie, I for one am going to have serious issues with its authenticity. I could accept a Garfield substitute if that's all they could find at the Manitoba Walmart, but nothing less.
-
Ya gotta admit, this Lamb Chop thing is the most interesting factoid that has surfaced in months, maybe years. If a passable Lamb Chop is not in the new Mafia-oriented movie, I for one am going to have serious issues with its authenticity. I could accept a Garfield substitute if that's all they could find at the Manitoba Walmart, but nothing less.
This whole thing about Lamb Chop is much ado about nothing. Obviously, there was something in that backseat that Jean Hill mistook for a small dog. No big deal. What difference does it make what that was.
-
Two Screen grabs @29:25 with highlighted FLOWERS!
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJLTVzLM/jackie-flowers-e.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hjMrZSMZ/jackie-flowers-red-a.jpg)
Since the video you linked had sections that were poor quality with blown out whites, here's the same again with a little less brightness.
(https://i.postimg.cc/63z0b9zm/jackie-flowers-d.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/JnKqY1Kv/jackie-flowers-red.jpg)
JohnM
Hey John - I pinpointed 29:30. You obviously prefer 29:25, for reasons of your own. 29:30 clearly shows Lamb Chop's: (1) BLACK Nose, (2) BLACK Eyes, (3) FLOPPY Ear, and (4) Dimpled/Wool FUR. To your credit, You always do very Detailed Image work. This is why your avoidance of 29:30 says much.
-
This whole thing about Lamb Chop is much ado about nothing. Obviously, there was something in that backseat that Jean Hill mistook for a small dog. No big deal. What difference does it make what that was.
It is Not just the Jean Hill ID of a small dog/ "Lamb Chop" the hand puppet all by itself that matters. It is that Jean Hill DID see DOWN INSIDE the JFK Limo from her vantage point on the (S) side of Elm St. And, JFK DID fall onto the backseat of the car. JFK's head being generally pointed in Hill's direction as he fell onto the same backseat that the Lamb Chop hand puppet was laying on. Specifically, the JFK (R) Temple Wound would have been exposed to her eye as he fell onto that backseat. This is yet another JFK Assassination eyewitness that held value in an important unexplored area. Both then, and just as You are doing Now. Jean Hill seeing that small "Lamb Chop" hand puppet on the backseat, means she could have seen much, much, more inside the JFK Limo. Whether she, (or you), realized it.
If you seriously want to solve this case, you gotta think outside of the box. You continue treading water 62+ years later
-
At a cost of more than $12, I have now completed a Level 1 survey of the Lamb Chop Factoid and am satisfied that a Level 2 survey will not be necessary. Inquiries concerning a possible JFKA-affiliated blood-stained Lamb Chop puppet were made to the National Archives; the Sixth Floor Museum; the salt caves outside Lenexa, KS; the Doll Museum in Rochester, NY; the Portland (OR) Puppet Museum; and, of course, the Center for Puppetry Arts in Atlanta.
Only one formal response was received. Longtime NARA archivist Gwendolyn Forsyth was kind enough to respond by email to the effect of “WTF???”, which your intrepid factoid-buster (moi) understood to be a negative response to the inquiry. My agent in Dallas, Harrison Jesus Wadsworth, got only as far as “Hey, has anyone heard of Lamb Ch…” before he was escorted from the premises of the Sixth Floor Museum by a uniformed security guard.
An extensive survey was conducted of items and auction catalogs from the estates of both Shari Lewis (i.e., Phyllis Naomi Tarcher) and Soupy Sales (i.e., Milton Supman). The administrator of the estate of Mr. Sales, one Soupy Jesus Horowitz, directed us to YouTube clips of Mr. Sales' droll and diverting “White Fang” (see below), but in none of these hundreds of clips does anything resembling Lamb Chop appear.
I also asked my longtime colleague, Jake Jesus Maxwell, to undertake a forensic analysis of all extant images, including electron microscope scans and, of course, the use of the famed VP-8 Image Analyzer that has contributed so meaningfully to analysis of the Shroud of Turin. Mr. Maxwell identified in Mrs. Kennedy’s arms a bouquet of the perennial herbaceous flowering plant in the family Asteraceae commonly referred to as “mums” and a sprig of another Asteraceae family member commonly referred to as “asters.” (Mr. Maxwell finds it highly suspicious, as do I, that two members of the Asteraceae family “just happened” to be in the limousine at the same time, but this is a factoid for another day.)
Alas, Mr. Maxwell was unable to find Lamb Chop in whole or part in any of the extant images. He did provisionally identify a tiny gunman in the sprig of asters, but he concedes this could be a beetle (Latin Scarabaeidae, comprising some 35,000 species). In any event, this too is a factoid for another day.
Thus concludes the Level 1 survey, and the Lamb Chop Factoid is hereby classified as busted unless and until such time, if any, as compelling new information comes to light, in which case a Level 2 survey will be undertaken.
-
It is Not just the Jean Hill ID of a small dog/ "Lamb Chop" the hand puppet all by itself that matters. It is that Jean Hill DID see DOWN INSIDE the JFK Limo from her vantage point on the (S) side of Elm St. And, JFK DID fall onto the backseat of the car. JFK's head being generally pointed in Hill's direction as he fell onto the same backseat that the Lamb Chop hand puppet was laying on. Specifically, the JFK (R) Temple Wound would have been exposed to her eye as he fell onto that backseat. This is yet another JFK Assassination eyewitness that held value in an important unexplored area. Both then, and just as You are doing Now. Jean Hill seeing that small "Lamb Chop" hand puppet on the backseat, means she could have seen much, much, more inside the JFK Limo. Whether she, (or you), realized it.
If you seriously want to solve this case, you gotta think outside of the box. You continue treading water 62+ years later
The case was solved 62 years ago. I guess you didn't get the memo.
-
It is Not just the Jean Hill ID of a small dog/ "Lamb Chop" the hand puppet all by itself that matters. It is that Jean Hill DID see DOWN INSIDE the JFK Limo from her vantage point on the (S) side of Elm St. And, JFK DID fall onto the backseat of the car. JFK's head being generally pointed in Hill's direction as he fell onto the same backseat that the Lamb Chop hand puppet was laying on. Specifically, the JFK (R) Temple Wound would have been exposed to her eye as he fell onto that backseat. This is yet another JFK Assassination eyewitness that held value in an important unexplored area. Both then, and just as You are doing Now. Jean Hill seeing that small "Lamb Chop" hand puppet on the backseat, means she could have seen much, much, more inside the JFK Limo. Whether she, (or you), realized it.
If you seriously want to solve this case, you gotta think outside of the box. You continue treading water 62+ years later
Royell, does it ever occur to you that (1) you constantly accuse folks who have been deeply involved in the JFKA for decades of not having done their research and not being up to speed while (2) you yourself continue to propose completely absurd theories and to see things that absolutely no one else sees? Is there not a bit of a disconnect here? You always have this mysterious cadre of "high-level researchers" in the background who supposedly share your views, and you always promise far more than you and "they" ever deliver. Like more than one active participant on this forum, you are starting to sound - yes, let's say it out loud - completely insane. I would like to think that you and your fellow sanity-challenged participants were just playing a game, having fun with JFKA nonsense as I try to do, but I fear that for you and them the nonsense is serious stuff and what you actually believe. The Young Earthers and Flat Earthers make a far better case for their lunacy than you have ever made for ANYTHING. If you're serious, it's frightening. What's even more frightening is that you're far from alone.
-
Royell, does it ever occur to you that (1) you constantly accuse folks who have been deeply involved in the JFKA for decades of not having done their research and not being up to speed while (2) you yourself continue to propose completely absurd theories and to see things that absolutely no one else sees? Is there not a bit of a disconnect here? You always have this mysterious cadre of "high-level researchers" in the background who supposedly share your views, and you always promise far more than you and "they" ever deliver. Like more than one active participant on this forum, you are starting to sound - yes, let's say it out loud - completely insane. I would like to think that you and your fellow sanity-challenged participants were just playing a game, having fun with JFKA nonsense as I try to do, but I fear that for you and them the nonsense is serious stuff and what you actually believe. The Young Earthers and Flat Earthers make a far better case for their lunacy than you have ever made for ANYTHING. If you're serious, it's frightening. What's even more frightening is that you're far from alone.
Try and confine your "observations" to 29:30. People want to swear by the JFK Assassination "Images", until they don't. As Detective Joe Friday used to say when questioning an eyewitness, "Just the FACTS, just the FACTS". What do you See on your frame-by-frame examination of 29:30?
-
The case was solved 62 years ago. I guess you didn't get the memo.
I ask you to look "outside of the box", and instead you give me the hackneyed, "you didn't get the memo". You make my point for me.
-
I ask you to look "outside of the box", and instead you give me the hackneyed, "you didn't get the memo". You make my point for me.
After using the hackneyed expression "outside of the box", you complain about me responding in kind. That's funny.
-
Try and confine your "observations" to 29:30. People want to swear by the JFK Assassination "Images", until they don't. As Detective Joe Friday used to say when questioning an eyewitness, "Just the FACTS, just the FACTS". What do you See on your frame-by-frame examination of 29:30?
I see the "face" that you want to see as Lamb Chop. Compare that "face" with the actual Lamb Chop. There is simply no resemblance. This is just pareidolia. I would refer you to the Face On Mars, which by God did look like a face until it was proven to actually look nothing like a face. I would refer you to my bedroom paneling, where I sometimes amuse myself by finding faces in the knots and ridges. Do you seriously think that if there HAD been a Lamb Chop in the limousine it would not have been duly noted and preserved? Give it up, willya?
"Pareidolia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep" - Buffalo Springfield, or maybe not
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg)
-
Hey John - I pinpointed 29:30. You obviously prefer 29:25, for reasons of your own. 29:30 clearly shows Lamb Chop's: (1) BLACK Nose, (2) BLACK Eyes, (3) FLOPPY Ear, and (4) Dimpled/Wool FUR. To your credit, You always do very Detailed Image work. This is why your avoidance of 29:30 says much.
I did what you said, I advanced frame by frame from the first instance where the flowers became visible and straight away it was clear that the additional flowers that were just photographed were the same ones that Jackie was seen holding.
If you look closely as Jackie moves/shakes the flowers each flower moves independently. Game over, man! Game over!
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjbFnbx/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-d.gif)
Anyway, I went further and screen grabbed this frame @29:30 and nothing changes it's still just flowers.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCNDTTD4/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-b.gif)
JohnM
-
I did what you said, I advanced frame by frame from the first instance where the flowers became visible and straight away it was clear that the additional flowers that were just photographed were the same ones that Jackie was seen holding.
If you look closely as Jackie moves/shakes the flowers each flower moves independently. Game over, man! Game over!
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjbFnbx/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-d.gif)
Anyway, I went further and screen grabbed this frame @29:30 and nothing changes it's still just flowers.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCNDTTD4/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-b.gif)
JohnM
There is MORE than just 1 frame within 29:30. You know this.
-
There is MORE than just 1 frame within 29:30. You know this.
Are you being deliberately obtuse??
The GIF I just showed you, showed multiple flowers moving independently!
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjbFnbx/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-d.gif)
Here's ALL the frames plus a few more in your much ballyhooed 29:30 timeframe and as can be seen, you're imagining a twisted face from shadows and open spaces. Somewhere in the middle an obvious space between two flowers at the top becomes your right eyebrow and the left eyebrow appears and disappears because it's the shadow between two moving flowers. DOH!
(https://i.postimg.cc/5t738v5B/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-e.gif)
JohnM
-
Are you being deliberately obtuse??
The GIF I just showed you, showed multiple flowers moving independently!
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjbFnbx/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-d.gif)
Here's ALL the frames plus a few more in your much ballyhooed 29:30 timeframe and as can be seen, you're imagining a twisted face from shadows and open spaces. Somewhere in the middle an obvious space between two flowers at the top becomes your right eyebrow and the left eyebrow appears and disappears because it's the shadow between two moving flowers. DOH!
(https://i.postimg.cc/5t738v5B/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-e.gif)
JohnM
JOHN - Thanks for posting 29:30
So you're claiming that what we are actually seeing in 29:30 is merely "shadows"? This is what we do actually see: (1) A LARGE SOLID BLACK DOT at the end of Lamb Chop's snout, (2) A THIN BLACK CIRCLE around Lamb Chop's Entire snout preceding the LARGE SOLID BLACK DOT, (3) BLACK EYES, and, (4) The FLOPPY EAR. "Shadows"? What we see are irrefutable Details! These are irrefutable Facts!
You need to remember that there were numerous variations of Lamb Chop. There was everything from a small Lamb Chop "hand puppet", to a full body Lamb Chop "Doll". And the face of Lamb Chop also changed with these numerous Lamb Chop variations. These facial variations included the distinctive Lamb Chop "Snout" with its' THIN BLACK CIRCLE and Large BLACK DOT that we do see in 29:30. Jean Hill said she saw a small dog in the backseat of the JFK Limo. What she actually saw was "Lamb Chop". The Lamb Chop facial details that we see in 29:30 conclusively Proves this.
-
As far as I can tell, Lamb Chop is the classic Royell factoid. It has no provenance whatsoever. It is based solely on someone attempting to rehabilitate Jean Hill and finding a pareidolic Lamb Chop in the photos of Jackie holding flowers at Love Field. As far as I can determine, no one ever suggested that Jackie had actually been handed a Lamb Chop at Love Field or had one in the limousine (why would she have been handed one? would the Secret Service have allowed this?). Like the supposed getaway car, it is strictly a matter of photographic misinterpretation by some Royell predecessor. Pathetic that this is actually being discussed. Wake me up when it hits 68,000 views.
-
As far as I can tell, Lamb Chop is the classic Royell factoid. It has no provenance whatsoever. It is based solely on someone attempting to rehabilitate Jean Hill and finding a pareidolic Lamb Chop in the photos of Jackie holding flowers at Love Field. As far as I can determine, no one ever suggested that Jackie had actually been handed a Lamb Chop at Love Field or had one in the limousine (why would she have been handed one? would the Secret Service have allowed this?). Like the supposed getaway car, it is strictly a matter of photographic misinterpretation by some Royell predecessor. Pathetic that this is actually being discussed. Wake me up when it hits 68,000 views.
I encourage this Forum to recognize that the above is doing everything it can to Avoid addressing the "Image Evidence". What do you SEE on 29:30? Do you see Lamb Chop's: (1) BLACK on the end of the Snout?, (2) Thin BLACK CIRCLE wrapping around the Snout?, (3) BLACK Eyes?, and (4) Floppy Ear? We are forever told to rely on the JFK Assassination "Image Evidence". 29:30 contains "Image Evidence" supporting Jean Hill's story of seeing a "small dog" on the backseat of the JFK Limo.
I believe this Lamb Chop Issue is important as it demonstrates that from that Elm St eyewitnesses could see DOWN, INSIDE, the JFK Limo. This is important with respect to "blood splatter" and "skull fragments" falling inside the JFK Limo. I do Not recall a single Elm St Eyewitness being questioned about what they might have seen with respect to seeing JFK blood/brain matter & skull fragment(s) DOWN INSIDE the JFK Limo. Jean Hill has proven that Elm St eyewitnesses could see down inside the JFK Limo.
-
I encourage this Forum to recognize that the above is doing everything it can to Avoid addressing the "Image Evidence". What do you SEE on 29:30? Do you see Lamb Chop's: (1) BLACK on the end of the Snout?, (2) Thin BLACK CIRCLE wrapping around the Snout?, (3) BLACK Eyes?, and (4) Floppy Ear? We are forever told to rely on the JFK Assassination "Image Evidence". 29:30 contains "Image Evidence" supporting Jean Hill's story of seeing a "small dog" on the backseat of the JFK Limo.
I believe this Lamb Chop Issue is important as it demonstrates that from that Elm St eyewitnesses could see DOWN, INSIDE, the JFK Limo. This is important with respect to "blood splatter" and "skull fragments" falling inside the JFK Limo. I do Not recall a single Elm St Eyewitness being questioned about what they might have seen with respect to seeing JFK blood/brain matter & skull fragment(s) DOWN INSIDE the JFK Limo. Jean Hill has proven that Elm St eyewitnesses could see down inside the JFK Limo.
I didn't avoid the image evidence. I told you that I could see the pareidolic "face" at 29:30. Alas for you, neither I nor pretty much anyone else who has looked at this pareidolic face thinks it looks like our beloved Lamb Chop. Actually, at first blush I thought the image posted by Jack White looked more like Lamb Chop than your pareidolic flower face, It took me about 30 seconds to realize "Wait a minute, that's the purse of a woman on the sidewalk."
Bugiloisi (BOO! HISS!) says the following in his endnotes in Reclaiming History (BOO! HISS!):
Jean Hill took a lot of ribbing for telling reporters in a national TV interview shortly after the shooting that President and Mrs. Kennedy were looking at a little white dog on the seat between them as the car came abreast of Hill’s position. In later years, conspiracy theorists tried to restore her credibility by claiming that photographs taken at Love Field show that Mrs. Kennedy had been given a white, stuffed-toy version of the famous Sheri Lewis TV puppet, Lamb Chop. The claim, however, was based on poor-quality images posted on the Internet. High-quality images show that what critics thought was a Lamb Chop toy was, in fact, a bouquet of white asters. (Trask, That Day in Dallas , p.29).
I don't have the Trask book, but if you can find it take a look at page 29 and see if it clears up this non-mystery for you.
-
I didn't avoid the image evidence. I told you that I could see the pareidolic "face" at 29:30. Alas for you, neither I nor pretty much anyone else who has looked at this pareidolic face thinks it looks like our beloved Lamb Chop. Actually, at first blush I thought the image posted by Jack White looked more like Lamb Chop than your pareidolic flower face, It took me about 30 seconds to realize "Wait a minute, that's the purse of a woman on the sidewalk."
Bugiloisi (BOO! HISS!) says the following in his endnotes in Reclaiming History (BOO! HISS!):
Jean Hill took a lot of ribbing for telling reporters in a national TV interview shortly after the shooting that President and Mrs. Kennedy were looking at a little white dog on the seat between them as the car came abreast of Hill’s position. In later years, conspiracy theorists tried to restore her credibility by claiming that photographs taken at Love Field show that Mrs. Kennedy had been given a white, stuffed-toy version of the famous Sheri Lewis TV puppet, Lamb Chop. The claim, however, was based on poor-quality images posted on the Internet. High-quality images show that what critics thought was a Lamb Chop toy was, in fact, a bouquet of white asters. (Trask, That Day in Dallas , p.29).
I don't have the Trask book, but if you can find it take a look at page 29 and see if it clears up this non-mystery for you.
The Trask book can be viewed online here (you'll need a free account to fully access it): https://archive.org/details/thatdayindallast0000tras_k3b5/page/28/mode/2up
Here's the photo from page 29. It's white flowers.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13482941167/Keyvdy1kc53crru/trask.jpg)
And zoomed x 300:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13482969502/Keyrkhcpsfnrb2i/Screenshot 2026-05-13 193722.jpg)
-
The Trask book can be viewed online here (you'll need a free account to fully access it): https://archive.org/details/thatdayindallast0000tras_k3b5/page/28/mode/2up
Here's the photo from page 29. It's white flowers.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13482941167/Keyvdy1kc53crru/trask.jpg)
And zoomed x 300:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13482969502/Keyrkhcpsfnrb2i/Screenshot 2026-05-13 193722.jpg)
Thanks Steve.
(https://i.ibb.co/gF3xX8vr/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-f.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/GQzd1hXm/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-g.gif)
JohnM
-
I didn't avoid the image evidence. I told you that I could see the pareidolic "face" at 29:30. Alas for you, neither I nor pretty much anyone else who has looked at this pareidolic face thinks it looks like our beloved Lamb Chop. Actually, at first blush I thought the image posted by Jack White looked more like Lamb Chop than your pareidolic flower face, It took me about 30 seconds to realize "Wait a minute, that's the purse of a woman on the sidewalk."
Bugiloisi (BOO! HISS!) says the following in his endnotes in Reclaiming History (BOO! HISS!):
Jean Hill took a lot of ribbing for telling reporters in a national TV interview shortly after the shooting that President and Mrs. Kennedy were looking at a little white dog on the seat between them as the car came abreast of Hill’s position. In later years, conspiracy theorists tried to restore her credibility by claiming that photographs taken at Love Field show that Mrs. Kennedy had been given a white, stuffed-toy version of the famous Sheri Lewis TV puppet, Lamb Chop. The claim, however, was based on poor-quality images posted on the Internet. High-quality images show that what critics thought was a Lamb Chop toy was, in fact, a bouquet of white asters. (Trask, That Day in Dallas , p.29).
I don't have the Trask book, but if you can find it take a look at page 29 and see if it clears up this non-mystery for you.
Thanks for posting that page 29 photo. I think that SA Greer carried a gun. I can Not see SA Greer's gun on your page 29 photo. Do you think that SA Greer had his gun on him? The page 29 photo has nothing to do with the 29:30 Lamb Chop Image.
You guys continue wanting to direct this discussion toward anything but the actual 29:30 Lamb Chop Image. All I continually get is: (1) Where did this Lamb Chop come from?, (2) How did this Lamb Chop get inside the JFK Limo? and, (3) "run out the clock" endless Dodging. Just tell this Forum what YOU SEE at 29:30. Or, if you believe this 29:30 Lamb Chop Image is a "planted/altered image", just put on your Big Boy Pants and say so. I do Not see the Lamb Chop Image as being "PAREIDOLIA". I do believe that legitimately can be argued with respect to "Badge Man". That I know of, this Lamb Chop Image has not been played with. The Badge Man Image required Hokey Pokey to produce that image. That is not necessary to see the 29:30 Lamb Chop Image.
-
My fault. SA Hill.
-
The Trask image shows Jackie was holding white flowers.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13482941167/Keyvdy1kc53crru/trask.jpg)
These video frames confirms Jackie holding the white flowers as she and John are welcomed into the Limo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/J06zMdKy/50a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wx0vX7zw/53.jpg)
Here's John and Jackie entering the Limo through John's side and we can see no one on the other side with a departing gift of a horrifying disembodied Lamb Chop puppets head. BTW why would anyone give the First Lady a cheap knockoff Lamb Chop head which doesn't even include the arms or legs or even a torso?
We also can see Jackie's right hand isn't holding anything and her left arm is cradling two bunches of flowers, so where was she hiding Lamb Chop, stuffed in her jacket?
Then after Jackie sits down she looks down to where we just saw where the white flowers would be, and "gee willikers" she is then seen holding the white flowers with her right hand which effectively rules out a Lamb Chop Groupie running up and placing the gruesome Puppet head into Jackie's accessible left hand.
All events from multiple camera angles follow a logical narrative and there is no need for a Houdini like "watch me pull a rabbit Lamb Chop out of my hat"
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1MtJS1r/jackie-witn-flowers-no-lambchop.gif)
And finally here's the frame where there is apparently Lamb Chop's face and we can see within the red box the two flowers highlighted above from when Jackie is entering the Limo, and the left "eyebrow" in the yellow box is simply the space between two flowers.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wr7xQfS/12-a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5t738v5B/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-e.gif)
JohnM
-
One of the hallmarks of a true CT Crank is the inability EVER to simply say "Oops, my bad. I was wrong. Let's move on."
One of my fans - perhaps the only one! - at the Ed Forum thanked me for having the ability to occasionally say exactly that and not keep digging in my heels until I had made a fool of myself and lost all credibility.
What vast difference is there between Jean Hill actually seeing Lamb Chop and Jean Hill seeing a bouquet of white flowers that she mistook for a little dog???
-
The Trask image shows Jackie was holding white flowers.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13482941167/Keyvdy1kc53crru/trask.jpg)
These video frames confirms Jackie holding the white flowers as she and John are welcomed into the Limo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/J06zMdKy/50a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wx0vX7zw/53.jpg)
Here's John and Jackie entering the Limo through John's side and we can see no one on the other side with a departing gift of a horrifying disembodied Lamb Chop puppets head. BTW why would anyone give the First Lady a cheap knockoff Lamb Chop head which doesn't even include the arms or legs or even a torso?
We also can see Jackie's right hand isn't holding anything and her left arm is cradling two bunches of flowers, so where was she hiding Lamb Chop, stuffed in her jacket?
Then after Jackie sits down she looks down to where we just saw where the white flowers would be, and "gee willikers" she is then seen holding the white flowers with her right hand which effectively rules out a Lamb Chop Groupie running up and placing the gruesome Puppet head into Jackie's accessible left hand.
All events from multiple camera angles follow a logical narrative and there is no need for a Houdini like "watch me pull a rabbit Lamb Chop out of my hat"
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1MtJS1r/jackie-witn-flowers-no-lambchop.gif)
And finally here's the frame where there is apparently Lamb Chop's face and we can see within the red box the two flowers highlighted above from when Jackie is entering the Limo, and the left "eyebrow" in the yellow box is simply the space between two flowers.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wr7xQfS/12-a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5t738v5B/jackie-flowerss-or-lambchop-e.gif)
JohnM
Hey John - How are you doing?
"...horrifying, disembodied Lamb Chop puppets head"? It's a Lamb Chop SOCK PUPPET. A Sock Puppet does Not have a body.
So, we have "White" flowers and Black flowers on a B/W Film? What other COLORS would you expect to see? And if you look closely at these White Flowers, their color is not much different than Jackie's BRIGHT PINK outfit. Cornerstoning your argument on "COLOR", when your posted images/still frames were filmed in B/W, is self defeating. What you are attempting to do is akin to describing the color of the "Cactus Rose" on the "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (1962).
-
The hallmark of a true CT crank is ...
Oh, wait, I already said that earlier this morning.
The fact that Jackie was wearing white gloves obviously enhances the paradeiolic illusion.
Anyone who continues to humor this man is badly in need of a new hobby.
-
I see the "face" that you want to see as Lamb Chop. Compare that "face" with the actual Lamb Chop. There is simply no resemblance. This is just pareidolia. I would refer you to the Face On Mars, which by God did look like a face until it was proven to actually look nothing like a face. I would refer you to my bedroom paneling, where I sometimes amuse myself by finding faces in the knots and ridges. Do you seriously think that if there HAD been a Lamb Chop in the limousine it would not have been duly noted and preserved? Give it up, willya?
"Pareidolia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep" - Buffalo Springfield, or maybe not
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg)
Please do the research. The Correct lyrics to "For What It's Worth" are, "PARANOIA strikes deep. Into your LIFE it will creep".
I do recognize your attempted, "Imitation being the highest form of flattery". Problem is, you currently do Not have the mandatory: (1) JFK Assassination Chops, and, (2) Pop Culture Chops, to pull off the mixing of these 2.
-
Please do the research. The Correct lyrics to "For What It's Worth" are, "PARANOIA strikes deep. Into your LIFE it will creep".
I do recognize your attempted, "Imitation being the highest form of flattery". Problem is, you currently do Not have the mandatory: (1) JFK Assassination Chops, and, (2) Pop Culture Chops, to pull off the mixing of these 2.
That was a joke, He Who Takes Himself Oh-So-Seriously. My brother-in-law worked for Buffalo Springfied. At one time, I was one of the premier collectors of old 45s in the country. I had a collection of thousands and thousands of them, including rare colored (typically clear red or yellow) ones that were sent to radio stations as promotional copies, all carefully catalogued and annotated. There is pretty much NO rock 'n roll question by which I can be stumped. I was such a legend that in 1985 I had a woman, a complete stranger, come up to me at a party and say simply "Red Rubber Ball." I replied, "The Cyrkle, spelled with a y, Columbia 1966." She turned and walked away muttering, "Wow, it's true."
Please, continue to make a fool of yourself. You're so good at it that it's really quite fascinating. When you say I don't have the Pop Culture Chops, I assume those are Pop Culture Lamb Chops you're talking about?
-
That was a joke, He Who Takes Himself Oh-So-Seriously. My brother-in-law worked for Buffalo Springfied. At one time, I was one of the premier collectors of old 45s in the country. I had a collection of thousands and thousands of them, including rare colored (typically clear red or yellow) ones that were sent to radio stations as promotional copies, all carefully catalogued and annotated. There is pretty much NO rock 'n roll question by which I can be stumped. I was such a legend that in 1985 I had a woman, a complete stranger, come up to me at a party and say simply "Red Rubber Ball." I replied, "The Cyrkle, spelled with a y, Columbia 1966." She turned and walked away muttering, "Wow, it's true."
Please, continue to make a fool of yourself. You're so good at it that it's really quite fascinating. When you say I don't have the Pop Culture Chops, I assume those are Pop Culture Lamb Chops you're talking about?
So, you beat on your chest and then Fail to mention the John Lennon connection? No legit self proclaimed "legend" ever does that.
-
So, you beat on your chest and then Fail to mention the John Lennon connection? No legit self proclaimed "legend" ever does that.
My minimal "connection" with Lennon is that (1) I had a possibly precognitive dream, the only black-and-white dream I ever recall, about three weeks before his assassination in 1980, and (2) I am presently acquainted with a session bass player who actually played with Lennon and some of the very biggest stars in the industry (including Dylan). Concerning the dream, I told several people before Lennon was killed how odd it was and that my interpretation was that, in some ways, "the Beatles might have been happier if they'd never become famous." My "legend" status relates solely to being a veritable fount of useless rock 'n roll trivia, and in this regard I concede that I am mostly a legend in my own mind - although, when Trivial Pursuit was popular I was in high demand as a partner.