The First Shot

[John Iacoletti]

The colour would help identify her as there is only one of that light blue colour.  If she wanted to see the scarf to help identify her in the Zapruder film, she must have been unsure of the colour.

I did notice in high resolution zfilm frames that the colour of the dress or coat worn by the 12th person east of the Stemmons sign (three east of the woman identified by Calvery's son as his mother Gloria Calvery) is a rather distinctive pattern that appears to be dark blue and dark green:

Since that would appear likely to be Karen Westbrook if the person indicated by the arrow is Gloria Calvery, perhaps someone could ask her if she recognized that garment.  I hadn't been able to see that pattern in other frames of the zfilm that I have, which make it look black.
She had a distinctive large build and there is no one else that fits that build.  He also identified her in the Betzner photo which shows her face. He may have had a higher resolution frame than this:

in which case he may have been able to see if she was wearing glasses.

All of this "perhaps" and "may have" tells me that Dan's "certainty" is wishful thinking.

It's not at all clear that there is anything particularly distinctive about the build of the figure in Zapruder on that the figure in your Betzner image is even the same person.

[John Iacoletti]

To have you label my research "disingenuous" and "dishonest" is a sick joke.
I have always honestly striven to provide my best interpretation of the evidence, what I feel is the most reasonable and common sense interpretation. And I have always provided as much evidence as I can muster about whatever aspect of the case is under discussion.
I don't duck or avoid anything.
You, on the other hand, just snipe from the sidelines in a most cowardly fashion.

You overstate your speculations and assumptions as facts or as having more certainty than they actually do, and you ignore or handwave away conflicting evidence.

The sole factor in Westbrook's identification of herself in the Z-film is a headscarf she once owned. That's it. There is nothing else.

She didn't say that.  This is your assumption.

That you are unaware of this is just sloppy and lazy research.

Why would I be aware of something you made up in your head?

That you are satisfied this enough evidence to provide any kind of identification shows how piss-poor your own standards are.

You mean, how dare I dispute your assumptions.

Utter dishonesty on your behalf. She doesn't have reddish hair or red-like hair or a hint of red - she has blonde/fair hair.

Looks reddish to me.  And it must have looked reddish to Westbrook who knew that Calvery had red hair.

A completely different colour to Gloria Calvery's flame-red hair

Different time, different place, different film stock.  And there's no good reason to believe that Holt's hair color in Darnell is the same as your "blonde/fair" figure in Zapruder because it's a black and white image.

On the subject of dishonesty as a researcher, I notice you fail to address the argument that Gloria Calvery is far taller and far more heavily built than Carol Ann Reed.

There's nothing dishonest about that.  Even if that isn't Reed (or Calvery), it doesn't just follow that it's not Westbrook.

Westbrook's identification of the two women to her left is clearly mistaken.

There's nothing "clear" about that.  Your "evidence" is contrived conjecture.

More dishonesty.
Nowhere have I stated that, just because I don't see any differences, these are necessarily the same people. What a really underhanded misrepresentation of what I actually said, which was:

"Any physical comparison that can be made between the three women in each image reveals they are identical in every way. There are no differences."

That's quite a claim.  But that's all it is.  Apparently you consider your assertion that they are "identical in every way" to be enough to declare certainty about their identities.

If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not.
One with dark, bushy hair, one with shoulder length fair hair.
Two wearing dark coloured coats, one wearing a lighter coloured dress.

It's silly (and yes, dishonest) to claim a "match" between a black-and white "color" and a color color.

The point being that this analysis only supports the identification of the three women in the Z-film as Simmons, Holt and Jacob.
But if there is a physical difference between the women in these two images, NAME IT.

It's dishonest to shift the burden of proof.  There is not enough information contained in the images to make that determination.  I could pick any three random rear views of people in Zapruder and claim that they are "identical" to three others in a different black and white photo.  That doesn't make it so.

More dishonesty.
Nowhere have I said that I "know" which figures in a long line are together.
A pathetic Strawman if there ever was one.
Jacob, Holt and Simmons went to watch the motorcade together. It is a completely reasonable assumption that people going to watch something together will stand together.

You're trying to "match" three people standing side-by-side based on this assumption (which is all it is).  You also seem to somehow assume as fact that these particular figures in Zapruder are "together".

Simmons specifically states she was stood with Holt and Jacobs at the time of the assassination.

No, not in CE 1381.  She just said she was with them.

Really unbelievable.
Out of all the available CE 1381's you cherry-picked Judy Johnson's to make some kind of point.

Yes, the point is that it conflicts with your "certain" conclusion.

I then provided an analysis of ALL the CE 1381's relevant to this point - Johnson, Richey, Dragoo, Arnold, Simmons, Holt and Jacob.

An analysis with plenty of your own conjecture and ignoring whatever doesn't fit.

You're absolutely correct John.
And you are correct that Holt and Jacob mention the south side of Elm Street.
A dishonest researcher will leave it at that, the women in question are not halfway between the TSBD building and the underpass, and they are not stood on the south side of Elm. End of story.
A more honest researcher would look at all the information given in the CE 1381's and then come to a conclusion.

Without bothering to mention those particular discrepancies at all?  There's nothing honest about that.

What would an honest researcher conclude in this situation John?

That none of that analysis justifies the wild leap at the end that the Darnell trio must be the same people.

[Dan O'meara]

You overstate your speculations and assumptions as facts or as having more certainty than they actually do, and you ignore or handwave away conflicting evidence.

She didn't say that.  This is your assumption.

Why would I be aware of something you made up in your head?

You mean, how dare I dispute your assumptions.

Looks reddish to me.  And it must have looked reddish to Westbrook who knew that Calvery had red hair.

Different time, different place, different film stock.  And there's no good reason to believe that Holt's hair color in Darnell is the same as your "blonde/fair" figure in Zapruder because it's a black and white image.

There's nothing dishonest about that.  Even if that isn't Reed (or Calvery), it doesn't just follow that it's not Westbrook.

There's nothing "clear" about that.  Your "evidence" is contrived conjecture.

That's quite a claim.  But that's all it is.  Apparently you consider your assertion that they are "identical in every way" to be enough to declare certainty about their identities.

It's silly (and yes, dishonest) to claim a "match" between a black-and white "color" and a color color.

It's dishonest to shift the burden of proof.  There is not enough information contained in the images to make that determination.  I could pick any three random rear views of people in Zapruder and claim that they are "identical" to three others in a different black and white photo.  That doesn't make it so.

You're trying to "match" three people standing side-by-side based on this assumption (which is all it is).  You also seem to somehow assume as fact that these particular figures in Zapruder are "together".

No, not in CE 1381.  She just said she was with them.

Yes, the point is that it conflicts with your "certain" conclusion.

An analysis with plenty of your own conjecture and ignoring whatever doesn't fit.

Without bothering to mention those particular discrepancies at all?  There's nothing honest about that.

That none of that analysis justifies the wild leap at the end that the Darnell trio must be the same people.

You overstate your speculations and assumptions as facts or as having more certainty than they actually do, and you ignore or handwave away conflicting evidence.

More snide accusations. What a shock.
So why not provide a few examples of where I've overstated assumptions as facts?
And a few examples of where I've ignored any conflicting evidence?

The rest of the post is pure tripe, not worthy of response.
Dishonesty, hypocrisy and misrepresentation.

But I did notice your challenge:

I could pick any three random rear views of people in Zapruder and claim that they are "identical" to three others in a different black and white photo


Yeah?
THEN DO IT!
And while you're at it, show us where Simmons, Holt and Jacob are in the film record.
We have the Darnell clip identifying them.
Where are they in Zapruder? Or Towner, or Dorman, or Nix, or in any of the footage taken in Dealey Plaza.
It can't be that difficult, Simmons says she was stood with Holt and Jacob and she's wearing a headscarf.
They were stood on the sidewalk between the TSBD building and the underpass.
So, where are they John?
Rather than the snide, baseless accusations, why not get off your arse and do some work?
Show us where they are.

[John Iacoletti]

It can't be that difficult, Simmons says she was stood with Holt and Jacob and she's wearing a headscarf.

Simmons didn't say she "stood with" Holt and Jacob, nor do you know she wore a headscarf at the time of the Z film.  Assumptions stated as facts.

They were stood on the sidewalk between the TSBD building and the underpass.
So, where are they John?
Rather than the snide, baseless accusations, why not get off your arse and do some work?
Show us where they are.

What part of "not enough information" are you struggling with?   Your answer isn't just automatically a fact because you "see no differences" in a different image from different kind of film, taken at a different location, at a different time, from a different angle.  Westbrook was there.  Could she still be wrong?  Yes.  Could you be wrong?  Yes.  Have you actually proven anything?  No.

What conflicting evidence did you ignore (before I brought it up)?  Judy Johnson's statement.  "South side of elm" in Jacob's and Holt's statements.

[James Hackerott]

   Those interested in the Simmons, Holt and Jacob and others identification controversy might check my posting in the Photographic Board a few years ago. The first few pages anyway. In my opinion, it ties the Zapruder, Tina Towner, and Darnell films along with Deputy Lummie Lewis’s recorded investigation report of the three Darnell women. Opinions are not unanimous.
 
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1901.msg50860.html#msg50860

[Zeon Mason]

In the Nix film there is a women walking casually across the green space and it’s not until the Z313 head shot that she stops abruptly.

So did not she hear the 2 shots previous and see the JFK reaction at Z224-226?

One would  think that Charles Brehm, a combat veteran, would not still be clapping hands at a 2nd shot at Z224-226 shot is there had been a 1st shot 3 seconds prior .

[Dan O'meara]

Simmons didn't say she "stood with" Holt and Jacob, nor do you know she wore a headscarf at the time of the Z film.  Assumptions stated as facts.

Assumptions stated as facts.
In her CE 1381 Simmons states:

"At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street...I was with Jeannie Holt...and Stella Jacob..."

Simmons was standing on the sidewalk and she was with Holt and Jacob.
She was standing...with Holt and Jacob
Standing with Holt and Jacob
Stood with Holt and Jacob

You falsely accuse me of overstating assumptions as fact and give this as an example.
Please explain what assumption I have made here.

And I've assumed Simmons was wearing a headscarf during Zapruder?
Please cite where I've made that assumption.

Have I also assumed she wasn't naked during Zapruder?
Have I assumed she wasn't wearing a false beard during Zapruder?
Have I assumed she wasn't standing on her head during Zapruder?
Have I assumed she wasn't riding a donkey during Zapruder?
Have I assumed she wasn't break-dancing during Zapruder?

So this is the basis for your false accusations. An example where I've assumed something that was actually stated and an utterly ridiculous example that I haven't even mentioned.
What hypocrisiy.
You assume, as fact, that Westbrook is the woman in the blue headscarf simply because Westbrook says so.
And she was there so she must know best.
You weren't even aware she'd lost the headscarf in question.
Or that she never refers to it as being blue.
Could this reasoning be any more pathetic.
The logic of a child.

What conflicting evidence did you ignore (before I brought it up)?  Judy Johnson's statement.  "South side of elm" in Jacob's and Holt's statements.

Another false accsation.
I have dealt with Judy Johnson's statement in full.
Remember, you cherry-picked this single statement and ignored the statements of Arnold, Richey, Dragoo, Simmons, Holt and Jacob.
I did an analysis of ALL the relevant CE 1381's.

The "south side of Elm" was also fully dealt with.
You accuse me of ignoring conflicting evidence and then provide two examples that I have fully dealt with.
Could your accusations be any more pathetic?

What part of "not enough information" are you struggling with?   Your answer isn't just automatically a fact because you "see no differences" in a different image from different kind of film, taken at a different location, at a different time, from a different angle.  Westbrook was there.  Could she still be wrong?  Yes.  Could you be wrong?  Yes.  Have you actually proven anything?  No.

Not enough information??
We have a picture of the three women in question.
We are given the information that they are stood on the sidewalk of Elm between the TSBD building and the underpass.
We know they're not on the south side of Elm because we have the Zapruder footage.
We know there's no-one stood to the west of Bill Newman on Elm Street because we have have the Bell and Nix films.
We know there is no-one between Bill Newman and the woman in the blue headscarf who fits the bill because we have stills from the Bronson footage.
We know, for a fact, based on the above evidence, that the women in question must be in this picture:



Logic dictates that Simmons, Holt and Jacob are in this picture.
And they couldn't be easier to locate:



Done.
No amount of lies, hypocrisy and misrepresentations can alter the above identification.
It is certain.
Arguments along the lines of - "they might have all dressed differently during Zapruder. It's a possibility, so you can't be certain" - are the meat and drink of the Tinfoil Brigade, of which you are clearly a fully paid up member.

I am certain the identification is solid.
I've presented the evidence and the arguments based on that evidence that confirm this identification.
What have you brought?
What evidence have you brought to support your own identification of Westbrook?
The answer is that you haven't brought a single scrap of evidence to the table.
You haven't offered a single scrap of evidence to support your own identification other than "Westbrook knows best".

If you disagree with the identification of Simmons, Holt and Jacob as the three women in the Z-film then shows us where they are.
You've been asked this already.
There is a wealth of photographic and film evidence at your disposal.
SHOW US WHERE THEY ARE.

[Dan O'meara]

   Those interested in the Simmons, Holt and Jacob and others identification controversy might check my posting in the Photographic Board a few years ago. The first few pages anyway. In my opinion, it ties the Zapruder, Tina Towner, and Darnell films along with Deputy Lummie Lewis’s recorded investigation report of the three Darnell women. Opinions are not unanimous.
 
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1901.msg50860.html#msg50860

Great post James, leading to a fascinating thread on this topic.