Jump to content
The Education Forum

DR Costella's leaning lamppost


Recommended Posts

Ha Ha Ha,

I get considerable amusement from exposing you fellows for what you are.  I see that I have brought out the usual crew again.  "Two Pole" Meacham, "Horse Carp" Bulman, "Ranting" Davidson, and even Dana Andrews who I haven't heard from in some time.

I guess I stepped on sensitive toes here.  Well, there is nothing new in that.  It has been almost 56 years with relatively no progress in the Kennedy Assassination in recent years because of people like the usual crew.

Z frame 157 is a wonderful example of what the Zapruder film really is.  It is a lying piece of government trash designed to fool the public and coverup the real story of Dealey Plaza. 

Here is one for you Ray.  It is an oldy, but goody.  I have even pointed out the shadow for you.  Can you apply your "two pole", I will generously call it a theory, to explain it.

z157-cropped-phil-willis-leg.jpg

That makes 3 content problems with Z frame 157.  There are more.  I will continue with others later.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you asked a question, Mr Bottler, about your "theory", I would attempt to answer it.

 

 

Do the two pole experiment and come back to us with your answer. If you don't, it shows you are full of B.S.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, BS.  Let's see, Ray.  I don't think your "two pole experiment" is up to snuff. I don't think it will fit into the paradigm of natural philosophy.  What that means Ray is that it is not scientific. 

I did ask you for an explanation of Phil Willis' extra large leg, but I see you have declined.  I will try to help you out.  Here is an explanation after the style of Dana Andrews. 

You see Phil Willis was one of the early X-Men and he could grow this extra long leg and leap like Superman long distances.  He jumped from the NW corner of Houston and Main to the SW corner of Houston and Elm.  Of course his daughters Linda and Rosemary had to say they ran with him to the SW corner so that he could keep his identity as Grasshopper Man a secret.  I want to thank Dana for using his wonderful writing style.

I've been thinking about what could have gotten you boys so riled and I think it is this statement:

"Z frame 157 is a wonderful example of what the Zapruder film really is.  It is a lying piece of government trash designed to fool the public and coverup the real story of Dealey Plaza"

The heart of the lie in Dealey Plaza is the Zapruder film.  Everyone uses it and most think it is real.  People pay lip service to the notion that the Zapruder film may be a fraud, but they go head and use it anyway to explain some of the dumbest ideas I have ever read.

"Disninformation attempt".  At times I can make a stupid blunder and have done so a couple of times.  But, everything I post is what I consider to be truthful and not disinformation or anything untruthful to forward some cause or defend some position in the Kennedy Assassination.

Stay tuned Michael there is more to come.

OBTW, if you fellas think this is so outre, based on disinformation,  and stupid why do you waste your time trying to refute it?  Do like David Josephs, put me on a blocked view.

  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

Hmm, BS.  Let's see, Ray.  I don't think your "two pole experiment" is up to snuff. I don't think it will fit into the paradigm of natural philosophy.  What that means Ray is that it is not scientific. 

Whether you think my "two pole experiment" is up to snuff, matters not a jot. You argued that sun shadows could not converge away and towards the sun. Does my experiment fit into the' paradigm of natural philosophy" (whatever that BS means,)is of no consequence. Try the experiment and come back to me with photos showing I am wrong.

 

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

At times I can make a stupid blunder and have done so a couple of times. 

Possibly the underestimate of all time. Your problem is that you have this weird belief that every photo given in evidence has been altered, (remember your photo of the limo tire with the triangular shadow et al?) You seem to be mesmerised by shadows, which you obviously are incapable of interpreting.   

 

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

OBTW, if you fellas think this is so outre, based on disinformation,  and stupid why do you waste your time trying to refute it?  Do like David Josephs, put me on a blocked view.

I don't think it's a waste of time correcting B.S. I will try to correct any incorrect information posted on here, whether it is pro or anti my views on the conspiracy, by you or any other poster.

You just seem to post the major number of cockups on here.

Nothing personal, mind, you just correcting your rubbish for future readers.

Now just once more try my two post experiment and come back with photos, and prove me wrong. I dare you.

Have a nice day, John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Here is an explanation after the style of Dana Andrews. [,,,]  I want to thank Dana for using his wonderful writing style.

You're sounding like Lex Luthor, JB.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Andrews

I think Mr Butler suffers from Dyslexia as well as Pareidolia, Dana😂

Either that or he spent too much time at the movies when he was a kid.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray,

Do you ever get tired of breaking the forum rules on personal attacks?  Mitcham, Bulman, Davidson, Andrews, and Cross.  I should have a name for you guys.  How about the Gang of Five?  No. the stats may change.  The Mitcham Gang might do.  I will name this gang of people after you since you seem to scour the forum looking for anything I might post so you can refute it in a spiteful manner.

Your really not to concerned with the facts or correcting things, but making an attack on me and whatever I say is your goal.  If you were concerned about correcting what I am commenting on then answer the question. 

Yeah, I do watcha movie or two.  Did you read a lot of comics when you were a kid like Dana? 

Here's one from the movies "What about his legs?"  If you are out to correct me then answer the question about Phil Willis' extra wide and long leg.  You can't can you?  Hence, the vituperative attacks.  Do you even know what dyslexia is?  That was a problem that we use to call an "unspecified learning disability" because it was not well understood why kids lacked the ability to read well.  Looking at the definition today, they still don't really understand the phenomenon.     Pareidolia is new to me and thanks for the word.  Did you sift through the dictionary to find what I have already warned people about in earlier comments, anthropomorphizing objects.  Ray, you are not very original. 

Well, what about Phil Willis' leg?  I call it a super leg just for convenience.  Can you explain Phil Willis' super leg as something other than a photo editing mistake?  What about your confreres?  They haven't made an attempt to explain Phil's super leg. 

If you are not going to do that then let's move on to content problem No. 4 in Z frame 157.  Jack White long ago compared the group of people in Zapruder that are standing in the crosswalk on the east side of the intersection of Houston and Elm to a group seen in Altgens 5.  His comparison concluded that not a single person was the same in Zapruder and Altgens 5 in that area.

The following comparison gives you an idea of the people involved.  The people under the red lines were compared by Jack.  Zapruder has better frames than Z 157 for this comparison, but I thought I would stick to Z 157 even though the crowd is hard to see.

altgens-5-z-frame-157-compare.jpg   

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, John Butler said:

 

altgens-5-z-frame-157-compare.jpg   

 

{Sigh}

Mr. Butler... you are requested to actually LISTEN and LEARN...  your analysis of this frame is the most misdirected and misinformed ever posted... almost as bad and your Hill/Moorman junk.

We are not picking on you John... you place yourself into these situations by allowing yourself to spew analysis which is not only wrong but absurdly so.

Do you understand that when a frame is torn the images within the frame MAY BE AFFECTED ????

1557516123_z155z156spliceexplained-forposting.thumb.jpg.d1b2019c9eedaaa0b6d69324d08f0b17.jpg

You can see the tear splice as it moves thru the frames...  it is truly time that you spend quite a bit of time listening and learning as I said at the beginning...  I'm not sure if it is some sort of condition that requires you to comment when you should know better and LEARN something first....

The frame from which you are claiming JFK's head is on the car sill, etc... is a SPLICE, a TEAR IN THE FILM - purposely or not is unknown yet from the reaction of Hickey and Willis it APPEARS that there was a shot at this point..

1556971580_162JFKfacingrightwillilsrunningstopsHickeylooks.jpg.4d57ca06b0d42b95b337864bf0535865.jpg

 

You take the cake JB....  some of the most effective COINTELPRO tactics I've seen here- to name just a few that I see you using with the results being members dealing and/or leaving your threads/posts so that those without the benefit of 25 years of knowledge are not fooled into believing you present anything with authority or accuracy.

 

The list below is but a small part of the ongoing efforts to derail these discussions.. in your case for no better reason than for you to stand up on a pedestal and declare "the Emperor has new clothes"....  the level of stupidity that you assume the rest of us have so as to be able to post garbage and think you're contributing is quite unique in your case....

Are you just bad at this or do you really buy the swampland you try to sell here?

 

:up 

 

"Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt(trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

===

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.


Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I think David has put it very precisely.However, I don't believe, he is COINTELPRO. Even they wouldn't have him. 

One needn't be... to use the tactics....

Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I see you made no comment on Phil Willis?  Go back and look at Z frame 157.  If you are an honest person you will see what I am talking about.  But, you will probably blather on about something else.  Make sure you point out in you disinformation advice to not argue with what you can't argue with.  Just ignore it.  

Don't forget the personal attacks and mention the cointelpro thing again.  And, then get angry and spew more hate and despite.

LISTEN and LEARN:

Read my posting with some degree of understanding the English language.  I am using John Costella's Zapruder frames.  The first frame is Z frame 157.  The other is a photo known as Altgens 5.

Jack White compared these two:  The Zapruder film at the east intersection of Houston and Elm with Altgens 5 photo of the same area.  This is Jack White's idea.  Didn't you get that when you read what I posted or did you just go off on one of your rants. 

Let's stick to these two images I posted and not Z frame 162.  If anyone needs an intervention it is you and your bullying of new members on the forum.  What difference does 25 years of experience amount to for a over arrogant, bullying forum member who is never wrong.

You and Ray and others of your ilk need to get together and hoist one and celebrate the disinformational trashing of Jack White and some of the things I have posted.  I am sure you will agree with them and they with you.  So, what else is new?  We have been done this road before.  And, nothing you or the Mitcham Gang say can change my mind.  If I am wrong I will immediately acknowledge it.  Can you?   

Stay tuned there will be more. 

Just for you I might go back and repost some of the Moorman things that send you into ranting and raging.  "Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know...." is a good saying in reference to you.  This is all about saving the Zapruder film since in forms the basis of some of your work.  Do you recall when I trashed one of your postings about firing angles from the 6th floor.  I reminded you that no one can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that shooting did occur from there.

BTW David, do you even know what your "cointelpro" means?  From Wikipedia a definition for you and then you can decide where I went illegal:

COINTELPRO

COINTELPRO (portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) (1956–1971) was a series of covert, and at times illegal,[1][2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.[3][4] FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive,[5] including the Communist Party USA,[6]anti–Vietnam War organizers, activists of the civil rights movement or Black Power movement (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr., the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), environmentalist and animal rights organizations, feminist organizations,[7] the American Indian Movement (AIM), independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left. The program also targeted the Ku Klux Klan in 1964.[8]

According to Noam Chomsky, in another instance in San Diego, the FBI financed, armed, and controlled an extreme right-wing group of former members of the Minutemen anti-communist para-military organization, transforming it into a group called the Secret Army Organization that targeted groups, activists, and leaders involved in the Anti-War Movement, using both intimidation and violent acts.[9][10][11]

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I guess Z frames 158 and 159 were torn also.  Can you back up your claim that the film was torn.  What reference can you site on this?  If I am recalling the Fetzner Symposium of 2003 there was no mention of torn film.  I sure those experts would have been all over that in the film.  You can check Jack White's presentation for the post I made concerning his view of Zapruder and Altgens.  That is where that came from.  John Costella surely would have said something about that.  He said the film was almost technically perfect except for a few minor changes.  He didn't say anything as I recall about torn film frames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Butler said:

David,

I guess Z frames 158 and 159 were torn also.  Can you back up your claim that the film was torn.  What reference can you site on this?  If I am recalling the Fetzner Symposium of 2003 there was no mention of torn film.  I sure those experts would have been all over that in the film.  You can check Jack White's presentation for the post I made concerning his view of Zapruder and Altgens.  That is where that came from.  John Costella surely would have said something about that.  He said the film was almost technically perfect except for a few minor changes.  He didn't say anything as I recall about torn film frames.

John, that you post this with the innocence of a lamb is comical at best... downright nefarious at worst.

The is nothing you've said or  done on this forum that we haven't already been thru....  try a search of this forum John... LEARN something already...

That you don't comprehend the HOW's or WHAT's of this case is obvious... and John Costella would surely back me on this.... you want me to ask him myself or are you going to do it?

That you are unaware of the provenance of the film described as "The Zapruder film" is also no real surprise.
That you need wikipedia to learn about COINTELPRO is just sad

No John, you'll be back on Ignore for me... your lack of any substance and lack of any ability to learn how poor your "analysis" remains is monumental.

Any time you see a frame within Costella that has no SPROCKET IMAGE - a frame from a 1st gen copy was supposedly inserted... 
the "Original" Zfilm has numerous splices and over 45 feet of film when there is only 30 feet to a side....

Again, maybe go read volume 4 of Horne's great work and LEARN something before it's too late....

:idea

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...