Jonathan Cohen

21 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The FBI did not want to explain why a poor, common laborer, such as Oswald, possessed a very expensive Minox spy camera.

A "poor, common laborer" when? Presumably this camera was obtained during Oswald's time in Minsk, when he was making as much if not more money as the highest-paid employees at this workplace.

2 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Oswald was an FBI informant. He had met with the FBI in Dallas

two or perhaps three times in November 1963 before

the assassination. Oswald had infiltrated the plot but

did not know he was being set up as the patsy.

If this is true, how do you explain his interactions with Agent Hosty?

32 minutes ago, John Butler said:

One would have to suspend credibility and deny reality to believe what you see there.

Really? Has it ever sunk in that nobody on this entire forum besides Sandy Larsen agrees with you, and even he doesn't fully buy it?

8 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Sandy,

What you see as tan raincoat is the woman's purse.  Look at the frames below.  The tan part only covers a small area.  Where are her tan raincoat sleeves?  You won't be able to find those simply due to the fact she wasn't wearing a tan raincoat.

1. The Lady in Blue does not have a babushka or head scarf.  Instead she has blond hair (which might be a wig) and a black head band.

2.  She has on a short sleeve dress and not a tan raincoat which has long sleeves.  Tell me where you see long sleeves in the photos below.

3.  She has on a white belt that completely circles her waist and is not covered by a tan raincoat.

 

John Butler's theories are again refuted here.

Jim, who cares if she didn’t write research articles? Who cares if she gossiped (who in this case hasn’t?) And who cares if she was “conservative” ? She was a tireless archivist and historian whose collection of documents is amongst the most valuable ever assembled in this case. Are you, like Phil Nelson, implying Mary was running some decades-long con game to disrupt the JFK research community? Why on earth would anyone do such a thing?

And the point of all of this is... what, exactly? Are you actually suggesting that Mary Ferrell and Robert Chapman were intelligence agency assets? If that's the case, I guess I got picked up by some really friendly government spies at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport back in November 1993!

On 3/26/2022 at 4:06 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

This is proof positive that one or both the films have been altered.

Here's proof positive that Sandy is grossly and profoundly incorrect. For additional comic relief, there's a poster in this same thread named "Jake Maxwell" who is giving John Butler a run for his "everything is altered and the tops of cars are reversed and the Babushka Lady is two different people and one was erased from the films" money.

3 minutes ago, John Butler said:

It is obvious you know nothing of film editing as practiced in the 1960s.  Check out David Healey's written work on film editing. 

It's obvious you know nothing about it either, as the preposterous level of Zapruder film alterations you propose would be completely impossible to achieve given technology available in 1963.

11 minutes ago, John Butler said:

To me all of this calls into question the validity of the Zapruder film and Mary Moorman’s Polaroids as reliable assassination information.

Once again, you are making something out of nothing. So Jean Hill was not 100% correct about the number of shots that were fired and her impressions of what happened inside the car. So what? Why do you jump to the conclusion that this must correlate to massive alteration of the Dealey Plaza film and photo record? Plenty of assassination witnesses said they saw things that weren't completely accurate, like Bill Newman, who said JFK's ear "blew off." Does that mean they are all part of some sinister plot? Of course it doesn't. Why you fail to even consider a simple, non-conspiratorial explanation for these things is truly baffling.

I won't bother dignifying Costella and Jack White's ridiculous claims about the Moorman photo alteration or where they were physically located. As has been discussed on this board numerous times, Josiah Thompson definitively debunked Costella and White's theory that Moorman took her Polaroid while standing in the street.

7 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

True, the vehicle is traveling north on Houston Street.  That's not the problem.  The top of the vehicle is orientated in the wrong direction.  The top is going south while the lower body is going north.  Here is the correct orientation of top to bottom of the Johnson ss vehicle.

Frame Z 145 show the correct orientation. 

And, then the wrong orientation in Z 158.

  

Are you actually suggesting that the forgers REVERSED THE ORIENTATION of one half of Lyndon Johnson's vehicle? WHY on God's green earth would they do this? HOW on God's green earth could this be accomplished? Have you ever, for one second, considered the possibility that what you think you are seeing is profoundly incorrect?

21 minutes ago, John Butler said:

If you magnify this blurry image you will see that the BB Lady may be spliced into the scene.

Good heavens. "Spliced into the scene" ?? Why on earth would any conspirator or forger do this? It boggles the mind that people believe this stuff.

23 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The Bond photos are taken after the assassination by about a minute more or less.  There is time to move around.  I have never made that connection about total strangers.  I believe you are corrrect.  It is not likely at all.

It's not likely that a group of people who were standing near each other would then all move in the same direction after just having witnessed the President of the United States murdered before their very eyes?

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Jonathan,

Why would you believe that?  Most folks I known in the Harvey and Lee research field point to Harvey Oswald as the one killed by Jack Ruby and offer extensive and convincing evidence that Jack Ruby shot the man known as Harvey Oswald and not the original Lee Harvey Oswald.

Can you offer more or fill out with more detail what you are talking about.  

I don't have the time to search the archive, but I recall Jim Hargrove once saying that it "didn't matter" which of the doppelgangers was killed by Ruby and which one simply disappeared off the face of the earth -- possibly in a thread about the exhumation and Sandy Larsen's misinterpretation of the mastoidectomy scar.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

A new article, co-authored by John Armstrong and David Josephs, discusses this and other aspects of….

The Pre-Arranged Murder of Oswald

I stopped reading at the reference to a wallet belonging to "Harvey Oswald," considering that "Harvey & Lee" adherents can't even seem to agree amongst themselves "which" Oswald was actually murdered by Ruby.

3 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Jack Ruby was well aware of what was going to happen in Dealey Plaza and he more than likely wanted a record of it.

Oh really? Where did he plan on viewing this "record of it" ? On the in-house movie projector while craning his neck from his cell in a Texas prison?

8 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

The camera itself could be momentarily frozen relative to the subjects in one frame and not in the next. The point of optimal focus is closer to the camera thereby allowing subjects further away to vary, particularly when they are in motion, which she is. If proper focus is resolved on a foreground subject the background subject's clarity will fall off with distance. The camera operator may have been following focus at the time. The potential explanations are endless and not unreasonable.

There are a number of variables which are beyond the two possibilities for blur which is why I think your assumptions are faulty. I'm fairly knowledgeable about the subject and anyone who is actually authoritative I'm sure could point out other possible explanations. It's a steep hill to climb to make any solid conclusions IMO.

Thank you, Bob Ness, for injecting a dose of reality into this thread.

29 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I like John Costella's suggestion that the Z film may be built from the ground up.  Several people saw the film, but the film they saw is probably not the extant film.  Life Magazine published some still frames and that was all that was known by the public at the time.  When was the next showing of the Z film material in public?  I believe at the Shaw trial years later.

Once again, John Butler proposes something that would be downright impossible with 1963 technology, if not easily spotted as phony by anyone with two functioning eyes. Built from the ground up how? How could any forgers have significantly altered the movements and actions of the occupants of the Presidential limousine? By pasting them over with footage of stand-ins dressed in their identical clothing? As always, there would also be no way for the forgers to be sure other films and photographs of the assassination wouldn't be discovered later, which would immediately contradict their fake Zapruder film and blow the whole operation. Are you also once again implying that Abraham Zapruder was somehow involved in the conspiracy ahead of time?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh really? I'd like to know what makes you think the alteration I have alleged is impossible given that I HAVEN'T ALLEGED ANY PARTICULAR ALTERATION.

LOL     🤪

 

You are alleging that the blur in certain Zapruder frames could not occur naturally. So by your definition, the extant frames MUST have been altered in a way that introduced these telltale mistakes. What you have spent this entire thread refusing to do is explain HOW such a thing could possibly be done?

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have shown that the motion blur has spontaneously disappeared and that it could not have occurred naturally because it would have required some thought.

You have certainly shown no such thing. In fact, the alterations you are alleging to have taken place are impossible given technology available in 1963.

53 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I dunno... I guess they employed midgets with itsy-bitsy artist's brushes and magnifying glasses....

So as I suspected, you have no actual explanation for how any of your alleged alterations could have been accomplished with 1963 technology -- just your standard "this looks wrong to me! So it must be fake!"

49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's because the only plausible answer is that humans have monkeyed around with the film.

Please explain how "humans" monkeying around with individual frames of film that are the size of a fingernail could somehow, with technology available in 1963, selectively alter motion blur from frame to frame. How was it done? Further, please explain how alterations of this type would in any way be possible given that the Zapruder film in the National Archives is the in-camera original.

52 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Most newspapers did edit photos in order to advertise, or make a news story clearer, or simply make a photo clearer.  Ike Altgens was a photo editor with long experience at the AP at the Dallas Morning News.

John, who are you trying to fool with this false equivalency? Nobody here has ever tried to deny that newspaper photos weren't edited for size or for the purposes of advertisements. You are claiming a level of film and photo alteration that is worlds apart from your average, run-of-the-mill tweak for the purposes of publication and which is frankly impossible given the time constraints not only for Altgens 6 but Mary Moorman's Polaroid.

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, there is evidence that Ruth Paine was a CIA asset.

It's called circumstantial evidence.

What you call "circumstantial evidence" is nothing but a bunch of groundless speculation strung together to fit your pre-conceived conspiracy scenario -- much like your similarly paper-thin theories about widespread Dealey Plaza film and photo alteration and Oswald doppelgangers, Why on god's green earth would Ruth and Michael Paine become part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald and then spend the rest of their lives giving detailed interviews about it? Did they go to media training with the "fake" Marguerite Oswald too? 

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I predict that...

Anybody who believes most of what Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine have said will never figure out the conspiracy against Kennedy.

 

As usual, Sandy Larsen does not have a shred of actual evidence to support Ruth Paine having been involved in any kind of conspiracy against Lee Harvey Oswald.

18 minutes ago, John Butler said:

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

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

35 minutes ago, John Butler said:

What's the point?  You wouldn't accept any answer I gave you.  It is simply a waste of my time.  You might have noticed there comes a certain point over time when I quit answering your rubbish.

You can't give any answer, because what you are alleging with the Moorman photograph is absolutely impossible -- ie., the very "rubbish" you accuse others of peddling when they challenge your ludicrous claims.