Jonathan Cohen

49 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I sorry Jonathan to add to your confusion from time to time.  Dealey Plaza seems to be a confusing place for you.  Maybe you should have taken my earlier advice and limited your reading of what was going on in Dealey Plaza, if this is so confusing for you.

Besides Chris' wording, the only thing that's confusing is your wild and unsupported speculation about massive film alteration.

Let's try to take these one by one. Chris asks:

What was the earliest date at which a non Zfilm was compared to the extant Zfilm by an entity other than the government? And, when was the first time a non-connected (influenced) government entity saw the extant Zfilm?

Chris, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you asking the earliest date when, for example, the Towner or Dorman films were compared to the Zapruder film? Or when the Nix film was compared to the Zapruder film? What do you define as a "non-connected (influenced) government entity" ?

If I shoot a rifle into the air, it doesn’t necessarily mean I was aiming at someone.

I'm also not clear what you mean by this analogy. Are you implying that the "other" Dealey Plaza camera people whose films were used in a Zapruder film composite weren't "necessarily" aiming their cameras at the Presidential limousine?

One film altered from it’s original state would also constitute a different film/s.

I don't know what this refers to. Are you suggesting the various Zapruder film source materials were themselves altered first, and THEN combined into one new film?

Splices have not been undetectable for years, just mis-interpreted.

I should have clarified that I consider the splices a separate issue than the widespread alteration alleged by some members of this forum. I will be the first to concede that the splices are suspicious. But they are not necessarily evidence of some massive alteration (including John Butler-style objects painted into the frames) of the Zapruder film.

You’ve already been shown some of the results.

I've been shown results created using nothing more than film editing technology available in 1963? I presume all of the "results" you've displayed in this and other threads were achieved using modern computer technology and software.

Out of curiosity, let's say the alleged Sitzman film had slightly more color saturation than Zapruder's, or slightly more image bleed into the sprocket holes, or slightly more camera jiggle. How would the forgers account for variations like that?

On 1/31/2020 at 4:28 AM, Steve Thomas said:

Anthony,

I think you're right. Look at the fullness in his face. Unless he had been very sick, it's hard to see how could have lost that much weight in a month or so.

Steve Thomas

 

To my eyes, there is nothing anomalous about these photos having been taken close together chronologically. We also know Oswald owned very little clothing, so it's not surprising he would have worn a sweater for an "official" photo of this type, regardless of the Mexico City climate. The sweater in and of itself is not a "give away" of anything sinister...

Using only film editing technology available in November 1963, can anyone reproduce what Chris appears to claim was done to create the extant Zapruder film: seamlessly edit together three different 8 or 16mm films of a moving vehicle shot from different lines of sights into one new film, in a way that accounts for minute changes in point of view and goes virtually undetectable for decades? I personally would love to see the results.

9 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

The thought that two CIA employees at a film editing facility in New York might be helping to obfuscate things (divert attention away from the Dallas Jamison facility) is intriguing, for sure.

Steven, can you supply any evidence to support your speculation that the Zapruder film underwent massive editing and alteration at the Jamison facility within hours of the assassination -- editing so technically accomplished that it is only being uncovered nearly 60 years later by amateur researchers on an Internet forum?

17 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I am failing to follow the logic in claiming an early doctor's statement to the FBI telling of a bullet wound to the right temple of Tippit proves a photo with a bullet wound to the right temple of Tippit is fake.

Greg, you are not alone in failing to follow John Butler's logic when it comes to his claims that virtually every piece of evidence in this case is fake.

15 hours ago, John Butler said:

There is a lot of people out there who hold views and attitudes similar to mine.

So? Are you implying that your theories are more valid because other people agree with them? As usual with the type of “everything is fake” speculation you routinely post here, there is absolutely zero hard evidence to support the widespread alteration of the Dealey Plaza film and photo record. And there is certainly no evidence to support your posts in this thread that Marilyn Sitzman filmed the assassination, that her imaginary film was somehow combined with others taken that day to create some kind of impossible-to-detect “composite” or that Abraham Zapruder was a “co-conspirator.” What is the point of this kind of conjecture without anything to back it up other than your own oft-debunked hypothesizing about photographic anomalies?

On 10/12/2021 at 4:12 PM, John Butler said:

This is absolutely an expression of wonderful, out of the box thinking.  Both Zapruder and Sitzman filming at the same time.  Who would of thought of that?  Nobody for 58 years, except one.

So, that is 3 cameras.  If 3 cameras are being used by the co-conspirators (I have always thought of Zapruder as one) then there is the possibility of more.

Thanks for this vindication of what I have thought all along.  More than one film was used to put together the Z film.

Except for the fact that there is absolutely ZERO evidence Marilyn Sitzman filmed anything in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963, to say nothing of the fact that your "built from the ground up" hypothesis is ludicrous based on the known timetable of when the first frames from the film were published, much less the available film technology of the era...

And really.. Abraham Zapruder as a "co-conspirator" ? It boggles the mind that people like you actually believe this.

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

How did they know that the vehicle had to be added in Altgens and Zapruder?

No vehicle was "added" to the Altgens 6 photo, which, as has been pointed out to you umpteen times, was sent out over the Associated Press wire within 30 minutes of the assassination. 

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy,

So, you just want to bury the claim of a former CIA paymaster active when JFK was murdered that, in 1963, "Lee Harvey Oswald" was paid by the CIA and that his encrypted codename was RX/ZIM?

There’s nothing to bury. Tracy has already offered a perfectly plausible and logical alternative to Wilcott’s completely unsubstantiated claims:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html?m=1

23 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The wound to the side of the head is manufactured and wound up being shown in the Zapruder film as one of the many fraudulent changes in the film.  This wound was not seen at Parkland by trained medical gunshot wound specialists.  It was not there then or they would have seen it. 

Once again John Butler is just spectacularly wrong with his theorizing. The wound he claims is "manufactured" and "fraudulent" is in fact verified not only by the Zapruder film but by Dealey Plaza witnesses who were mere feet away from President Kennedy during the shooting. There are ample reasons why this wound was not seen in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital and they do not require a preposterous level of alteration of the Zapruder film. 

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

From the photo the old TSBD looks like an adequate building to store and transmit books to schools.  And, that raises questions of why make a new TSBD and spend a lot of money renovating an old building?  

How about.. simply because they needed more space?

1 hour ago, Richard Price said:

Jackie made a statement to someone, possibly Manchester, stating exactly what you bring up here.  I believe the statement was about the ride to Parkland and that she spent her time trying to "hold his head on" or words to that effect.

That is correct, and supports the notion that because she was pressing down on the right side of JFK's head during the trip to Parkland, the wound near the right ear that is clearly seen in the Zapruder film was not seen by the doctors in trauma room 1.

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

At one time I thought it was the editors getting away with foolish things just because they could.  In other words pulling pranks.  If you were a lab guy in the CIA or FBI photo labs (or at Chiles, Jaggers, Stovall) with very little to enlighten your day, well that might be a way to do it. 

Well, John, you've managed to utterly astonish me with your theories twice in the same thread. This one really takes the cake: that the evil alterationists had so much time on their hands and their work was so humdrum that they INSERTED FAKE PEOPLE into Dealey Plaza films and photos just for a laugh. It's breathtaking, truly.

17 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Altgens is real.  The imaginary and pasted guy is Bothun (actually Altgens).  I don't see the need, but is probably just another Zapruder film mistake.  I call him Altgens shadow.  In the Dealey Plaza photos taken after the assassination you can not find a picture of Bothun.  Only Altgens.  I have searched all the photos and films and I can not find a single one of Bothun other then the Z film.  He should be in other photos such as Bond, but not.

And so the photo of Bothun's grave that you posted earlier in this thread is ... also fake? Or are you claiming Bothun was a real person but never was actually in Dealey Plaza? And just so I'm clear, what possible purpose could there have been on the part of the conspirators and film alterationists to insert this specific fake human presence a la Bothun in the Zapruder film?

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

This is what I think.  Altgens had his camera bag with him.  He had extra cameras, attachments, and different film.  He may have been using a flash since he was not facing the sun, but had the sun behind him.  Regular highlights from the sun are what you see on his coat, trousers, and camera bag.

So now you've decided Altgens is real? Does that mean you still think Bothun is not real and is actually just a duplicate version of Altgens pasted into films and photos?

On 9/11/2021 at 11:24 PM, John Butler said:

The two, Altgens and Bothun, look to much alike.  My conclusion is they are the same.

Congratulations to John Butler for coming up with yet another "conclusion" that not even the zestiest of JFK conspiracy theorists had previously brought forth: that Dealey Plaza photographers James Altgens and Dick Bothun are actually the same person, who have been magically pasted into various Dealey Plaza films and photos, including the Zapruder film. Major points for imagination!

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Imo, the difference we see in Nix and Z is likely just a matter of perspective not alteration.

Chris, thank you for this sensible analysis and for not starting with a pre-determined conclusion on the issue. What you've shown here is that like it or not, the Dealey Plaza photo record is self-authenticating.

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

Without unemployment and a FBI informant fee Oswald would not even have met the poverty level.

And, that is what we were supposed to see.  Oswald living off concerned acquaintances, not friends or relatives.  I think the whole story is unbelievable. 

Not only is it believable, it is supported by a wealth of primary source, documentary evidence and numerous witness statements from people who knew the Oswalds well during this period of time. That's more than can be said for your conjecture about Oswald's lucrative career as a spy.

Right. So as usual, you have no actual EVIDENCE to support your theories. Waggoner Carr may have believed whatever he was told about Oswald being a paid FBI informant, but there is no documentary EVIDENCE to support that claim. Conversely, there is AMPLE first-hand evidence from those who knew the Oswalds in Texas after they returned from Russia that they were barely able to survive on Oswald's meager income. The White Russian community took pity on them for this precise reason. I'd like to know where you think Oswald was hiding the riches he pocketed as an FBI informant. What did he use this money for? Why didn't he leave more of that money behind for Marina on the morning of the assassination? And if he was so wealthy, why did he profess to only have $60 to his name in the note he wrote the night of General Walker's assassination attempt, and that the Red Cross would be available to help Marina if he was "taken prisoner" and sent to the "city jail" ? 

51 minutes ago, John Butler said:

He certainly wasn’t rich.  But, he was not the poverty stricken, ragtag fellow the Official Story folks made him out to be with poor starving Marina and family while he wandered through a procession of low wage jobs.

Oh really? Do you have a SHRED of evidence to support this contention? Virtually EVERY witness who knew the Oswalds after they moved back to Texas from the Soviet Union testified to their poverty.

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

Oswald was not a wannbe spy, but a high-level operative on a carefully defined and setup operation at the highest levels of US intelligence.  Oswald and his double had been trained by the US for some significant operation that would take place in the future..  This project, the Oswald Project, was a long term project which began in Switzerland when Allen Dulles was assigned there in the OSS and helped refugees from northern Europe, particularly Poland and Russia, escape the German invasion.  

 

As usual, literally everything in the above paragraph written by John Butler is at best pure speculation with no direct evidence to support it, and at worst, laughably, provably wrong. 

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

Hmmn?  A person wants a single fact, but says there are none, and he as a "serious researcher" wouldn't believe it anyway.

The question here, which I advise Jim Hargrove form time to time, is "why waste your time on answering something like this?".   

The "never believeable" facts.  The strident saying you didn't answer the question over and over again.  The endless request for facts that are never believed, and the endless questions that have been answered over and over again.   Why waste your time with these as one researcher says are cointelpro techniques. 

You are the one who made the claim that Marina Oswald was a Russian spy before and after the assassination. I asked you to support it with evidence. Clearly you cannot, or you would. So since you appear to be punting on this one, I will open the question up to anybody else on this forum to provide evidence to support the notion that Marina Oswald was a Russian spy before and after the assassination.

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

I believe Marina was a Soviet Spy and still was serving the fatherland after the JFKA.

Please provide a single shred of evidence to support either of these two claims (hint: there isn't any, and no serious researcher of this case believes it).

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

From the same film without shadowing and highlighting.  Oswald's chin as it should be and untouched.  If you notice the other figures in the scene are not shadowed and highlighted either.  Same film.  Natural film effect.

As if your prior insistence that every Dealey Plaza image has been altered wasn't bad enough, It is laughable that you now claim the film footage from Oswald's time in Dallas Police custody has been altered too. Is there ANY outlandish JFK assassination conspiracy theory you DON'T believe? When does it end?