Jonathan Cohen

4 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

The Z313 head shot is the product of film alteration.

Denise, could you elaborate in more detail on what you mean by this statement? Are you saying there was no head shot at 313? What specific film alteration do you allege took place?

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I hate to say anything but ...

Wynne Johnson? He is billed as a "witness and logic expert."

Here's his story-maybe some responsible researcher can use this to challange him:

My Final Word on Wynne Johnson ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

 

Yeesh. It's bad enough that Judyth Baker is billed as a "witness" .. a witness to what? Making up stories and attempting to insert herself into the historical record of the assassination?

27 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The film shots from the two films above indicate there were two Oswalds.  The red shirt (I believe C151) along with the Roger Craig/bus-cab ride stories cinches it.

Of course in reality, they indicate nothing of the kind, other than incorrect analysis of the evidence.

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Looks like I goofed on those dates.  This should take care of that.

The left hand photo has Marina's daughter in it.  The middle photo is probably around 1961.  There is no mistake on the right hand photo even though Robert Oswald changed the date from Feb., 1958 to Sept., 1969 1959.

I could have written JC's response and saved him some time.  The one with boobs must be Marina.  Yes, Marina was something else in those days.

Take the Oswald represented in the center photo and answer this question.  If you saw that version of Oswald and was asked later (days or months) would you say he most resembles the left hand photo or the right hand photo?

I see this differently.  The left hand photo and the right hand photo are the same.  This is Harvey Oswald, of unknown name.  The center photo is Lee Oswald.  I can make a case for this based on standards I developed from studying photos of what everyone thinks is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.  There is solid evidence I can use that the left hand photo and the right hand photo are not Lee Harvey Oswald, but his double.   By deduction, the center photo must be Lee Oswald even though this photo was taken in Russia about 1961.

There is no doubt the left hand photo is of Harvey Oswald the man shot at the Dallas Police Station. 

I vigorously dispute your “standards” and have 100% confidence in my belief that all three of those photos are of the same person. You clearly believe “there is no doubt” that “Harvey Oswald” was a real human being, but the overwhelming majority of serious researchers who study this case vehemently disagree with you and have relegated this theory to the JFK assassination dustbin where it belongs. That should tell you something …

Edit: I won’t post further about “Harvey” in this thread in an effort to not further derail the excellent, well-researched points being made by Gil, Greg and others.

4 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

The one with boobs in photo 2 is definitely a imposter

Sean,
God bless you for bringing some levity to this long-running, absolutely absurd theory. Side note: all three photos above are of course of the exact same person — the one and only “historical” Lee Harvey Oswald.

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

There are more problems with Robert Croft.  I really don't know much about him, but from what I have read there should be more of his photos available.

And, what else did they do to his photos?  Change things so that they had the content they wanted?  Well, before saying such things one needs to look at all of Croft's photos.

More empty, needlessly conspiratorial speculation from John Butler, who seems to want us to believe that the ever-mysterious, nameless "they" went ahead and "changed things" in Robert Croft's photos to fit with "the content they wanted." These alterationists sure had their hands full, didn't they?

32 minutes ago, John Butler said:

David,

JC has these things to say which seem to me to be mantras.  It's like he is kneeling before a stone image and chanting:  That's just speculation, there's no evidence, and there is no solid proof in a loud voice.  It doesn't seem to matter whether there is or not.  It just the thing one keeps hearing from him.

JC says he has all this experience and credentials, but he is not demonstrating anything but the mantras I have suggested.  Maybe someone would take him more seriously if he did. 

 

John, what is there to demonstrate? I believe the theories you espouse are provably wrong, and I also believe these same theories have been debunked over and over or explained in perfectly logical ways that don't require doppelgangers. Do you really want me to repeatedly post the same debunkings and alternative explanations on this forum?

1 hour ago, Sean Coleman said:

I’m interested in your opinions and arguments no-everyone’s opinions and arguments, but as DJ says, you don’t offer any? 
just sayin what I see….   
 

Sean, my opinion is that “Harvey and Lee” is a ludicrous and laughable interpretation of the evidence, and that it is an embarrassment to the assassination research community. Nearly every aspect of it has a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation that doesn’t involve long-term doppelgängers and/or has been debunked time and time again both on this and other forums and by researchers such as Tracy Parnell. I am in as vigorous disagreement with the theory that every film and photo taken in Dealey Plaza is faked - especially when it is based on one person’s wild speculation about random anomalies for which there are numerous alternative explanations. At least John Butler sometimes admits when he is wrong, as he did in the “Jackie on the trunk” thread. More often than not, he advocates for an impossibly wide-ranging conspiracy requiring every piece of evidence to have been forged or altered. I will continue to challenge his interpretations of the evidence with facts and logic.

10 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

So says the self proclaimed expert having never read a book or done any research so the opinions he spouts are uninformed and pedantic.  
 

what purpose are you serving here besides the ignorant critic of subject matter far beyond your comprehension ?  Every post of urs is a waste of time and thought…

but hey, you’re a shining example of how not to behave on an intellectual forum, everyone is good for something.

Oooh, someone woke up on the wrong side of the doppelganger today, didn't they?

It's par for the course for you to make breathtakingly ignorant comments about people on this forum, but just this once, I'll set you straight and do the work for you: I've been researching this case for more than 30 years and have been a featured speaker and presenter at some of the most respected research symposiums dedicated to the Kennedy assassination. I've swapped research, knowledge and correspondence with Mary Ferrell, Harold Weisberg, Gary Aguilar, Gary Shaw, David Mantik and Josiah Thompson. Don't let that stop you from accusing me of "having never read a book or done any research," though. I won't hold my breath for your retraction.

As for the purpose I serve here? It's to call BS on preposterous theories like "Harvey and Lee," which are an embarrassment to serious study of this case and are clearly not taken seriously by a majority of researchers. Talk about a "waste of time and thought" ... 

40 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I will not go into the discussion of whether this is a photo of Harvey Oswald or a face mask of Harvey Oswald.  Generally, you see a light copy of Harvey in his sweater, and not a darker photo which gives away the mask outlines.  The left hand mug shot of Harvey is ok.

But there's no discussion to go into because, of course, there is no such person as "Harvey Oswald," much less a "face mask" of him.

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?