Ray Mitcham

Maybe one of our Langley contacts could help tell us why they haven't been released.

Have a look at the gif, Chris posted here, on the 31st May and you will see your "shadowed area" moving below the tree foliage.

ncorrectI link supplied I

Incorrect link.

I didn't want you to think I was making a "personal attack" on you with what I really wanted to reply.😁 By the way please show me where I have made a personal attack rather than point out your silly ideas. My stance has always been that I consider the Z film to be altered, but not in the silly ways you believe.

Because you asked a question which he had already answered. I know it's difficult for you but please try. I won't be drawn to comment on that statement.

All I and others have done in the course of this thread is point out your numerous erroneous posts. In the post above, in answer to your question, I suggest you re-read Chris Davidson's post where you will see he said "The alteration you are looking for is there, you just have to put the right pieces together."

Read Chris's post again, Butler, and you will get your answer.

You guys are wasting your time arguing with Butler. He doesn't understand perspective or the way shadows work. Don't argue, just point out his many mistakes.

Agreed, Andrej. I think Pat's opinion is swayed by the fact that Tom's work doesn't agree with his.

Once again Butler gets it wrong. Look at the film @ 33secs in the Dorman film, and you will see the two the two women and their shadows and to their left (Right of frame) the two men and their shadows seen in the Dorman film mosaic shown above. Dorman frame @ 33secs Mosaic shown above. You really do have problems, John. Re Rosemary and Linda, the Dorman film is too indistinct to show whether Rosemary or Linda made the South West Corner of Elm Street, (wherever that may be.) John, when in a hole stop digging..

👍

Please, John, inform me of what I know. Should be interesting.

Interesting video, Ron.

Thanks for posting, the video,Vince. I believe that Tom Wilson was correct about what he said about the photos. I hope somebody somewhere can re invent the system he used, and which unfortunately died with him.

As a Brit, I would like to endorse everything you wrote above, Robert.

And you expect people to take you seriously? It really is time to grow up, John.

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

You already supply more than enough goofy stuff.

Once again, Butler seems incapable of reading let alone understanding a photograph. My name is Ray Mitcham. Perhaps you are deliberately misspelling my name as an insult, but if so it is just shows how you stupid you are. No you have another look at this and previous frames, and you will see the white triangle grow, showing it is a reflection of light as the vehicle moves. Utter and total rubbish. The only problems are inside your head. You have proven your argument that "it is Connally," to be wrong, with your next post, where you arrow Connolly further forward in the limo.😂 Try seeing if you can see this. or this. I don't have any "confreres", I have fellow posters who appear to agree that you are barmy. (See Chris Davidson's post immediately above.) Neither do I have an "effin master". Do you have an "effin brain"? If I have, I expect, you will be there to welcome me with open arms. p.s. If my two pole experiment is "loopiness", please be my guest and prove me wrong. I know you won't, because you know it's correct.

Re Zapruder frame 157, enlarge the white square, and you will see JFK still upright.

Looks like old John Butler needs to go to see an optometrist, as my name on the forum is Ray Mitcham. As for my arguments being specious, maybe you should try to refute them. (Don't bother. you can't.) Still not tried the two pole shadow experiment yet, John?