John Butler

"I am not sure what you are getting at with the arrangement of four versions of the backyard: the 1967 photo is an outlier as three years or more had passed, and therefore no comparative information of the state of the backyard is useful. The other three photos can all be traced to 1963, and two of them can be dated to Nov 29, 1963. It is the most well-known and widely circulated photos, with the Oswald figure, which is in question, and what can be said is it appears to be taken some months earlier than Nov 1963, that the official story says it was taken in March, while speculation of a doctored photo tends to situate the creation in September." I arranged the photos that way because the trunk and limbs of the shrub in the 11-63? Oswald cut out photo appear to be bigger or more robust than 133-C shrub. According to the info only two months have passed. That is if you believe the photo in question was taken in Sept. rather than March. Also there are other shrubs and tree lines in the photo that are not in 133-C and the 1967 CBS reproduction photo. This is mentioned in one of the earlier posts. If the 11-29 photos were truly taken before the 1967 CBS photo and 133-C then those bits of foliage should have been in them. What I am attempting to show is that the photos labelled 11-63? might be taken at a later time than 11-29-63. In 133-C and the CBS photo we do not see that shrub in front of the steps support or the tree branch protruding into the other photos. This suggest a later date for those photos labelled 11-63?.

Here is another comparison: These photos were taken in different years. The growth in the photos are not the same. 1 and 2 are missing in 133-C.

I have tried to date the BYPs shown in the photo below based on the previous post. I am not certain that my arrangement of the photos is correct based on the dates and the scenes in these photos. My arrangement of the photos is based on the shrubs shown and the dates shown in the previous posts. In my opinion the dates and the growth of the shrubs don't match. 1. In the 1963 photo and the 1967 CBS repro there is no dead shrub or un-foliated shrub in front of the steps post. In the 1963 Dallas Police photos there is a shrub there in front of the steps post. 2. The shrub behind the figures appear to be larger and therefore older then the shrub in the 1963 and 1967 photos. 3. The photo of Detective Brown in Nov. 1963 appears to have the shrub behind him smaller than the one with the ghost photo supposedly done at the same time. Pruning on the same day you think? 4. The Nov. 29, Dallas Police Det. Brown photo has a foliated shrub behind him. The CBS March, 1967 photo has no foliage. This confirms the notion that the BYPs if taken in March should have no foliage for that shrub. Care to comment?

Is the following accurate information? Or, has there been revisions to this information by John J. Johnson in 1997? There is interesting things here if the info is correct: Just Don’t Cut Me Out taken from BOBBY BROWN AND “OSWALD’S GHOST(S)” by John J. Johnson [Nov. 1997] The “cutout” had been made by Dallas police officer Bobby Brown, who claims it was done at the direction of the Secret Service several days after the assassination. Brown offers an innocent explanation, claiming that the Secret Service wanted a reenactment of the backyard photos to demonstrate where an how they had been made. He says that Forrest Sorrels of the Dallas Secret Service had called Captain Fritz and requested that someone from the Crime Lab go to the Neely residence. Brown and Fritz, together with some Dallas detectives and a couple of Secret Service agents, went to the house and made the photos. Brown was selected to pose because he was the youngest of the men present He was given a rifle that Fritz had in his car and the Secret Service instructed him which hand should hold the rifle, how he should stand, how he was to hold the newspapers, etc. Brown claims that he later cut his figure from the photo because he did not want to be identified with it. I asked Bobby very specifically what would possess him to cut out his silhouette from the reenacted photographs. He was adamant to me that he only wanted to take himself out of the photograph since it was the background that was the subject, and not himself. He said that he did this entirely on his own, and that no one told him to do so. He said he cut his image out of a developed photograph and placed a white piece of paper behind it and re-photographed the reenactment. Brown later offered another version of how the ghost photo was made, this time with Oswald being cut out of the picture. He says that, after he posed for the reenactment, the FBI brought the 133-C photo to him at the Dallas crime lab and Brown cut Oswald out of the picture. He then photographed the 133-C print against a white background to make the matte. What is interesting about the photo in question is that the pose selected by the Secret Service for Brown does not match the two photos the Warren Commission was aware of (known as 133-A and 133-B). The photo of Oswald in the new pose (HSCA F180, now known as 133-C) was discovered after the silhouette was found in the Dallas Police archives and twelve years after the first two backyard photos were made public This matted photograph, one of two photos showing the same “ghost” against two slightly different backgrounds, which was discovered by Mary La Fontaine in the Dallas Police files, combines a silhouette of Lee Harvey Oswald taken from 133-C with the backyard at 214 Neely Street as it appeared on Friday, November 29. Although the Secret Service and Dallas Police obviously had a copy of 133-C at the time of the reenactment, the photo disappeared from 1963 to 1975, only to turn up when produced by none other than the widow of Dallas Police Officer Roscoe White. Anyone care to make a comment on the accuracy of these statements from years ago. Is there any new information?

"This topic has come up several times in past months, and each time has devolved to two opposing camps effectively talking past each other. " Yeah, that's generally what happens when Ray brings up his converging shadows argument. He is just misdirecting the conversation and he usually succeeds in taking people away from a topic under discussion for awhile. Tony Krome's topic is about when the BYPs were taken not converging BYP shadows vs conflicting shadows arguments. The conversation has been misdirected. People are preferring to talk about converging shadows rather than confront Tony's well reasoned argument on the probability that the BYPs were taken in September, 1963 rather than March, 1963. If he is correct, I think he made a good case, then that brings up all kinds of possibilities concerning the planning of the assassination, the manufacture of evidence, the selection and assignment of a Patsy, the positioning of assets prior to the assassination, the framing of the Patsy, and other considerations.

Ray apparently needs to re-educate himself in science. I would suggest physics, math, and astronomy. The notion I mentioned earlier of an idee fixe is defined as "an idea that dominates one's mind especially for a prolonged period". You can not reason with Ray on this subject. I generally reach a Gump point where in the movie Forrest says "That's all I got you say about that"

Is Oswald standing? Or, is he laying on he ground or flying? Standing vertically is simply a variation of standing and casting a shadow. It would make some difference in the time but, it would not be a grand difference. That is why I say about 1:00 or 2:00.

"You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity. But, that is a special condition of math." I should have added this to that sentence "but, not reality." Why unreal? The Universe as now described is not infinite but, finite. There is a boundary to the Universe at something like 13 billion light years. Beyond is Nothing. That is Nothing with a capital N. There is no known concept that can describe or be attributed to Nothing. The idea that parallel lines converge at any distance is nonsense. It is not science, it is superstition.

Since no one has tried to answer the questions above that makes me think they may not be worth answering. My ability to do research on the internet has been limited. A search on what hour of the day is shown in the BYPs results in McAdams, Von Pein sites, etc. and essentially unrelated sites and materials. First off one should dismiss the shadow under LHO's nose. It is unrelated to the picture and is a foreign object if you believe Oswald and most people who have looked at it and agree with Jack White. I have used that as one of the examples of conflicting shadows. Technically, that is correct since it is different. But, probably not a good use since it is a foreign object pasted into the picture. I see two times in the BYPs based upon the step shadows and the shadow of the Oswald figure. By guessing I would say the step shadows are in the Morning. Tom Wilson checking Jack White's work said the time was 9:12 AM. The Oswald figure's shadow I see as an afternoon shadow of about 1 or 2 o'clock. Chris Bristow says the time in the photo is about 1 o'clock. Tony Krome's idea that the BYPs and the CBS reproduction of 1967 happened in different seasons base on the seasonality of the foliage on the shrub seen in both photos opens up new possibilities in the study of the BYPs. There is a real probability the BYPs were shot in Sept. of 1963 rather than March, 1963 based on the condition of the shrub in the photos. The Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes allow for the same sunlight seen in the two photos.

Yep. I’ve been waiting for the emergence of Ray Mitcham and his idea fixe notion of converging not conflicting shadows in the BYPs. Here are two bits of info from the internet: “Parallel lines are two lines, that are always the same distance apart and never touch. In order for two lines to be parallel, they must be drawn in the same plane, a perfectly flat surface like a wall or sheet of paper. ... Any line that has the same slope as the original will never intersect with it.” “All parallel lines receding into the distance are drawn to converge at one or more vanishing points on the horizon line. in one-point linear perspective, receding lines converge to one vanishing point. ... A point on the eye-level line, toward which parallel lines are made to recede and meet in perspective drawing.” The very definition of parallel lines do not allow the lines to converge. It is the illusion of distance that renders the notion of convergence. The second info bit above is for artists and others who deal with perspective. As an artist I live or die on the canvas by using perspective properly. Parallel lines never converge even at a great distance. They simply vanish into the distance at what is called a “vanishing point”. That is the proper use of perspective. You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity. But, that is a special condition of math. If apparent parallel objects such as shadows in the BYPs are said to converge at some point then overlap they are not parallel simply based on the definition of parallel lines. Parallel lines as shadows are from a single light source. If they are not parallel then they will have different sources, different light sources. And, that is what we see in the BYPs. The distance in the BYPs at the Neeley Street home is to small to show any great convergence or overlap as suggested by Ray. Ray’s use of perpective is an improper use of convergence suggesting converging shadows that overlap in such a short distance as the backyard at Neeley Street.

Chris, Since the shadows appear to move in different directions. I think they show 3 time periods. Your opinion would be greatly valued. What time of the day would you put on the step shadows striking the fence? What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's shadow? What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's nose shadow?

10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said: Agreed Steve, seems who ever concocted that photo made a cock up, and they had to adjust tilt in order to make the lean acceptable. When corrected look at the ridiculous angle "Oswald" is supposedly standing in this adjusted photo. I agree with Ray Mitcham on the "cock up". There is more than one in the photo. It shows that an amateur photo alterationist was at work. My favorite candidate is Roscoe White. He joined the Dallas force in Sep. 1963 in the Identification Bureau, I think that's so. And, that may help explain Josephs question above on the ghost images. Perhaps, photo material was left over at the Dallas Police Identification Bureau that was later found and used in a different context. I know lots of folks disagree on Roscoe White as the author of the BYPs,

This photo has different highlight aspects indicating a composite figure. The brightness has been increased to show the highlights on the figure in a clearer manner. No. 1 concerns the highlights on the face. These highlights are from a light source to the front and above. This light also produces the shadow under the nose. 2. Indicates the highlights on the shoulders. They are not quite the same. The highlights on the left should are bright with no shadows. The highlights on the right side have shadows. Which is particularly pronounce in no. 3 and no. 4. 3 and 4. These are darker areas that should not be there in reference to the rest of the lighting of the Oswald figure. 3 and 6. These areas show the brightly lit forearm and hand. The area directly below the brightly lit right forearm is in dark shadow that goes down to the rifle stock. The rifle stock has an incongruous area brightly lit at the top with deep shadow below. The highlighted part of the stock is not in tune with the rest of the photo. There is no shadow of the newspaper on the Oswald figure. 5. Points to the legs. They are lit from the front except the upper part of the right leg. And, 3. The brightly lit forearm with dark shirt shadow holding the newspaper may indicate this is from another photo pasted into this photo. 3 and 4 versus 2 and 6 may indicate two sides of two photos of the figure pasted together. With this kind of brightness the shadow of the Oswald figure looks painted.

Jack White also mentioned conflicting shadows but, he didn't explain what he meant. I think I added to his list when I talked about conflicting shadow patterns being unnatural because they introduced conflicting light sources into the photos. According to the story Marina took the BYPs in the afternoon on the same day. This occurred in March at the 214 Neeley Street Address in Dallas, Tx. So, there should be one light source for all of the BYPs or for any one of the group. That's not the case: 1. The step shadows move from the left of the photo towards the right of the photo. The light source is coming from the left. 2. The nose shadow moves straight down from the nose. The light source is to the front and above. The second light source. This is also shown in highlights on the Oswald figure. 3. The Oswald figures shadow moves from the right of the photo to the left of the photo. This is the third light source coming from the right. The three light sources capture 3 different time events in the photo. The red arrows indicate the different directions of shadows in this photo. This is not to be confused with converging shadows. I believe the shadow patterns indicated that there are 3 different times captured in this photo. Now there is a good probability that the BYPs were not taken in March, 1963 but, they were taken in September, 1963. Tony Krome and Chris Bristow have convincingly demonstrated that the foliage or more correctly the lack of foliage in the 1967 CBS reproduction is the real condition of the shrub in the picture that was taken by CBS in March, 1967. And, should be the condition of any photo taken in the backyard of the Neeley St. house in March. Therefore, the shrub in the 1963 BYP should not have foliage in March. It does and so it must have been taken at another time. Chris Bristow has given two dates when this 1967 CBS photo reproduction could be taken and have the same shadow patterns as the 1963 BYP photo. These are the equinoxes. The sun has the same light pattern on those days as the sun rises directly in the east and travels directly west on both days. The foliage in the 1963 BYP argues that the photo was taken in September. Chris Bristow also says it would be hard to determine a difference in the shadows in a period of about 5 days around the equinox date. That leaves a time period of about 5 days around the Vernal Equinox in September for the photos to be taken. That time period could extend to 27 Sept. and Oswald was not in Dallas but, allegedly in Mexico or on his way there. Ruth Paine had taken Marina from New Orleans to Dallas on the 26th of Sept. On the Vernal Equinox they were both in New Orleans. This is something new and important. It needs to be looked at and verified and, not ignored.

Jack White has been mentioned from time to time in the BYPs. David G. Healey said: "I'd be remiss if I didn't post this very short overview concerning the BYPhotos. The possible alteration study was performed by Jack White many years ago. aside: even LHO said the BYP was a fake." This a note on Jack I made several years ago on 15 things he found wrong with the BYPs. Jack White and the backyard photos: Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include: 1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position. 2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other. 3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again. 4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not. 5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby. 6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested. 7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short. 8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be. 9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph. 10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did. 11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt. 12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle. 13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range. 14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used. 15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment. During the 1991 JFK Assassination Symposium held in Dallas,Texas of November of that year, computer image processing expert Tom Wilson corroborated all of the White analysis and added that he inspected the feet on the man in the backyard photograph as to light refraction and compared this to official records of the day concerning the position of the sun. Wilson stated that the photograph was taken at 9:12 A.M. if it was taken on the day it was alleged to have been taken. But Marina Oswald's testimony stated that the photographs were taken in the early afternoon which is completely inconsistant with the Wilson study.

This is an excellent comparison. It is not quite the same in both photos indicating time has passed at 214 Neeley Street. You can see the weathering of the steps in the later photo. The figures are in slightly different positions. I accept as a fact that Tony Krome has skillfully demonstrated that the BYP in question was taken in September rather than March of 1963. Can this be used in a wider context? What follows is at best circumstantial speculation. Or, it might be true reasoning. Consider the following disparate events. Or, are they random occurrences? From Spartacus International: White joined the Dallas Police Force in September, 1963. Soon afterwards, his wife Geneva White, claimed that she overheard her husband and Jack Ruby plotting the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (Roscoe White is alleged to have made the BYPs) Roscoe White’s wife ended up with BYP 133-C. Statement of Jan. 5, 1977 to the HSCA. Roscoe White was a Marine at Atsugi Naval Base at the same time as LHO. Maybe he was trained there. LEE HARVEY OSWALD http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm "Oct. 15, 1963 Dallas Oswald Hired by Roy Truly at Texas School Book Depository Oct. 16, 1963 Dallas Oswald begins work at Depository" The "Three Furies" that Brought Kennedy to Oswald http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dallas.txt "In late September the White House announced a two-day trip to Texas on November 21-22. On October 4, during a visit with Kennedy in Washington, Connally formally acquiesed to the trip but suggested that one fund-raiser would suffice and would raise as much money as four." 6. From Wikipedia- Mexico Marina's friend Ruth Paine transported Marina and her child by car from New Orleans to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, near Dallas, on September 23, 1963.[102][120] Oswald stayed in New Orleans at least two more days to collect a $33 unemployment check. It is uncertain when he left New Orleans; he is next known to have boarded a bus in Houston on September 26—bound for the Mexican border, rather than Dallas—and to have told other bus passengers that he planned to travel to Cuba via Mexico.[121][122] He arrived in Mexico City on September 27, where he applied for a transit visa at the Cuban Embassy,[123] claiming he wanted to visit Cuba on his way to the Soviet Union. The Cuban embassy officials insisted Oswald would need Soviet approval, but he was unable to get prompt co-operation from the Soviet embassy From Wikipedia: Marina's friend Ruth Paine transported Marina and her child by car from New Orleans to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, near Dallas, on September 23, 1963.[102][120] Oswald stayed in New Orleans at least two more days to collect a $33 unemployment check From Wikipedia: Ruth Paine said that her neighbor told her, on October 14, that there was a job opening at the Texas School Book Depository, where her neighbor's brother, Wesley Frazier, worked From Wikipedia: Oswald rented a room there for $8 a week, beginning October 14, 1963, under the name O.H. Lee The building is approximately 2 miles from the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald began working on October 16. One could probably list more of these. The two sources for this info may be considered unreliable by some but, the facts can be verified elsewhere. From No. 7 Oswald rented a room two days before the obtained the job at the TSBD. He was certain of employment. If you can believe No. 4 LHO was not in Dallas, TX on the Autumnal Equinox. I believe the decision to kill President Kennedy went into full force in the fall of 1962. And, the decision to make Lee Harvey Oswald the Patsy was implemented in the fall of 1963 in September, 1963. The decision may have been made earlier. Whether or not these events are related they are the background of LHO and the eventual killing of President Kennedy by the alleged assassination Lee Harvey Oswald, The Patsy.

I would like to post more info on the equinoxes since this notion is new and important. Equinoxes occurs twice a year, during March and September. Vernal Equinox: Sun crosses the Celestial Equator moving North (occurs in March) Autumnal Equinox: Sun crosses the Celestial Equator moving South (occurs in September) This movement of the sun at an equinox can vary as much as a 3 day period around March 20 at the March Equinox (Say 19th, 20th, and 21st.) and at the Autumnal Equinox a period of 3 days around September 22 (Say 21st, 22nd, and the 23rd). The equinoxes are a time the sun rises directly in the east and sets directly in the west. So, it doesn’t matter whether the sun is moving north of south. The sunlight shining on an object is the same at the same time of day. For CBS to reproduce the BYPs they would have to do their reproduction during the time periods mentioned and particularly the same time of the day. I'm not going to credit CBS as smarter than the folks on this forum. They must have had help in how to reproduce the BYP from the original producers. I might be wrong but I don't think CBS could photograph the shadows correctly in early October. Could they shoot at an earlier time or later time to simulate the time of the original BYP? Maybe Chris can help with this.

Amazing. CBS had to understand the problems and how to copy them in reproducing the BYPs. 1. The photo had to be taken on an equinox to get the step shadows right. The time of day would have to be the same for the step shadows to be the same. 2. Oswald and the other guy's shadow also has to be at the same time of day to be correct on either equinox. 3. The problem is the steps shadow is a morning shadow and the figures shadow in an afternoon shadow. There are two shadow patterns there. Two sunlight directions.

Chris, Good point. I would never have thought that. I just assumed they would be different due to different times of the year. "In late March and late September (at the "equinoxes"), the sun's path follows the celestial equator. It then rises directly east and sets directly west. The exact dates of the equinoxes vary from year to year, but are always near March 20 and September 22." The photo shadows on the fence are identical or nearly identical in appearance without close measurement. There does not seem to be any variation from 1963 to 1967. I commented to Tony that at different times they would be different. It now seems they can be identical at the equinoxes. But, if they were taken on spring / fall equinoxes then that may explain the discrepancy in foliage or lack of foliage. For a semi-northerner such as myself, Texas has strange whether. Just as an example, I left the Lousiville airport in January 1969 for Dallas, Texas. In Ky. there was 14 inches of snow. When I arrived in Dallas it was 95 degrees. The next evening about sundown it was 35 degrees. It was off and on cold until it turned hot. I mention this so that it might be possible in a warm year for things to bloom early in Texas. Ron Bulman is from the Dallas area. He could make a better comment on when things leaf out.

Tony, Your are right. Nice photo. The reproduction one. Hadn't seen that before. You've caught another aspect of fraud in the BYP. I don't think anyone else has caught that. You can add to your argument that they were taken on the same day and same season. Which is impossible according to the shrubbery. Look at the step shadows on the fence. They are the same in both photos. This says that they were taken at the same time of day and the same season for the sun to cast identical shadows in both photos. This would be physically impossible given the difference in the shrub leaf situation.

I've just taken the time to read that nonsense Josephs posted. You can deny and change a position to something else and declare yourself as the only true source and accurate source if you want. Have at it. My dear old departed Granddady said if you argue with foolishness then you become foolish. You boys haven't figured out what really happened it Dealey Plaza in 55 years. Do you think you might get it right in the next 55 years? With your mind set I don't think so. I wish you luck in your endeavors.

PS I don't use internet versions of films. As you can see film alteration is not an old thing. It happens with current material on the internet. Robert Groden's DVD has it problems but, at least it is honest. Is this debate for just old hands or is it a place for free discussion? Are newcomers welcomed or driven off? According to diEugenio they should be driven off by none other than Josephs. If you want to support Josephs that's fine. But, newcomers need to go back and look at some of his despicable behavior over the years.

Josephs, Hoist another one and get a life. Have you been the “respected research authority” so long you believe anything you say has the equivalence of pronouncements from Mt. Sinai. Post your own illusions rather than the troxxling and carping on other’s folk’s work. Leave the newcomers alone. That is just despicable bullying behavior. You are part of the reason the rules had to be changed. Remember? Do your comments by yourself and do that honestly rather than relying on others respect. Do that honestly and do not post dishonest tactics such as this: The real frame with comments looks like this: You can link here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23621-robert-hughes-and-the-cut-apart-policeman/ Hoist another one and get a life. The readers will judge what is suitable for them to read and comment on rather than waiting for one of your “pronoucnements”.

Josephs, Who made you the autocratic monitor of this site. Is your opinion the only opinion needed or wanted. Folks, don't post you may offend David Josephs. He owns this site. In his mind at least. It that what you are saying. Is only your logic worth looking at. "Butler has been pushing terrible logic for a while now while there are scores of others here from which to derive an opinion that doesn’t make it appear as if you’ve never seen a photograph." I have been posting on this site for about 3 years. A relative newcomer compared to yourself. I read once that you have been doing JFK research for 25 years. What have you contributed lately other than spiteful comments to newcomers? Post your thoughts in a thread and see how many people pay attention to you. You have done a lot of foolish things lately. I've overlooked those trying to mend fences and ease your arrogant, supercilious, and often wrong, and wrong headed attacks on people. If anyone should be cautioned about behavior it is you. Wrong headed and foolish to treat people who are honestly trying to improve and help with JFK research. You keep posting your view which is even nonsensical and wrong about Mary Moorman. There's lots more to her story than you suggest. But, you want to own it with no allowance for a divergent opinion. The new rules have moderated your behavior on this site. Doesn't that chafe you? Doesn't that send you into a dark corner pouting that you can't vent your spite. Puh-lease put me back on your ignore list.

More Musings and Opinions: There is a hidden history in Dealey Plaza of the assassination of President Kennedy layered over by lies, distortions, manufactured evidence, altered evidence, witness tampering, and a series of corrupt law enforcement investigations and coverups at all levels of government: Federal, State, and Local. This is illustrated by the Bronson frame under discussion and many other examples of a corrupted visual media taken on the day of the assassination. An examination of this Bronson frame asks the question which is fraudulent, the Bronson Film or the Zapruder Film. The Zapruder Film is the iconic visual evidence for the official story. One film or the other has to be altered since they provide alternate versions of the scene shown in the Bronson frame. It is more or less the same kind of thing shown in Elsie Dorman vs. Zapruder. Two different realities. See http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23540-separate-realities-on-the-sw-corner-of-elm-and-houston/?page=5 True, one film is taken from the north of Elm Street (Zapruder) and the other from the south side of Elm Street (Bronson). That really has no relevance since they should show the same events and people. They don’t. An exception may be that Zapruder would not show someone behind the Stemmons sign. Many of the people in the Bronson frame have been identified. They for the most part are where they said they were. I dispute the Newmans based on Bill’s 11-22-63 statement. The Hesters are probably an unknown as shown in Bronson. Tony Krome suggested that the couple is the ones seen at the beginning of the Zapruder film sitting in the arcade. I think that is reasonable. The Bronson frame shows the alleged Hesters before they crossed the street according to their testimony. The Zapruder film does not show the Hesters on the south side of Elm Street where they said they were. Nor, does the Bronson frame show anyone who could be the Hesters on the south side of Elm Street. There are 19 people shown in the Zapruder Film standing between the R L Thornton Freeway Sign and the Stemmons Freeway Sign. I call these people Mannequin Row after Jack White. The 19 people shown in Zapruder in Mannequin Row are mostly absent in the Bronson frame. You can count about a dozen people there and some of them are not in the row of people shown in Zapruder. There are other films and photos that show even less people there. Mary Moorman’s Polaroid #3, the McBride Polaroid Dick Bothun photo, that is if you accept this as directly after the assassination The Malcom Couch film The Mark Bell film The Bronson film There are other differences. The Bronson frame shows the Babushka Lady and Zapruder does not. What is shown in Zapruder is the Lady in Blue. The Bronson frame shows the Newmans standing west to the Stemmons sign. And, the Zapruder film does not show the Newmans. And, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be shown. John and Faye Chism are shown in this Bronson frame but, they are not in Mannequin Row as shown in Zapruder. Fay Chism was taking photos. What happened to her camera and film. They would be as important as Mary Moorman’s photos. Or, perhaps more important in that they would show something that had not been edited. Cheryl McKinnon and Doris Mumford are identified as the ladies standing in front of the light pole just west of the Stemmons sign. This comes from Ken Rheberg. Robin Unger has done earlier work on Toni Foster’s husband posted on the forum. Steve Thomas thinks one of the people labelled No. 4 through No. 7 might be a husband of Toni Foster. Perhaps someone can track that down. No. 9 has been identified by Robin Unger as Grandmother Willis. Her husband is not shown here but, appears in an expanded version posted from Groden’s book. There are many detractors of this kind of work that doesn’t fit into folk’s self-approved paradigms. Josephs’ latest comments has improved. At least I am not being cursed and accused of being a Cointelpro agent. In general things have improved on this site with the new rules. Here is sample from the Dorman Link of past virulence. It’s really minor compared to some others that were offered years ago. It is always fantasies and imaginative stories for those who disagree. Michael Walton Super Member Two Posts Per day 1,562 posts Gender:Male Report post Posted March 9, 2017 This entire thread is merely a figment of John Butler's overactive imagination. There is nothing to see John. And I'm not the only one as a respected researcher said he actually thinks you're just trolling this forum. Quote