John Butler

Below is a comparison of the JFK backwound in a drawing and a photo. For many years the drawing was taken as a photo showing one back wound. The wound shown would match the hole in the shirt and jacket. The drawing is very realistic or, is it? If you are an artist you should immediately see the Drawing as a drawing and not as a photo. If you are of the Lone Gunner or as it is said in this thread, Lone Nutter variety of researcher, then you should ignore certain things in the Photo shown at right. First off, is the black heart shaped patch applied to the occipital region of the skull where the wound area described by Parkland personnel is. Kennedy must have been really hated for someone to place a heart shaped object there over the grotesque head wound. Secondly, you should ignore or completely deny the notion that there is more than one wound in President Kennedy’s back. Some people argue over No. 1 or No. 2 as the Kennedy back wound or something even lower. As an LN or LG you should vehemently deny a, b, or c as anything that looks like a back wound or hole. Or, for that matter anything you see in the Photo that looks suspicious. The question here is in the Photo which, 1 or 2, best matches the hole in the shirt and jacket? PS In my opinion few artists have the skill it make a detailed drawing as shown in the Drawing. Even the most skilled artist throughout time make perspective mistakes in their work. It was probably done using an art projector using the Photo at left for the photo to place in the art projector.

Here is a note I made while working on something else. It may or may not help in your discussions.

Mr. Baker has proven my point. He said he bases his ideas on a fervid belief that “I can't speak for anyone else, but as I've said more than once before: I don't care whether there was a conspiracy or not. I just wholeheartedly believe that this was the whim of a single, sad, lonely man, with a gun, one sunny day. Nothing suggests otherwise.” His beliefs not his facts is why I choose not to contend with Mr. Baker. However… On the other hand his discussion of the Z film is naïve. It gives me the opportunity to go over the authenticity of the Zapruder film again. The technical aspects of the Z film has been argued ad nauseum with some saying yea and some saying nay. Not being a technical guru, I have avoided those issues. But, there are many content problems indicating alterations throughout the film. I give you as an example Z frame 157. Can you see any content problems here? If you don’t then don’t feel bad. Almost everyone who looks at this frame in over 50 years has not seen any problems. Let’s start with the one that stuck out like a sore thumb to me and occasioned a further look at this frame. “Falsum number 1.” This is the image of Bob Willis and his extra, long leg: The extra length of his leg is not a shadow however much you might want it to be. The extra long leg has a shadow. Sometimes, I think these things are put into the film just to show that the film is a fraud. If so, the editors wasted there time. Almost everyone has missed this. Some how or another most people turn a blind eye to this or ignore it all together. Next is the Johnson security vehicle. This is the vehicle immediately following the Vice-Presidential limousine. It was a 1964 Mercury Monterey Breezeway. “Falsum number 2.” Pay particular attention to the way the top part of the vehicle looks. Look at the front and back of the top. Compare it to what you see in Z 157. This is seen better in Z frame 166: The security vehicle has two top ends, both of them rear ends. One of them is in the front of the vehicle. This was very poor photo editing. Mannequin Row- the 19 people standing between the lamppost / R L Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign. There are 5 film and photo examples that say this group is imaginary and a figment of the photo editor’s art. “Falsum number 3.” These are: Dick Bothun Mary Moorman’s Glen McBride Polaroid The Malcom Couch film The Charles Bronson Film The Mark Bell Film The presidential limousine: “Falsum Number 4.” This version of Z frame 157 focuses on the presidential limousine. Where is the president? The front windshield and most of the limousine body belongs to another photo or frame. It is done in a so-so, good enough manner. The filmstrip cut and paste lines are visible. The top of the windshield and sun visors are painted in badly. There are other things through out the film but, this should be enough to show one the film has been tampered with in Z frame 157. Facts not beliefs.

I've read through this post and I fail to understand why anyone would want to try to explain or argue with anything people like Carlier, Baker, etc espouse. You are not going to change their minds on anything. It is a useless endeavor. It doesn't matter what you say. You will not be able to change the twisted logic of their repeated questions on whether you can answer something or not. Here's an example: Baker says "You are of the opinion that it's likely that no shots were fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD on that day, so who knows what you really believe. I'm not even sure that you know. " That statement says you really don't believe the true evidence. Actually, 5 out of 7 witnesses who were located the closest to the sniper's nest said the shots came from a different direction. You just can't air that in a court. Anything you answer on this will be rejected and then the favored, twisted question will be repeated such as "what is the alternative explanation?" and then repeat the process. And, they will provide some evidence for their argument such as "Three shots fired (heard by vast majority). " which is apparently true but doesn't say anything about a large number of witnesses saying something different. Another example is "(check out that Z film if you've never seen it)". The Z film is totally corrupt and unusable as evidence for anything. The Z film doesn't work as evidence under two principles, Falsum in Uno, Falsum in Omnibus and a lesser standard Falsum in Multis, Falsum in Omnibus.

Andrej, Thanks. Now 4 shirts in the argument. I have never seen CE 151 or heard of it in various arguments I have read. That's so typical of the Dealey Plaza story that the threads from one shirt CE 150 do not match the shirt really worn at the TSBD. A real cluster______ as Clint Eastwood would say. But, of course that word describes much of the evidence of the assassination. It may be the answer to one of the questions I have about Prayer Man on Elm St. in the John Martin film. Why a red shirt? In a poor quality color film with enhancements a light red maybe seen as a red shirt. Thanks again for trying to straighten out whose who at the TSBD.

Andrej, Claim and counter-claim is the saga of Dealey Plaza. Robin Unger has provided more information high lighting the notion. The red patterned shirt is not the same color as Oswald's brown shirt. Which, if you follow the story Oswald picked up after he left the TSBD and went back to his apartment and changed clothes. Supposedly, he was wearing a white t-shirt at the TSBD and some kind of jacket. There is an argument there also. Others say that the short sleeve striped shirt that Lovelady wore in the Feb, 9, 1964 FBI photo is what he said he wore that day. Robin says not. He was wearing the red patterned shirt shown. Many have tried to match that shirt to the Oswald / Lovelady figure in Altgens 6. To me it is not a good match. Oswald's shirt: This version of Altgens 6 seems to show a shirt closer to Unger's version. This version looks more like Oswald's shirt. It looks like the shirt Oswald wore at the police station and worn the same way. But, if his story is correct about changing clothes then it's not Oswald. It's part of the reason I say the Oswald / Lovelady figure in Altgens 6 is not really identifiable. I see a Lovelady face mask (photo shot of Lovelady's head) placed on the figure there who could be Oswald except for the shirt. Claim and counter-claim is the saga of Dealey Plaza as found in the records of the assassination. And, then you have this from John Martin which some people can't see. One would think this is Howard Brennan sitting on the retaining wall but, he is sitting in the wrong place.

Andrej, Robin Unger has posted excellent visuals that I think widen the problem. If I am reading Robin correctly, please correct if not, he is saying Lovelady was wearing a different shirt. So, a brown shirt like Oswalds, as in Altgens 6, a short sleeved striped shirt as in your models, and a checkered patternted shirt shown in Robins. Some claim the shirt shown in Robins visuals is the same as in Altgen 6. Hence, it is Lovelady not Oswald. I think this has been discussed several times without resolution. Another difference I noted is that Lovelady has a pronounced bald spot and Oswald does not. There is so much alteration, in my analysis of Dealey Plaza, it is hard to tell whether Loveladys bald spot has been touched up or not. I suspect it is the difference in lighting.

Andrej, Once again the photography betrays one. The Hughes frames are not detailed enough to say that this is Lovelady positively or, Oswald positively. I will explain what I mean in just a second. Great work in your modeling. Good work in getting the essential outline details of Billy Lovelady in your model. I agree that Oswald should not be there at this time. This is about 5 minutes, possibly more, after the assassination. Hughes has had time to come off of Main St. and wonder into the railroad yards and then onto Elm to take these frames. The problem is as I see it in your photos Lovelady is wearing his striped short sleeve shirt. Lovelady said this is what he wore that day. The figure in the Hughes frame is wearing what appears to be a solid shirt reminiscent of the shirt worn by Doorway Man in Altgens 6. Also, the shirt appears to be open showing his T-shirt as is shown in Altgens. To me, one frame looks like Oswald and the other looks like Lovelady. I'll go back and try to find a frame showing the shirt and T-shirt in more detail.

Here is something I noticed while looking at Robin Unger's Hughes frame. Maybe he can sharpen and clear these frames from Hughes. Is this Oswald or Lovelady and does this have any relevance for the location of either? It looks like another Doorway Man controversy.

Your attempt to identify people and their location would be a lot easier if there were other films and photos. Camera Car #1, the National Motion Picture Cameras, had Weigman in it. What happened to the John Hofan film? The Thomas Craven film? The Cleveland Ryan film? and the Thomas Atkins film? The men did not film or is there some film or photo associated with them? There were photographers in Camera Car #2, the National Still Cameras. What happened to the Clint Grant photos? The Cecil Stoughton photos? The Arthur Rickerby photos? The Henry Burroughs photos? Camera Car #3 was the Local Cameras. We have Dilliards photos. We have a Darnell film. We have a Couch film. Nothing from Jackson or Underwood? Has anyone ever wondered why these people in these cars didn't produce more film and photos than they did? What were they doing there if not to film and photograph? Taking a joy ride, maybe? My answer is that it creates the problems that you are struggling to answer. It creates an analysis that is always going to be arguable. This is a problem created by the people in government (FBI, Secret Service, and CIA) who seized and altered the visual records of Dealey Plaza. If you go through the extant visual record you will find over 30 unknown photographers on Main, Houston, and Elm. Many of these people are taking photos of the passenger side of the presidential limousine. In reality we only get to see the Skaggs version and the Zapruder version of the passenger side of the presidential limousine once the vehicle moves unto Houston and later Elm Street. To me one of the great mysteries of Dealey Plaza is why people haven't picked up on this over the years. The visual record like the record of witness testimony has been tampered with by government officials.

This is what I said in another post and it is similar to Robert Harris in this and other posts of his. "If I get what you are saying the back wound goes into the neck and comes out at the tie knot of JFK and then travels to Gov. Connally at an angle which is steep and indicates shooting from a high position. I don't see that with your photo. Instead I see this. Connally's chest wound exited just below his right nipple. Connect that to JFK's tie not and you have this. A much shallower angle than you postulated. I would be more apt to believe that the shot if it came from the 6th floor would be from the western side of the building which is covered by a giant non-existent tree in Moorman 3 the McBride photo. 5 out of 7 of the closest witnesses to the 6th floor sniper's nest on the east side of the building said they heard shooting coming from another place and not from above them. The red line angle might suggest a 2nd or 3rd floor office window at the TSBD if the shot came from the TSBD at all." A shot from the second or third floor of the Dal-Tex is not unimaginable. Harold Weisberg in Whitewash III first mentions objects sticking out of windows in 1967. The two images showing something sticking out of the windows seem painted. Especially, the one at photo right. The muzzle flash if it is a muzzle flash doesn't seem right or correctly coming from the rifle. However, I may be totally wrong and these are genuine scenes of shooting from the Dal-Tex.

More musings: What Bart Kemp says on his website confirms what I saw when working with witness statements trying to determine where the presidential vehicle was when the witness heard shots. Essentially, FBI reports are not that reliable. I tried working with only what a witness said on 11-22-63 and maybe a day or so later. I felt these were the most reliable. If a witness made more than one statement to the FBI it seemed that those statements evolved toward the “official version” of the assassination in the WC report. Many witnesses claimed their statements were changed. Jim Hargrove in A simple question to James DiEugenio makes a similar charge by noting that the FBI omitted or ignored statements if they varied from the official script. Watch the video in his post. It is the other side of the argument and those who support the WC version I find unfathomable. I just wish I was wordsmith enough to say what Jim DiEugenio said in the same post. In this post DiEugenio says: “Francois, Yes there are. But why should I share them with you? You and DVP and the Arizona lawyer (who, thank God, is not here anymore) are so invested in the WC at a metaphysical, psychological, and emotional level, that it really does not matter how much evidence I, or anyone else, produces. Which is why none of you would ever pass muster to be on a jury in this case, since normal terms of argument and ratiocination are foreign to your makeup. In fact, the other jurors would probably ask the judge to remove you.” What I find that is appalling is the willingness by these folks to invent and manufacture data or simply deny or ignore what should be plainly understood or seen in your argument.

More musings. I posted earlier on what appeared to bullet holes in the Dal-Tex building in the Altgens 6 photo. I will try to reconstruct what I said there and other posts. 1. My version of Altgens 6 came from the internet. At first, I thought someone was monkeying around with the photo and as far as I knew it was a sign of alteration. 2. They looked like 50 caliber machine gun holes. That was a no go for the assassination. The plaza was probably full of WWII and Korean vets I would think. And, no one heard such a large caliber weapon. There would be no way to suppress it. The holes were too big for rifle or pistol. 3. So, I was left with other speculations. Maybe Tosh Plumlee's abort team shooting at the assassins. I didn't care much for that one either. 4. If they were bullet holes then maybe a bunch of drunk Texans shot up the plaza late at night. 5. I didn't think much of weapons sticking out of various upper floor windows. Or, of menacing figures barely seen in some windows. Here again I thought someone was playing with the photo until I read Harold Weisberg's Whitewash III. He mentions similar things sticking out of windows in 1967.

Bell Frame:

Bothun Photo:

Couch Film frame:

Moorman Polaroid #3: The notes on this photo are self-explanatory. It is one of the rare views into the Zapruder gap. Some people say the group to the photo right in front of the TSBD is the group between the R l Thornton sign / lamppost and the Stemmons sign. But, they are not. Part of this group is the group of black people photographed by Robert Croft.

The Bronson film: This is probably the best known frame from the Bronson film. Note the area of what I call Mannequin Row. There is another peculiar thing about the Bronson film. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are clearly visible in this frame in the position they are supposed to be in on Elm Street. However, see if you can find them in the next frame.

John Butler Advanced Member Members 546 posts Gender:Male Report post Posted 9 minutes ago I rarely get to agree with Robin Unger. But, when you are right you are right. Robin Unger Super Member Members 3,762 posts Gender:Male Location:Australia Report post Posted April 14, 2017 Thomas you have a bad habit of bumping threads to resurrect them from the dead. threads drop of the board due to lack of interest, you should let sleeping dogs lie. Let sleeping dogs lie. Great comment. Trying to identify the people in the Zapruder film standing on Elm Street between the lamppost / R L Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign is a useless endeavor. There is visual proof that this group does not exist as shown in the Zapruder film. The Betzner photo shows the faces of some of the alleged people standing there. And, this apparently confirms that the people shown in Zapruder are actually there. It is the only evidence that shows the faces of the people allegedly there that I know of available. However, there is Bronson, Moorman, Couch, Bothun, and Bell ( Sorry, not Nix) that offer different views indicating this group of people are a product of the imagination of the photo editors in the Zapruder film. Obviously, they obtained this visual material from somewhere. The other films and photos do not show this group standing there.

I rarely pay attention to Von Pein's strange comments. Advice: Go back and read the post on Altgens 6 titled Altgens 6- A different view.

I rarely get to agree with Robin Unger. But, when you are right you are right. Robin Unger Super Member Members 3,762 posts Gender:Male Location:Australia Report post Posted April 14, 2017 Thomas you have a bad habit of bumping threads to resurrect them from the dead. threads drop of the board due to lack of interest, you should let sleeping dogs lie. Let sleeping dogs lie. Great comment. Trying to identify the people in the Zapruder film standing on Elm Street between the lamppost / R L Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign is a useless endeavor. There is visual proof that this group does not exist as shown in the Zapruder film. The Betzner photo shows the faces of some of the alleged people standing there. And, this apparently confirms that the people shown in Zapruder are actually there. It is the only evidence that shows the faces of the people allegedly there that I know of available. However, there is Bronson, Moorman, Couch, Bothun, and Nix that offer different views indicating this group of people are a product of the imagination of the photo editors in the Zapruder film. Obviously, they obtained this visual material from somewhere. The other films and photos do not show this group standing there.

Joe Bauer said: "If the photo was taken just before the back shot ( second or seconds before ) Your red line angle would never line up high and steep enough to the 6th floor window. It sure looks like a clearly lower elevation angle shot. Perhaps one from the Dal-Tex building?" Thanks Joe for the comment. I agree about the Dal-Tex as a possibility. Altgens 6 shows people in the windows of the 2nd or 3rd floors, if my memory doesn't fail me, and even stick like objects protruding from the windows. Some even see a gun being fired. And, of course others don't. The earliest source I know of that postulated shooting from the Dal-Tex mentions stick like objects protruding from the windows is Harold Weisberg in Whitewash III of 1967. When I first saw these I thought someone was monkeying around with Altgens 6. But, this was what Harold Weisberg was talking about in 1967 in Whitewash III. Ray might not have chosen the best photo to represent his ideas with. John Connally was a large man and very tall. Yet, he sits lower than JFK due to riding in the jump seat. Kennedy may have been riding taller and Connally may have been sitting lower in the jump seat in a vain effort to be comfortable. At another time he may have sat taller seeking comfort in the jump seat which must have been very uncomfortable. If that was the case it would throw off angle of fire lines somewhat. But, that is unknowable. Ray's photo is a great photo but, it must of been taken somewhere other than Main, Houston, or Elm Streets. It was taken on the day of the assassination according to the way Jackie Kennedy was dressed. Positions could have changed by the time the presidential vehicle arrived in the assassination area. Still it is a great photo and one I hadn't seen before. Thanks Ray. It appears to be a crop from a larger photo. Maybe someone could post the larger photo if there is one.

If I get what you are saying the back wound goes into the neck and comes out at the tie knot of JFK and then travels to Gov. Connally at an angle which is steep and indicates shooting from a high position. I don't see that with your photo. Instead I see this. Connally's chest wound exited just below his right nipple. Connect that to JFK's tie not and you have this. A much shallower angle than you postulated. I would be more apt to believe that the shot if it came from the 6th floor would be from the western side of the building which is covered by a giant non-existent tree in Moorman 3 the McBride photo. 5 out of 7 of the closest witnesses to the 6th floor sniper's nest on the east side of the building said they heard shooting coming from another place and not from above them. The red line angle might suggest a 2nd or 3rd floor office window at the TSBD if the shot came from the TSBD at all.

I don't know whether this has any relevance for the topic. If my memory serves me right the Minox I had was different that the one in the photo. When it was sold to me in 1967 I was told it was a Minox spy camera. I assumed that was just a sales pitch. It was completely featureless. Just an aluminum case was all that was there. No names or numbers. The camera case slid to the side and a lens was exposed similar to the one shown in the photo. There were no names or numbers once the case was slid open. I don't remember seeing any in loading the film. The case slid open in order to "arm" the camera and take a photo. Once closed or when it opened it advanced the film frame.