John Butler

The figures in the Cross photo are not orderly. They are not in a uniform formation. They are not in straight rows. It appears that the figures are arranged to provide converging shadows. Why? Converging shadows seem to be important to those who argue the validity of the BYP's. Converging shadows are some kind of validation for the BYP's. What is noticeable is that all the shadows are moving off the light source correctly in one direction. My proof for the BYP's being fake are 3 conflicting shadows moving in different directions. How gullible does Cross think people are?

Danny Arce made the following statements to the authorities about the Kennedy Assassination in 1963 and 1964: Dallas Police Department on 11-22-63 FBI Statement on 11-22-63 (handwritten) FBI Statement on 11-22-63 (typed version of handwritten) FBI Statement 12-19-63 FBI Statement 3-18-64 Warren Commission 4-7-64 If you look through these statements then Danny Arce's location becomes suspicious. Eventually, he mentions he was on a grassy area in front of the TSBD. There is no grassy area in front of the Dal-Tex. This further adds to his ambiguous, suspicious location. Here is where history.com places Arce's location with a white dot. He should be visible in the Zapruder film and from the SW corner of Elm Street from such photographers as Betzner, Willis, and Croft. But, he is not. According to his testimony he could be there or across the street on South Elm. Only problem with this there is no pictorial evidence for either location. Bart Kamp has provided his location in front of the Dal-Tex as shown in Altgens 6. How many radios can you hide under that raincoat? Much less why is he wearing that when the temp was above 60 and the rain had stopped hours before. It seems Danny Arce has been seen as a suspicious character before. Check out Bill Shelley. Does he look like he is in fear of his life? Can you imagine the cop saying "Watch what you say, boy. Accidents happen." This is an interesting post: Danny Arce and the peeing old man By Guest Mark Valenti, August 26, 2006 in JFK Assassination Debate

Thanks Bart, The first issue is about Dealey Plaza photographers. It doesn't really fit this thread so ignore that. The second I just found more interesting because sometime back I had went through Danny Arce's testimony and noted there was an issue with his location. On your website prayerman.com you locate Arce in front of the Dal-Tex in Altgens 6. It appears to be Arce. You know how people are on this forum. They will say the image is to vague or some such. But, I agree that it is Arce. He appears to have something in his hand. It appears to be a handheld radio. If that is Danny Arce and that is a radio then he is one of the assassins of President Kennedy, a spotter or coordinator. His location is so ambiguous in his testimony you can place him on all four corners of the Elm / Houston intersection. Back out a little and you have this: That's is clearer. He still appears to have a radio.

Bart, A second question. What's the point of showing Danny Arce's written statement? Is there something there we should catch or know? It is an interesting statement when compared to his statement of 3-18-64. I've read Arce's testimony some time back and noted what maybe some discrepancies on where he was located. And, where the president was when he heard shots.

Bart, Do you have a date for the letter from Shanklin to Sorrels on photographers? Thanks.

The reason I posted the truck photo is that some bullet holes don't show a through and through hole. It may be because of camera angle or it could be from bad, weaker ammunition. There are at least 3 showing no hole. I remember seeing this as all holes were through and through holes. But, that is nearly 50 years ago. Here is something I hadn't notice about Altgens 7. Altgens 7 shows what may be a bullet hole but, it is slightly different in position as the bullet hole is portrayed in Altgens 6. This may be due to camera angle and the 3 degree slope going down hill. You can see the hole in Altgens 6 if you look close.

Here's another heresy from the past from the Marie Muchmore film. This involves the possibility that the windshield hole may have been made on Houston. Or, this may be imaginary to some or real to others: The angle here could be right for the left most 2nd floor offices of the TSBD. This is the ones where the windows are always shaded and closed except for the Tina Towner film. I offer this as the reason the Altgens 5 photo was altered just after turning onto Houston Street. This will give you a better idea about bullet holes in a windshield. These were made by an AK-47 at close range, about 50 ft.

Thanks Pamela Brown for pointing out the Cimino and Fetzner post, From Tampering with the limo in the JFK Altgens6: In the article is this "That shirt was so distinctive it forced the CIA to try to alter it out of existence, where alterations to Altens6 were even made to impose facial features of Lovelady on Lee." I posted several years back on the Altgens 6 and the Oswald figure, Doorway Man, having a face mask of Billy Lovelady imposed to disguise whoever Doorway Man was. I'm glad to see Cimino and Fetzner agree. Actually, they got there first with the idea and I am agreeing with them. Most people when they saw this argument treated it if it was rank heresy. I hate to disagree with Cimino and Fetzner on one point. The CIA probably had nothing to do with Altgens 6. If you follow the timeline and Uncle Walter showing it on the CBS news that day then the retouching or editing more than likely took place at the Dallas Morning News or the AP hq.

This next question is probably one of the most important in Kennedy assassination research: How many witnesses do you need in order to believe what the witnesses are saying? One? Or, Two? Or, 9? Or, 2 dozen? Or, over 40? How many are necessary in a court of law? When does one stop saying this is research theory and say this is a fact based on witness testimony? Vince Palamara Advanced Member Members 715 posts Gender:Male Location:Pittsburgh, PA Interests:The Secret Service, JFK, Presidential history, the Steelers, music (Playing guitar) Posted August 4

Chris, Well that's a seriously wrong goof up and assumption on my part. I thought I saw what might be two streets or a street and a side walk but, dismissed it as maybe be a photo mistake. That is one strange example of foreshortening in the middle of the frame. Is it foreshortening or film editing? If that foreshortened area is natural then the cars should be tiny? Right? Or, at least not as large as they are. I don't see how that foreshortened area could occur on fairly level ground. So, the photographer is on Commerce Street rather than Main Street and that presents a problem. Why would Bell leave his elevated perch on the NW corner of Main and Houston and move to Commerce Street to film Elm Street? Does that make sense? Wouldn't he just move to the grass between Elm and Main? In my poorly constructed and wrong assumption why would Bell move south across Main Street to film Elm Street when he was north of Main Street to begin with? The Bell frame doesn't make sense. The grass between Elm and Main becomes a thin strip and the grass between Main and Commerce becomes a thin strip and it just doesn't look natural. The time of this frame is strange also. The motorcade took about 5 minutes to go through Dealey Plaza because of various holdups. The traffic shown in the frame indicates the motorcade has passed through Dealey Plaza and normal traffic has resumed. The green Ford or Mercury doesn't look like a motorcade vehicle. I don't know what to make of the frame other than it might be taken by someone other than Bell. I have always thought that the Bell film has frames shot from to many different perspectives. Some of which can be accounted for as military intelligence or a Fort Hood communications group photography. There is to much editing going on in the Bell film to rely on anything in it. Then this becomes a better interpretation of the Bell Frame:

Thanks Chris, I read Joseph's post and your response. It appears that from you camera perspective to be that way but, the shadow is mostly behind the box. Thanks for your comment.

Chris, This is an interesting photo. I'll pay attention and see what people have to say on this. This may be helpful or not. The most recent photos I have of Dealey Plaza is 1967. I think I have pointed out the lampposts in question but, don't really know because lampposts and signs may have changed since the "big event". I notice in the 1967 photo that the Stemmons and perhaps the R L Thornton signs are gone. So, things have changed and this is a best guess. It is hard to say. The lamppost on Main Street may be the next pair down (further west). I couldn't decide. The paired lampposts may have not been there in 1963. Your Bell frame doesn't show paired lampposts.

So, it doesn't really matter whether the cardboard strip is off to the side or placed in the center of the box. Good. This confirms and validates what I said years ago when I posted on 3 conflicting shadows in the BYPs. The nose and body shadow has different directions indicating different times of the day when the two shadows were photographed. This is what I meant when I said the shadow patterns conflict and it is unescapable and real. It is irrefutable. Throw in the other conflicting shadows from the stairs and you have the whole story of conflicting shadow directions. The BYPs are fake as demonstrated by many people over time.

In the card board box demonstration of shadows, I have a question. Why is the cardboard strip representing Oswald's nose, I assume, not in the center of the box? The cardboard strip is not centered and projects farther than it should if it represents a nose, hence distorting the shadow effect. Pay more attention to David Josephs' reasoning. He is essentially correct except there are shadows in BYP 133a or others that run from picture left to picture right. As an example look at the shadows under the steps which are on the ground. I use picture left as the side you would be holding in your left hand if you were viewing the photo in both hands.

I'm sure this image has been shown before. I've just updated shadow directions in the photos with arrow directions. It is strange the BYP 133a has more shadow directions than it should. The nose shadows and body shadows should be compared.

Sandy Larsen's thought experiment is correct. How do you apply this to the backyard shadows? If the light source in 133a is to the front then the shadow moving downwards under the Oswald figures nose is correct. His body shadow should be directly behind him as Sandy demonstrated for the box when you move the light source to the front. If you apply this reasoning to the BYP 133a then the shadow under the Oswald figures nose should match the body shadow in moving toward picture left. It would not be straight down but moving toward picture left. This is not the case in BYP 133a. The shadows don't match.

David Von Pein Super Member Members 5,090 posts Gender:Male Location:Indiana, USA Report post Posted 4 hours ago (edited) This only goes to prove a very significant point.... I.E.: A conspiracy theorist can (and will) come up with almost any type of cockeyed theory if he looks long and hard enough at something---even when looking at a film taken of JFK on Main Street when no gunshots at all were being fired at the President. Thanks, John Butler, for once again proving that important "I See What I Want To See" fact concerning the wholly subjective observations of conspiracy believers. I'm sure Robert Harris is very proud of you. Edited 4 hours ago by David Von Pein Second shot:

Michael, David has wondered that too. I believe that's what he meant by anti-cointelpro agent. Who am I disinforming? What I've said isn't pretty much straight forward. If you don't like it or disagree post a cogent response or discontinue reading it. Your right about David's research in part. There are parts that come up short. He doesn't like someone correcting his work or telling him he doesn't have a good argument. That's why I was attracted to his work in the first place. It is because of his good work. But, we all have feet of clay and he doesn't much care to be reminded. I don't think he will like me saying this is that we have more points in common that not.

Ray, I have lots to say to you. Read the quoted material. " "

Mr. Josephs, What "victory" am I claiming? You say I am delusional, paranoid, with a serious mental disorder or "psychosis" plus being stupid. These comments are kinder than past ones. I have a question? Why have you taken me off your ignore list? Am I saying things you find threatening to your beliefs? By the way, do you have certification in Psychiatry or Psychology? And, even if you do it would be inappropriate to make comments on a person whose not your client. I going to assume that you don't and what you are saying is just hot air, somewhat milder than former statements. Why should I or anyone pay attention to such drivel?

David Andrews, You can find the film on the internet. YouTube has it. It can be easily downloaded. A word of caution. The film at film speed does not really show in great detail what I am talking about. It goes by to fast. Watch the film in a frame by frame setting. I use a Roku device when I watched this on a big screen TV. Hit pause and let it advance frame by frame when you first see the presidential limousine. On the computer I use Corel Paintshop Pro 2018. I also use Cyberlink PowerDVD 16 which allows me to advance through any film frame by frame.

Joseph's comments are bringing around to me the notion that he may be a secret "Lone Gunner". His manipulation of what I have posted is second rate. "Visual and cognitive diarrhea" may be better than just throwing documents and photos at a situation and leaving it up to the viewer to figure it out. The problem with Josephs is I have corrected on more than one occasion his slipshod research. This has generated hatred. Actually, I have destroyed one of his threads concerning firing angles and the 6th floor Sniper's Nest, a complicated piece. I made the comment you can't prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone fired a weapon from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest. From that point on he produced vile and insulting remarks the least of which is calling me an Anti-Cointelpro Agent, whatever that is. I have in recent posts offered an olive branch but, I see that has been rejected. The obvious Lone Gunners on this forum will gang up, as they have in the past, to try and shut down what I am saying with brilliant comments from folks like Ron Bulman's "Horse cocci." Michael Clark has reminded me I should watch what I say and behave myself while responding. Thanks Michael, I am studying Life on Earth more seriously.

Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. You can watch it on a big screen TV. YouTube has film. Stop it when you see the presidential limousine. And, then advance frame by frame. If you don't look at the film then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence. Read Jackie Kennedy's statements. They were ignored and hidden 54 years ago. Will you continue the tradition? Which of you have actually looked at the evidence I have presented? Have you taken the time to do that rather than present in a huff a knee jerk reaction. If I am a fantasist then what are you? Are you folks of "superior knowledge" or just closed minded? As for "Wonderland stuff", that man hates to be corrected.

Francois, "Don't you know the difference between "there" and "their" ???? That's is one of my frequent typing errors. Or, it could be the software changed the word. If you look on the photo you will see I typed "longs" for lungs. Would you like to correct that also?

James DiEugenio, Sorry, this was simply a point to back up the fraudulence of the BYP's. The point being is that the Main Street evidence in the AMIPA film is in stark contrast to the evidence we find on Houston Street and Elm Street in how the assassination occurred. Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence. Hook your computer to a 60 inch color TV for best viewing. The main point of these posts in nearly everything we see in the visual record about the Kennedy assassination is phony, including the BYP's. The first visual evidence that convinced the public that Oswald was guilty includes the BYP's. Other early evidence is the Zapruder film (parts of it first published), Mary Moorman's Polaroids, and Altgens 5, 6, and 7 are fake. All can be demonstrated to be phony. This gives context for the importance of understanding the BYP's are part of what hung Oswald in the court of public opinion. If that is the case then what is the true story? The AMIPA film shows you the first part of the assassination. Their are other parts on Houston Street and Main Street. It is obvious that David Von Pein has not read Jackie Kennedy's testimony or watched the film in an analytic mode. His is a knee jerk reaction to something he finds totally alien to his thought processes. As far as Oswald's switched ring, I posted earlier I thought it was a photo editing mistake. A left hand holding a rifle was switched and retouched to look like a right hand holding a rifle This indicates to me that their was not enough photo material to do the job correctly. The photo editors had to go out an shoot more material later that day. This accounts for the conflicting shadows (different times in the same photo). After the reshoot they still didn't have the right images to make their cut and paste Oswald figure appear correctly. So, photo editing took care of that problem.