John Butler

Rick, This is the Bob Yeargan film taken on Main Street near Market street I believe. The next street up is Record before the Old Court House. Other parts of the film clearly show you the location. Go to youtube and key in AMIPA film and watch. You can see the blue-grey building mentioned by Jackie Kennedy if you are standing at the intersection of Main and Houston looking east. You folks who are questioning the location of the film should watch the film. That will remove the doubts you have. It clearly shows the location to be Main Street. If you don't watch the film then you are not qualified to make a serious comment. Ray, you need to do your homework better. Watch the film before you comment. What you see on the side of the limo is buildings on Main Street. I wish the Altgens series of photos, the Zapruder film, and others showed reflections as well. I have speculated that they should but, that someone has darkened the sides of the limo. Tina Towner would have been nice if the sides of the limo let you see who was on the SW corner of Houston and Elm.

Thanks Robin, Your material is generally the best. You show what seems to be two versions of the head shot in zframes 313 to about 318. Perhaps, not two versions. Do these .gifs show two different reactions of President Kennedy's head shot? If so, can you briefly explain if that is two versions of the same film. Is the one with the violent reaction of the president similar to the one shown at the Garrison / Shaw trial? What am I failing to see?

Ray, I see. You now have problems with reading. Reread what I said and that will answer your question.

Yeah Cliff, It's quite bizarre. All of the shooting sequences are. Maybe you can come up with some metric solution about angles and sunshine that points out how wrong I am in seeing what the film shows. Maybe that is a bee sting on President Kennedy's cheek that caused it to swell like air is forcefully being expelled by a strong blow to the body. Maybe President Kennedy swallowed a bug and is coughing that bug up by forcefully expelling air from his lungs. And, that accounts for his smiling. It is a shame I didn't interpret all those scenes with squinted eyes, grimaces, and looks of pain as simply as smiles. Did you fail to notice that no one at this point is noticing any shooting or the effects of shooting. Everyone seems to be smiling and waving at the crowds except Roy Kellerman. Sorry, Roy Kellerman is not in this sequence. He is watching the president in the rear view mirror.

Cliff, Yep. This is the 3rd shot. I believe he received one head wound and at least 3 shots to the back. You have to slow the AMIPA film down to see this. I think I put maybe 3 seconds between frames. As far as head wounds go this one is on the forehead at the right temple just before the hairline. You can see it in some of these frames. Read Jackie Kennedy's statements carefully. She's mostly ignored. She said she heard shots just before she saw a blue-grey building coming up on Main Street. This building area is today the Kennedy Monument. She talked about his head wound as just being bone visible and no blood. This doesn't sound like the big blowout wound on Elm Street.

B. A. Copeland, This has been a pet project of mine for some time. If you are interested there is more work on this I have posted on my website. I have a 2-part article there. The second part is the most interesting as far as identifying unknown photographers. Best read quickly because the website ends on August 19. https://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/08/05/films-and-photos-taken-that-afternoon-in-dealey-plaza-part-ii/

Hey Michael Clark, Cliff Varnell is talking about Sandy Larsen's ideas are lunacy. Isn't that saying that he's a lunatic? Warn him!

Z frame 319 shows you there are no good frames of the Kennedy head shot. We only have the Zapruder film for the best images. John Costella's work is the best on those frames. If you look closely at z frame 319 President Kennedy has lost 1/2 of his head. About the same is shown in Z frame 318. Later on he recovers most of his head. Z frame 319 says this is a fraudulent painted picture of President Kennedy and so are the other frames from z frame 313 until the film ends. Z frame 313 to 317 takes less than a 1/3 of a second to show at 18 frames per second. All the blood and brain material vanish after those frames during that time. The painting is bad and the head wound sequence is jus not believable when looked at closely. David Von Pein provides a very good .gif if you want to believe what you see is real.

Bart, This list of photographers that is now missing is suspicious. It wasn't released until 1995. What was so secret about this list that it could not be released and had to go missing? This is a good match for one of my pet biases. This is that not all of the photographers were allowed to show their work or keep their visual material. If you look at the photos along the assassination route, Main and Houston Intersection, Houston Street, and on Elm Street you will see unknowns with cameras. When I did a count of those there were 30+ photographers and 16 who could possibly have a camera. This last group the imaging was to vague to be sure. On Elm Street and the areas mentioned above we have only Zapruder and Skaggs that shows the passenger side of the limousine. Highly suspicious. What is being covered up here?

The argument hasn't changed much in almost 55 years. It's still Parkland vs. Autopsy. Who do you believe? Does anyone have information on President Kennedy's clothes concerning the trail of custody for those clothes. In particular, information on who took custody of his coat, shirt, tie, trousers, and back brace. Was that material just bagged up and given to the FBI or Secret Service? The reason for this question is that there is quite a bit of argument on the back wound hole in the shirt fitting the hole in the President's back exactly. There was that odd discussion about creepy (crepey) skin. Or, otherwise there were arguments of jackets riding up or shirts riding up because things didn't quite work for the backwound unless special pleading was done.

The shadows in the photo that you don't see or ignore: 1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real. The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real. They move from picture left to picture right. This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it. 2.) A cutout of an Oswald figure (not the real Oswald) has been introduced into the photo by photo editing techniques. The editor made a cardinal artistic mistake. He introduced a figure with a shadow moving in the opposite direction of the step shadows. The figure's shadow moves from picture right to picture left. The figure's shadow should move in the opposite direction and be in tune with the steps shadows. This is common mistake with new artists. So, this maybe an indication that the editor was new to this kind of work and was perhaps Roscoe White. 3.) The third conflicting shadow is the shadow of under the Oswald figure's nose. It moves straight down indicating the light source is from above.

Thanks Tom, I will give that a try. photo deleted Thanks Tom, This really works well.

Thanks Michael, I will immediately edit that post. I certainly don't want to be one who violates rules. All I can say as an apologia is to say this kind of thing has happened to me in the past and even continues today. Someone asked me recently if I was drunk. I told him I wished I was.

The ghost image or cutout for an insert may not be the best photo to use to illustrate anything about the BYP's. As I understand this image was done by a Dallas policemen some time, years, after the BYP's. His explanation was he wanted to see if he could do something similar. If you look at the bush in the photo and compare it to the other BYP's you will see that it has grown larger by perhaps two years. The ghost image photo is a good way to explain how the BYP's were made. Make a cutout of what you want to insert and then cutout that section that matches what you want to insert. I don't know whether that's possible not being a 60's photo editor but, It sounds reasonable.

Ray, None in this crop of Altgens 7. You need to show the whole photo not just a crop of the picture. Comment deleted. Once again thanks Michael.

Ray, Can you count? This is a question you can answer for yourself. Remember, Officer J. W. Foster is standing with the railroad workers. So, you will have to deduct one from your count of railroad workers. I would answer this question for you but, my comments are "stupid" and lack "comprhehsion" so, why are you asking me questions you can answer for yourself? Have you reached that age where things are becoming a bit confusing and you need verification? You really should pay more attention to what Michael is saying. Comment deleted due to advice of Michael Clark. Thanks again.

Good Morning Ray, I see you are up early this morning. It's really foggy here in Central Ky. this morning. The old timers use to say that for every heavy fog in August, some say September, that you will have a heavy snow during the up coming winter. I simply stand in awe of Michael Clark's reasoning. Ray, Cliff, Chris, Jeff, and Tom, you should privately consult with Michael before airing any new notions about the converging and diverging shadows you speak of in your posts. He will let you know what's what. I haven't really taken the time to tell you all what your problem is. I really did not want to embarrass you guys. It is essentially your political and philosophical views that keep you from actually seeing what is in a particular piece of evidence such as the BYP's. Sometimes it takes years to clearly see certain details. Here is an example. In 54 years no one has told you that there are no motorcycle policemen in Altgens 7 until recently. According to other evidence there should be. I am continually amazed at some details that pop out of a scene or the understanding that you arrive at after a lengthy period of time. A good example of that is the Zapruder film's Mannequin Row is non-existent. Other evidence shows few people standing between the light pole near the R L Thornton and the Stemmons sign and not the 19 people shown in the Zapruder film. What is there that you are missing or really not understanding: 1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real. The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real. They move from picture left to picture right. This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it. 2.) A cutout of an Oswald figure (not the real Oswald) has been introduced into the photo by photo editing techniques. The editor made a cardinal artistic mistake. He introduced a figure with a shadow moving in the opposite direction of the step shadows. The figure's shadow moves from picture right to picture left. The figure's shadow should move in the opposite direction and be in tune with the steps shadows. This is common mistake with new artists. So, this maybe an indication that the editor was new to this kind of work and was perhaps Roscoe White. 3.) The third conflicting shadow is the shadow of under the Oswald figure's nose. It moves straight down indicating the light source is above. These are things you can't escape. You can only escape these facts if you let your biases interfere. Or, I am left with the notion that you all are just cynical folks manipulating the data to fit your particular biases.

Geez, It seems folks will go to any length to keep the BYP's authentic. You have been given incontrovertible proof that the photos are fake. You can come back with fantastical reasoning using any metric you choose but, it still does not stop rational people from looking at the evidence and seeing reality. I will repeat what I said earlier "I am not talking about diverging, converging, or vertical parallel items. I am talking about 3 different shadows going in 3 different directions at the same time. That violates physics unless our Solar System has 3 suns." Sorry, I can't post a BYP with arrows showing the shadow directions. Were only allowed a 1000 MB and the.gif I posted takes up most of that. But, you can find this in the article about Oswald and his shadows at: http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2017/08/23/lee-harvey-oswald-and-his-shadows-jfk-running-the-gauntlet-com/

Ray, I am not talking about diverging, converging, or vertical parallel items. I am talking about 3 different shadows going in 3 different directions at the same time. That violates physics unless our Solar System has 3 suns. When I called you a "lone gunner" that's not name calling but, short hand for some one who believes in the Lone Gunman Theory, the SBT, and the other Conclusions of the Warren Commission, most of the Conclusions of the HSCA, and anything I missed about the official government position on he assassination. David Joseph and I do not get along. He has me on his ignore list. But, when the man is right there is nothing you can do about it.

Joe, The first photo montage is from various sources: 1) The picture left photo is of Sgt. Bellah taken in front of the TSBD with others. I cropped the photo to just Bellah being mainly visible. 2) The center photo is a crop of the motorcycle police Sgt. in the McIntyre photo. 3) The picture right photo is of Sgt. Ellis shaking hands with President Kennedy. The photo was just cropped to Sgt. Ellis. I should have done this earlier in an analysis of the McIntyre photo. I couldn't find a picture of Sgt. Ellis or Sgt. Bellah. I knew this was needed but, was to lazy to look up the appropriate photos. Then I found the one of Sgt. Ellis and once I put the montage together I noticed I may have made a mistake in my conclusions about McIntyre. I'm wobbling on whether I have or not. Good eyes on picking out the George Bush lookalike.

Ray, "I'v not known somebody be so wrong since Doyle was barred from this forum." I am only answering your posts because I have nothing better to do this morning. As far as name calling, this is a tactic that most of your kind use when they have little else to say. "You agree with Josephs that Sun shadows diverge (as in the photo he posted.) You can't be more wrong. You seem to lack an understanding of physics" Prove to me that Joseph is wrong! Let's see. Shadows that go in three different directions at the same time indicates a lack of understanding the laws of physics. Shadows going in 3 directions in the BYP's are undeniable and irrefutable and violate the laws of nature. I will reiterate. Ask a sensible question and I may answer you.

Ray, I posted long ago on my position on the different shadow directions in the BYPs on this forum. Look it up. Or, for your convenience go to: http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2017/08/23/lee-harvey-oswald-and-his-shadows-jfk-running-the-gauntlet-com/ David Joseph is correct in everything he posted. If you don't know something posted as an example to illustrate a point you should study what he is saying a lot more. As far as you saying that you have never said the BYP's are not authentic, I can believe that. You are a "Lone Gunner" from head to toe.

Ray, Sorry, about the name mix up. You need to have relevant questions in order for me to answer. You can't just make up stuff to side track the issue. You need to provide legitimate material such as David Joseph did.

Right on David Joseph. Maybe, what you have provided will put an end to this foolish argument that the BYPs are authentic. But, with people like Ray Meacham, I doubt it.

Ray, Deleted.