John Butler

The radio, if military was called an AN/PRC-6.  Commonly, this was called a handie-talkie or walkie-talkie.  There was in that time a civilian version available and is what was probably being used in the photo.  I believe Brad Milch spoke of this several years ago on the forum.  His conclusion was this was a railroad detective.

Because of various holdups parts of the motorcade were going under the overpass for several minutes, perhaps as long as 5 minutes.  I would disassociate this Cabluck photo with the events of the assassination and only consider it as something taken as sometime after the assassination by Cabluck. 

Ken Davies,

I see from your interests you are some kind of historian.  As a historian of sorts you should read the statements of Marie Muchmore, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Jackie Kennedy before wandering off in other dimensions and alien pod things.  You comments make me think you didn't read the statements of these witnesses or if you did you didn't understand what you read.

Or, are you the kind of historian who thinks the pyramids were electrical generators of perhaps the Annunaki are coming back on Niburu to set things right for dimensional beings and pod people?

Yeah Ron,

It is "nonsensical, ludicrous, funny, droll, comical, farcial" and even absurd.  It is not an enviable position to be in on this forum.  I am so far out on a limb there is little left to stand on but, air.  Here, I am taking a stand that all Lone Gunners and most CTer's are wrong and have been wrong for 54 years and now nearly 55 years in understanding the assassination of President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.  It sounds like delusions of grandeur but, is a honest and truthful position based on 3 years of research into the visual record of the day of the assassination. 

It is ridiculous.  But, if I am to be honest and truthful I must report what I see.  The AMIPA film says all of the work and prior assumptions I have made are basically correct within the parameters of the material analyzed.  Starting with the analysis of Altgens 5 and discovering it was a composite, fraudulent photo, the question then became why did someone take the time and effort to make this a fraudulent photo.  Why were they changing the story with this fake photo?  What occurred there that made it necessary to change that photo?

The story of the assassination on Elm Street was well known by everyone.  Admittedly, there was controversy between Lone Gunners and Conspiracy Theorists but, none about where the assassination occurred.  There was no controversy about the limousine turning onto Houston Street and then traveling toward the intersection of Houston and Elm.  So, why the fake photo?  Why photo edit the Marie Muchmore film?  The Robert Hughes film?  The Orville Nix film?  The Charles Bronson film?  And, other visual material associated with the intersection of Main and Houston.

Why change Marie Muchmore and Bonnie Williams testimony when they said the heard 2 shots when the presidential limousine was in the intersection of Main and Houston?  Why ignore Jackie Kennedy's testimony about the blue-grey building on Main Street?  She said she heard shooting as they approached that building.  By the way, that building has been replaced with the Kennedy Monument.  Could that be the reason Jackie never visited the monument?

Overtime, after seeing so many examples of fake photos and films, this position began to make sense.  After realizing that the Zapruder film and others that show the same concepts, Mary Moorman's Polaroid, and Ike Altgens photos 5, 6, and 7 are fakes one begins to understand there is a hidden, secret story covered up by often badly edited photos and films that do not coordinate as well as they should.  This hidden, underlying story is revealed in the errors, bad photo editing, and things that the editors missed.

It is there for you to look at Ron.  But, you need an open mind. 

Thanks for replying Micah,

It's not a big thing or hard feat with 60's film tech.  You simply take the waving and smiling part from other films and insert that into other films with darker content.  As I said, not a big thing for 60's tech.  You could take film from the Zapruder Gap which is where and when the assassination took place in front of the TSBD and move it down the street to the Stemmons sign and the Grassy Knoll.

Z frame 157 is full of content problems where you can actually see where the photo editors goofed up in their photo editing.  There are many more amazing photo editing feats in the Zapruder film.  Take the non-existent Mannequin Row.  Putting that line of 19 people between the R L Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign almost works.  First people noticed that they didn't move and thought that was unnatural.  Later, I examined other photos and films and they show Mannequin Row is not there or, there are just a few people there.  One of the big goofs in Z frame 157 and later frames (Z frame 163 is the best to look at if I am remembering correctly) is showing the Johnson security vehicle as having two rear ends, one in the front and one in the back.

Some people claim Kennedy was shot in the head more than once.  Some say as many as 3 times.  I have always found that hard to believe until I watched and analyzed the AMIPA film.  Kennedy appears to be shot in the head with a wound in the right temporal region just off the forehead.  This wound is in the same place as flayed skin near the forehead in an autopsy photo.  The wound does not seem to be a major wound.  Kennedy seems to be paralyzed in function or in a confused state from the wound.  He keeps smiling and waving at the crowd gunshot after gunshot to the back.  It is a really bizarre sequence of film and probably panicked the assassination control team who ordered more firing at the intersection of Main and Houston.

Here's something I just picked up recently from a post about Buell Frazier.  He said he heard what sounded like a backfire.  Later recognized it as gunfire.  He also said that the motorbike cops were turning their engines on an off creating backfires on Houston Street.  I wonder how he was able to distinguish the difference with those backfires.  It is just another bit that shows there was gunfire on Houston Street.

Unless you look at this film one frame at a time you are apt to miss what I am talking about.  I made some .gifs of this and posted to my website for people to view. 

http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/06/10/the-amipa-film-revisted/ 

I've posted this elsewhere.  I have reposted this here for your convenience.

Thank You Mr. Gordon,

You are making this site into a more professional place as versus a place for cat fights and virulence that I first experienced here.  Banned members should be banned totally.  Although I am very positive toward the person, who I think is a good person, you are acting against the use of surrogates for banned member's ideas should not be allowed. 

Once again thanks for that clarification.  In the long run it is the right decision and will be beneficial to this site.

Thanks Cliff,

I really don't want to get into a SBT conversation.  I don't believe in it.  Vince Palamara as a SBT thread in which he says two Secret Service agents say they don't believe in the SBT but, do believe in the LGT.  Lot's of interesting stuff is in that thread.

What I do believe in is the AMIPA film that shows President Kennedy being shot in the back at least three times on Main Street.  That makes the President's shirt and jacket evidence suspect.

It's not a problem to disagree with statements like that above.  For most people that is so far out of field as to be nonsensical.   I am probably the most radical theorist on this web site.  I can only report what I see in the AMIPA film. 

Yeah.  Odd, isn't it.  People would have you believe there is no fabricated evidence in the Kennedy Assassination.  Just accept things that are shown to you.  Just believe in Mother Warren.

Two conditions exist.  First, there is one shot to the back and one bullet hole in shirt and jacket.  Secondly, there is more than one bullet hole in the back and only one bullet hole in the shirt and the jacket.  What does that make the shirt and jacket as evidence? 

Ray,

 "I totally agree  that the image is too fuzzy to make a credible ID,".  Good comment.  If one goes back to the first comment I made on Prayer Man some time back I said that the image is too vague to really make a positive id.  But, it was very suggestive of Oswald.  Weigman, Darnell, and John Martin give about the same kind of image to view.  All are to vague to state this is Oswald.  About all you can say is that the images in Weigman, Darnell, and John Martin resemble each other and they are suggestive of Oswald.  And, that would be speculation.  However, that would be speculation based on experience and the facts of the images involved.

All in all, If I had to put my money down I would say Oswald or an Oswald double.

Ray,

Don't know.  But, someone has used that ruler to put their own scale on it.  There is plenty of wound-appearing spots on Kennedy's back.  Some claim these are blood scabs and the back was not properly cleaned.  They look like bullet holes to me.

Remember, my posts on the AMIPA film of Bob Yeargan.  That film shows President Kennedy being shot in the back on Main Street at least 3 times.  Most folks ignore that piece of information and do not respond to it except with maybe "I don't see that."  Here is more information on the AMIPA film.

http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/06/10/the-amipa-film-revisted/

The following gif screams fraud.  Why should anyone pay attention to autopsy info from the Warren Commission?  Pay attention to the heart shape black patch on the back of President Kennedy's head.  Is that someone in the photo editing business' way of expressing love?

If you look at the gif closely you will see there are more people than me that think there was more than one back wound.

Doyle says Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton.  John Marten has captured Prayer Man on Elm Street as the presidential limousine passes by.  Here is an image of that.  See if Prayer Man looks like Sarah Stanton.

Prayer Man's image is pretty much as it is in the doorway with hands in much the same position.  I don't see a woman.  I see a man.

“If you look at his answers he is completely denying evidence such as Altgens 6, Altgens 7, Mary Moorman’s Polaroid, and many of the assassination films which the foremost is the Zapruder film.”

Let’s take Altgens 6 first.  Everyone is familiar with the famous Ike Altgens photo showing the President being shot 15 or so feet past the Stemmons Freeway sign or, so it is claimed.  How well does Agent Landis’ testimony relate to Altgens 6?  Not very well is the answer.

I will use Altgens 6 as representative of the other pieces of evidence mentioned.  They all have the same problem with Altgens 6 that is evident in SA Landis’ testimony.  That problem is location.

Altgens 6 says (most people believe) that President Kennedy was shot in the throat near the Stemmons Freeway sign and use Zapruder frame 255 to back that up.  There are others with a different view.  Those with a different view will be glad to analyze SA Landis’ testimony on where he said the shooting took place.  This is just one more evidentiary fact that things didn’t happen as most people think.

“SA Landis said that the presidential limousine had just turned into the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and was just straightening from the turn in front of the TSBD when he heard the first shot.  A 4 or 5 second pause, at 18 feet per second and the TSBD being 100 feet long, you get for the second shot occurring, at the SW corner of the TSBD or under the trees approaching the SW corner.  This is where the second, or head shot occurred according to SA Landis.”

When you compare the two positions, there is a mismatch in location in the assassination story.  Who do you believe.  Over 40 witnesses at Parkland Hospital is enough to believe the autopsy story of the Warren Commission is a fake.  The people at Parkland say the wound was quite different.

If Landis is correct then where does this place Mary Moorman for her Polaroid.  Does it place her where Jean Hill said she was in Hill Exhibit # 5?  You can find Hill Exhibit # 5 in Warren Commission Hearings, XX, 158.  Hill Exhibit # 5 places Hill and Moorman on the SW corner of Houston and Main Streets almost directly across from the SW corner of the TSBD.

How many witnesses does it take to understand that an idea or statement is believable?  Is it more than 2?  Is it more than 10?  Is 40 + witnesses saying that the assassination took place in front of the TSBD enough to believe what SA Landis has said?

SA Landis said "My reaction at this time was that the shot came from the front, but I didn't see anyone on the overpass". 

There is conflicting evidence regarding this statement.  Altgens 7 shows 11 men standing above Elm Street on the overpass.  This was Officer Foster and 10 railroad men.  All swore they were there and witnessed various things.  Other photos and films, such as Bell, Dilliard photo, and Willis slide 7 show much the same thing.  This conflicts with what SA Landis said and challenges his integrity.

However, there are other films and photos that reinforce his credibility.  These are Bell film (early frames show no one and just a second or so later show people on the overpass), Robert Hughes film, John Martin film, Dave Weigman film, and Wilma Bond 6.

The problem with Altgens 7 is that it is easily shown to be a fake.  The latest thing discovered is that fake Altgens 7 has no motorbike cops in it.  They should be there according to other media.

Thanks for your comments Joe,

Those comments really help in having a better opinion of Robert Groden.  My biggest problem with him and his followers that day in Dealey Plaza was their fervent belief in the authenticity of the Zapruder film.  I was moderately convinced that parts of the Zapruder film were fake.  When I mentioned this to the folks there they just walked away with no reply or discussion.  That didn't bother me as much as over time I begin to see more and more that the Zapruder film is just a fantasy.  And, that has lowered my opinion of Robert Groden.

Still, all in all, I use his Assassination Films DVD a great deal.  I prefer the DVD, even with all of the bad imagery present, more than modern cleaned up versions.  There are all kinds of hidden gems in those films that people have missed or ignored for whatever reason.

From out of the wilderness and badlands rides a mild mannered man who puts it all into right context.  Excellent job, Andrej.

Has anyone ever considered that Buell Frazier, Billy Lovelady, and Sarah Stanton may be prevaricating.  Can't say quad-x here.  It wouldn't have taken a genius to see from current events and later evens people were dying for what they knew.  Mary Moorman's in law got the message when he was shot in the head and miraculously this freed the memory of seeing Oswald at the Tippett shooting.  Buell Frazier appears to a bluff, honest fellow.  But, is that really true?  After all he was supposedly in the shadows in the doorway of the TSBD when Doorway Man was there and later on he was there when Prayer Man was there.  Does he mention a word of Oswald, a Oswald double, Doorway Man, or Prayer Man being there?  That's my biggest complaint with Buell Frazier.

Thanks Joe for pointing this out,

I don't have a very high opinion of Robert Groden since meeting the man in 2015 in Dealey Plaza.  However, I am now changing my opinion to a more positive one.

Let’s take the first question one bit at a time.  How many shots did SA Landis hear.  He heard two.  There are other witnesses that heard 2 shots.  Chief in mind is Bonnie Ray Williams.  Williams also heard two shots before his testimony began evolving.  Part of Williams evolving testimony agrees with SA Landis on two points.  One of these is an agreement on the number of shots.  The second is where the limousine was when he heard those shots.

The second part of the question was what was the sequence of shots.  SA Landis said there were two with a pause between them of about 4 or 5 seconds. The second shot was the head shot.   Many different witnesses have said varying things.  Most agree there were 3 shots with a sequence of firing with the same interval between shots.  Or, the interval was 1 shot, a short pause, then 2 more shots.

Jean Hill said she heard 4 to 6 shots.  Mary Moorman said the first shot was the head shot and later firing occurred.  Linda Willis said she heard three and Rosemary heard 4 or more.  She said the 4^th shot was the head shot.  Most agree there was either no pause between shots or there was one between shots.  No one agrees with SA Landis on the 4 or 5 second gap between shots.

The third part of the earlier question was where was the President at when SA Landis heard shots.  This is the most important question when it comes to dealing with gunshots in Dealey Plaza.  It is a question that was never asked until recently.

Most researchers consider where the shots came from as the most important question.  It is really not the most important question about shooting in Dealey Plaza.  The direction a distant shot came from is almost never localized to a place but, is generally described as coming from a single, wide direction at best.  SA Landis said "My reaction at this time was that the shot came from the front, but I didn't see anyone on the overpass".  There will be more about this later. 

Dealey Plaza further complicates things with echoes and sound distortions.  Far more relevant is where was the presidential limousine when the witness heard shooting.

SA Landis said that the presidential limousine had just turned into the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and was just straightening from the turn in front of the TSBD when he heard the first shot.  And, a 4 or 5 second pause, at 18 feet per second and the TSBD being 100 feet long, for the second shot, the head shot would put the presidential limousine at the SW corner of the TSBD or under the trees approaching the SW corner.  This is where the head shot occurred according to SA Landis.  This is a shot that Lee Harvey Oswald could not make for trees blocking the view or, not enough time to aim as the vehicle came out from under the trees there.  This is why the Agent Landis was not called before the Warren Commission.

A good visual for this location maybe the infamous "hit-x" frame in the Tina Towner film.  The Towner film has a frame showing the presidential limousine in front of the TSBD's doorway.  This is the frame with "hit-x" written on it.

SA Landis’ testimony agrees with about 40 plus witnesses who say the shooting took place in front of the TSBD.  Agent Landis’ description of the “modernistic building” apparently matches the TSBD.  But, not quite.  He seemed to be confused from switching from the intersection of Main and Houston to the intersection of Houston and Elm where the TSBD is.  Maybe some one rewrote that for him so that at least he would be in the right ball park.

It is at least confusing.  It seems as if he is speaking about turning from Main onto Houston and with no transition making the turn to the left onto Elm Street. 

When I first saw the JFK memorial I was stunned.  There was this 4 sided box or 4 walled trap.  I thought surely this is a joke put up by the good folks of Dallas to symbolize how JFK was trapped and killed in Dealey Plaza.  Jackie Kennedy was supposed to have something to do with the construction or picking the architect.  I read somewhere she never visited the monument.  I wonder why? 

Special Agents Clint Hill and Paul Landis do not believe the SBT.  Fine.  Most people don’t when they take a look at it. 

This is a very controversial post by Vince Palamara.  And, it is far more complicated than just the notion of the denial of the SBT.  There are other bombshells, as they like to say on TV, there.  Bombshells the Warren Commission did not want to hear.  SA Landis said the Warren Commission did not ask him to testify and he wondered why?  The answer is simple.  He was saying things that deny not only the SBT but, many of the things the Warren Commission wanted to put out as how the assassination occurred.

Just as example, how many shots did he hear, what was there sequence, and where was he at when he heard those shots?  If you look at his answers he is completely denying evidence such as Altgens 6, Altgens 7, Mary Moorman’s Polaroid, and many of the assassination films which the foremost is the Zapruder film.

SA Landis’ version of the assassination he puts forward on the 27^th and 30^th of November, 1963 does not match any of the above’s portrayal of how the assassination occurred.

Here is a Robert Hughes scene showing the Vice-Presidential limousine.  Vice-President Johnson is just entering Dealey Plaza.  Bit blurry but, you can make out who is who.

This scene shows that everything was peaceful and calm on Houston Street as the motorcade passed through.  Very shortly the film will corrupt with film distortions, blurs, and a gap as the presidential limousine passes the Court Records Building.  After some time of blurs and distortions the film will skip pass the Court Records Building to the intersection.  7 other films do this also and they skip pass the intersection to Elm Street.  It boggles the mind that 8 films go bad at this point as they pass the Court Records Building.  Wonder what the odds are on that? 

Odd, isn't it?  I have looked all over and can find nothing better than David Joseph's suggestion. 

Zapruder frame 133 or so to about frame 155 shows the Johnson vehicle poorly.  You really can't make out much.  You can imagine Johnson there more than see him.  He's not leaving Dealey Plaza but, entering.

The first 10 positions in the Motorcade left while others were held up for various times.  Johnson's security vehicle is the last in this particular group.  I believe you can see bits and pieces of Johnson's vehicle and the security vehicle in McIntyre.  In other words this group is disassociated with the 3rd group containing the camera cars.  The second group, the Mayor's Car and the National Press Car, has conflicting evidence.  Some showing these vehicles with the first group and other films showing a clear road ahead of the Camera Cars.  McIntyre shows nothing behind the first group containing the Presidential parties and the Vice-Presidedntial parties, No Mayor's Car or Press Car.  Dearie Cabell's testimony states that she said they were held up on Houston St or in the intersection depending on where you think she was.   

In the various assassination films the focus is on the presidential limousine and the two Johnson vehicles are generally left out.

I don't think there are any coincidences involved.  I think someone didn't want to be filmed.

Hope this helps.

Ray,

I'll have to apologize for calling you a Lone Gunner.  I thought that was your position on most things.  I've deleted my stupid comment.  How about you?

You say you believe the BYP's are fake.  What do you base your belief on?  I await your answer with anticipation.

BTW, we've had these arguments before with very little or no agreement on either side maybe on this topic or others.  That's why I am replying to your last comment.  You actually said something I can agree with about the BYP's.

Bart,

You are absolutely correct.

This is either the son or the grandson of that ridiculously long thread on Prayer Man with over 400,000 views or some such very large number.  To you folk that want to shut this down, I say the argument between Jim and Bart is not that terrible according to the old fighting style of this forum.  Let them work it out.

We have Mr. Gordon to thank for that.  Others may not agree but, I have seen a big change for the better in the forum.  I have seen new people and old people show up here I have not seen before.  I have seen an easing of the tension here.  I believe you can now post a topic or make a comment without fearing a gang of a dozen more or less attacking you with the most viscous and vile comments you can image. 

Everyone knows what I am talking about.  Thanks again Mr. Gordon for taking a firmer stance on mean spiritedness.   

Ray,

I really don't care who Albert Doyle is.  You need to get in touch with reality. 

If you can't understand simple physics and logic then there is no further need to communicate.

Sorry Ray.  I edited out the snarky comment.  Put me on your ignore list.

Ray,

Go back and read what I said.  All the trees are in front of the sun.  Some are not directly in front of the sun to the right and left based on where they are seen on the horizon line.  They cast their shadows to the right and left.  Perfectly normal.  They all go in the direction they should based on their relationship to the sun.  That is the key point you are missing.

None go in opposite or conflicting directions. 

Whose Albert Doyle?  Don't know the fellow.  I assuming your casting some kind of aspersion.  I'll go channel Jack and see what he has to say about you. 

Ray,

The shadows in your photo depend on the relationship of the trees to the sun.  If a tree is off and not directly in front of the sun then the shadow appears to be angled off the sun.  That's not the case.  The shadow is still being projected directly off the sun.  The camera records those as different angles depending on how far the tree is off the sun and which direction they are off the sun.

Besides, we are talking about apples and oranges here.  All of the shadows of the trees are moving in the same direction.  None reverse and go in a different direction showing a different position for the sun and a different time. 

In this photo the one sun is stationary and casting normal shadows.  This is normal for a light source to cast shadows from behind directly to the front and off to both sides depending on where the trees are at.  This phenomenon doesn't depend upon a camera.  Nowhere in this photo are any shadows reversed and moving in a different direction as they are in the BYP's which show a different time and sun position. 

Nice try Ray.  Try another.