John Butler

Members 665 posts Gender:Female Report post Posted 3 hours ago I really believe this thread should be closed Why? Both Bart Kamp and Jim Hargrove are good and honest men. Let them hammer out their disagreement. Both have much in common on their outlook toward the assassination. They will probably agree on something later on when this little disturbance is done.

Ray, I have been channeling Jack White, uh, you know, uh, from the beyond. He say's that's just a camera trick.

Whew! I sure stirred the pot. I have not read anything sensible here that can explain 3 conflicting shadow directions in the same photo, hence in the same time frame. The sun does not cast shadows in different directions. The sun casts shadows in only one direction. Sun rays move only in the direction directly off the sun. Sunlight hits an object and the resulting shadow is cast directly in the direction of the sun's rays. Some people need to go back and study physics and optics. The Warren Commission and the HSCA are quad-xs. Quad-x refers to mispresentation or a lie. I couldn't say xxxx at one time on the forum so quad-x means the same. Sorry, Mr. Gordon but, I can't think of anything more expressive than quad-x to make the point. I am in agreement with your new policies and make apology for stepping out of bounds.

Sorry Gentlemen, The BYP’s as an issue is dead. The photos are fakes. There is no way you can get around that. You can ignore it if you choose. You can find someone of like mind to continue the argument with if you want. It is inescapable that there are 3 light sources inducing shadows in the BYP’s that are not consistent with each other or anything else. The sun produces shadows by shining on objects. The resulting shadows move directly off from the light source, in this case the sun. You can not have 3 suns in a normal and real photo. The photo from Life Magazine will demonstrate this with red arrows that point out 3 different directions that shadows in the BYP’s move. A brief summary of the directions of 3 conflicting shadows in the Life BYP. Shadow no. 1 moves from picture left to picture right. Shadow no. 2 moves downward from the Oswald figure’s nose to mouth. A different direction from Shadow no. 1 and Shadow no. 3. Shadow no. 3 moves from picture right to picture left. This is the opposite direction from Shadow no. 1 and Shadow no. 2. The BYP’s are fakes and point out that the man everyone knows as Lee Harvey Oswald was being set up as a Patsy. As far as I am concerned the issue needs no further discussion and nothing extra added to understand that this is a dead issue or if you like case closed. You can continue the argument if you wish.

Chris Barstow, Thanks for bringing this topic up again. It was a lot of fun to re-read through this topic. Almost everyone seems to be in basic agreement that the BYP's are essentially fake. And, they do that in myriad ways. It is really interesting to see what people have seen in these photos as being out of kilter with reality. I work on the principle that if there is one instance of fakery found in a photo then it can't be used realistically for any purpose. I violate that principle all the time to make a point about something I want to point out. So, I might use the BYP's to point out something about the shadows around the TSBD in the Prayer Man photos. To me the 3 conflicting shadows found in the BYP's are enough to say fake. Even if you remove one, the shadow under the Oswald figure's nose, then there are still two conflicting shadows. I think I probably made a mistake in using a long-winded artistic example to explain why I thought the BYP's were fake. It probably turned people off to the explanation of the 3 conflicting shadow problem that followed. I never answered Paul Trejo above. There is a Harvey (Oswald double) and a Lee (the original Lee Harvey Oswald). This can be proved by one simple little facial / head trait. Harvey had earlobes and Lee didn't have earlobes. Jack White was essentially correct in his analysis of Harvey and Lee. But, like a lot of other things he never hammered down a concept. He left wiggle room for others to make their claims. This is discussed in depth in the following article: http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/05/05/who-was-lee-harvey-oswald-the-oswald-project-part-i/ I have proven over time that Altgens 5, Altgens 6, and Altgens 7 were photo edited, hence fakes. Why Jack didn't see the fakery in these photos is a mystery to me. Maybe, he was protecting Dick Bothun and Ike Altgens for some reason. I can't imagine why he would protect Ike Altgens by saying he things he said over time. I have recently added to the article on Altgens 7 fakery. You can find this at: http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/04/01/mass-perjury-at-the-triple-underpass/

Joe, Correct me if I am wrong. Zapruder shows Foster in the grass between Elm and Main Streets. She is to the left rear of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill. So, the shooting she describes is almost in front of the Grassy Knoll. There are other stories and other witnesses who say different things. Toni Glover, the girl standing on the pedestal, tells a different story. She says she saw the President's head explode just after the limousine turned into the intersection, about 2 seconds. There are about 25 witnesses near the TSBD who say that they heard gunfire when the presidential limousine was in front of the TSBD. With these kind of stories I really don't know who to believe.

Andrej, l hope I have been of some help.

Well Ken, It seems you have an observing eye. The forum has taught me to be a bit “nasty”. I was beaten up fairly well and repetitivey early on by various members I get along with now. I very rarely work with something other than the visual record. I have found there are an amazing number of things people have missed when it comes to the films and photos concerning the assassination. In 54 years, and I really don’t understand why, people haven’t seen these things. As far as spelling and grammar, I have gotten lazy. MS Word usually catches my mistakes. Typing one fingered on an Ipad doesn’t help. I am a disabled vet with numb fingers which was a gift from the government. I think I have contributed one or two things. If you wish a greater understanding then go to: jfkrunningthegauntlet.com

Well Ken, What are you taklng about? And, who are you talking about? Does extra years here equate extra prestige or competence? You seem to be an over critical fellow concerned with an imagined protocol and a spelling issue so I await your response with bated breathe.

Andrej, Any idea what this Ken Rheberg is talking about? You think I should ask him if I can make a positive statement about your reasearch? I wonder what “stamp club mentalies” are? 5’2” is dead on. You have identified one characteristic that can be related to Harvey Oswald or as Hargroves says Classic Oswald. Add the 7 inches for the step and 5’9” is the same height as Oswald. Unfornunately, there is not much else to work on. Prayer Man has large forearms or at least the appearance of such. If one compared forearms with another Oswald photo such as the shot of Oswald at the New Orleans police station ther might be something there. The one where he is leaning against the wall. Then something might be said. Prayer Man has his sleeves rolled up. If one could tag that as a habit of Prayer Man that might be a smidgen more evidence in the right direction. To me, looking at Prayer Man with the eye of the artist, his overall appapearace is very similar to Oswalds appearance. Even as blurry as the image is there is something there. The problem with that is getting others to agree. Identification of what he has in his hands might edge the notion that prayer man is Oswald closer to acceptibilty. If witnesses say Oswald had a coke then did he have a coke on the landing?

Andrej, Glad to hear from you and thanks for your response. I think I like your idea of no real data to prove a coke or anything else. My notion of a flash camera comes from the John Martin film when someone, I think Prayer man, was on the curb of Elm Street filming the presidential limousine as it went by. Enough said. I’ve written of this before. What I actually believe is something for which there is little solid evidence. This consists of iffy blurred films, fake photos, and credibility challenged witnesses. It is not my preferences. It is based on what I see in the visual record. What I believe is based on Altgens 6, Weigman/ Darnell/ Couch/ John Martin films and testimony of witnesses. And, as I said this is iffy evidence. New evidence can change this as new evidence comes to light. Harvey Oswald is told by his masters to film the presidential motorcade. He goes home to get one of his expensive cameras. Based on the John Martin film showing Prayer Man on the Elm Street curb filming the presidential limousine as it goes by. This filming of the motorcade insures he is there that day for the assassination. What happened to his camera? He is not seen leaving the TSBD with it. Harvey tells Buell Frazier he is after curtain rods when he gets a ride home early. It is none of Frazier’s business. Frazier’s testimony says a bag of about 24 inches. In other words, a large grocery bag which were 17 inches or larger. Big enough for a camera and mount not, a rifle. And, can be easily carried under one’s arm. The motorcade breakup into more than 3 parts gives time for Prayer Man time to walk back up to the TSBD landing in order to be filmed as Prayer Man in Weigman and Darnell. The part of the motorcade for Camera Car #1 and those behind it have been held on Houston Street. Why Houston Street? It is because Weigman, Darnell, and Couch are shot as the motorcade is moving pass the TSBD. Doorway Man is either an Oswald (Lee) or, an Oswald double. Doorway Man and Prayer Man are dressed differently during those brief moments of the assassination. Sleeves up or down on the same appearing shirt. Wearing the same shirt was an Oswald Project gag to make different Oswalds appear to be the same. Doorway Man is wearing a face mask of Billy Lovelady and will probably remain unknown. I’ve seen Frazier on several videos and he seems like an honest guy. He even tells you that in a convincing manner. When people do that it always makes me a bit uncomfortable. The problem is I can’t square this honesty with his statements about standing on the TSBD landing and the people there. He’s there at the time of the assassination and he’s there at the time of Weigman/ Darnell/ Couch driving pass the TSBD on Elm Street. The time between when the presidential limousine passed the TSBD and Weigman/ Darnell/ Couch has to be about 2 minutes more or less. I tried to explain this to Ray Mitcham earlier. I don’t know how well I put out the idea. So, Frazier is there about 2 minutes. He doesn’t see the Oswald double who is later covered in a face mask in Altgens 6. He sees Billy Lovelady. To me this is a falsehood. He is still there when Weigman/ Darnell film Prayer Man. He doesn’t see Prayer Man either. That’s what bothers me. He doesn’t see Prayer Man. He doesn’t see an Oswald or an Oswald double. I’m firmly convinced that Doorway Man in Altgens 6 is wearing a Billy Lovelady face mask. Frazier doesn’t see who that individual is. Is it an Oswald double or who? Who needs to be disguised? Who ever that is wears his shirt differently than Prayer Man. To me, Prayer Man is Oswald or an Oswald double. Prayer Man wears his shirt differently than Doorway Man. If he sees Doorway Man in Altgens 6 as Billy Lovelady then why doesn’t he see Prayer Man in the later films?

Hi Ray, Thanks for your response. I have finally figured out why I have been confusing the Weigman and Darnell frames. I have two Google Images one marked Weigman frame and one marked Darnell frame. They are the same photo. So, folks please forgive. I going to shift the blame and blame it on Google Images. "As the sun moves 15 ˚ every hour, (360/24), that means that in 2 minutes it will have moved only 0.5˚ (15˚/30) in two minutes. Hardly a significant change in the shadow." Thanks for this info. It makes my by sight by guess of 2 minutes difference in shadows more acceptable to the mathematically inclined. Still, the angle difference in the two shadows I described is greater than this small not that significant amount. The amount is significant. Draw a line at the edge of the landing shadow for the length of the shadow. Do the same for any of the street people's shadows and you will see a noticeable difference in angle. Here's a factoid I think is true. The first canned coke was RC in 1964. Ray, I want to commend you. You are the first person to take the challenge. Nobody else has the courage to try. I know there are witnesses that say Oswald was drinking a coke. If you say that the object in Prayer Man's had is a coke then aren't you saying that Prayer Man is Oswald. There is no doubt in Bart Kamp's mind. It is a coke. My guess on the glowing object is a flash camera. Come on folks give it a try.

Ray, Thanks for responding. Let me correct a mistake. The frame in question is not Weigman but, Darnell. I generally screw those two up when not thinking. There are two different shadow angles in Darnell. One for the corner of the landing at the TSBD doorway. And another shadow angle for people on the street. There is a significant difference in these angles. When light from a light source hits an object, the object casts a shadow directly away from the light source. The angle of that shadow is the angle of the light source to the object. If I have that wrong then I will stand corrected. At 12:30 on Nov. 22, 1963, the sun was at a certain point in the sky. Any object on earth at that time would cast a shadow directly off the sun. The angle of that shadow would be a reflection of the angle of the sun to the object at 12:30. Angles of shadows moving at two different directions at the same time is unnatural and physically impossible. Therefore the Darnell frame is a composite of two photos with different shadow angles taken at different times. That really screws up Prayer Man, doesn't? There is another problem with time in most people's reasoning involving Darnell, Weigman, and Couch. When were there films taken is the problem? How long after the assassination? The presidential motorcade broke up into more than 3 segments at the Houston and Elm intersection. Each segment traveled down Elm Street at a different time. First off, the first segment was of the first two motorcade vehicles. These traveled ahead of the rest of the motorcade and were not involved in the motorcade events. The second group consisted of those cars and motorbikes directly around the president's vehicle. We can see these in Zapruder, Bell, Altgens, and some other films. The 3rd group consisted of the Mayor's Car and the National Press Pool Car. I don't have any visuals on them traveling down Elm Street to the underpass. They were stopped at the intersection at then released by the Dallas Police. How long they were stopped and how long it took then to clear Elm Street and go under the Triple Underpass is not known. The 4th group begins with the Camera Car #1 and the vehicles following it. They were held up while the Mayor's Car left Dealey Plaza. After that, they were released to travel down Elm. The Couch film has a good frame showing these vehicles with Elm Street empty of cars in front of them. Again, the question is how long were they stopped and how long did it take them to travel down Elm Street and go under the Triple Underpass. My best guess is 2 minutes or more. The time involved in the assassination and the filming of Darnell and Couch would not really be that significant for shadows. You should not find a large discrepancy in shadows in Darnell. But, they are there and easily seen. So, the two different shadows in the Darnell frame showing Prayer Man is a real problem for theorists. There is such a degree of difference in the shadows mentioned that there is really no need to figure angles. Unless some one has to see the angle difference in numbers rather than just looking at it.

I have reread through this thread and the comment I made on two different shadow angles in Weigman (wrong frame here it is actually Darnell) drew no response or very little. The comment must have been made in another thread. It is not in this one. So, I will make it again. There are two shadow angles in Weigman. One is going at a certain angle in the TSBD doorway. I believe you folks have calculated that at about 18 degrees with some variation. What is the shadow angle of the people on the street? It appears to be significantly different than the doorway.

"PM has something in his hands. I use to think it was a coke. I now think it is a camera. The frame above informs the notion. There seems to be some sort of glow in his hands or more correctly between his hands. He appears to be holding a 2-handed camera holder used with cameras in those days to steady the camera. His hands are always positioned for such a device in Weigman, Darnell, and John Martin." Rich, This drew no response from anyone. Is there anyone out there who can explain the glow in PM's hands? To me, it is similar to the flash seen in PM's hands in the John Martin film.

Rich Pope, You should of been here when I signed on in 2016. Don't know of whether you were here or not. I suffered very brutal, extremely hateful comments form just about everyone except those I was beneath the notice of then. Today is much more peaceful thanks to Mr. Gordon. These were from people who most hold in high regard. Some still lapse into a venomous mode occasionally. I just get ignored these days when I bring up a topic people don't care for at all. That's fine. Instead of a response a blind eye is ok. It tells me a lot. I will show you something ignored.

Jim, I will agree on Phipps. To me the HSCA is another spelling of the Warren Commission. I have emailed to your HarveyandLee site email my analysis of Jack White's chart. Don't worry about face recognition. A lot of people have problems with that. I have a small talent in art. I've done hundreds and hundreds of oil paintings over the last 35 years. Artists are all about details. Studying the details of objects so they can put those objects on canvas. At 16, I thought the Backyard Photos were true and correct. I could see no wrong there. One look in 2015 and I could see their falsity at a glance. That comes from the art training and experience over the years. By using Jack's chart I have found several more pictures of Lee Oswald than previously confirmed. The clearer images have given me the confidence to say yes this is Lee Oswald and not Harvey. You guys have the written record covered in an expert fashion. I hope to contribute by showing what I see in the visual record. To be truthful what I see is entirely different than what most people see. My website is radical, very radical as far as Lone Gunners and Conspiracy Theorists go. I propose there things that nobody has proposed before. Hope you find the analysis interesting.

Jim, Your right on the screen capture. It didn't do what I wanted. However, the saved image will work. I can work with that and will. I will send you the results if you give me an email. Send it to jrb8186@gmail.com. With your email I can send you any MS Word files that you find on the site and that you can do whatever you wish with them. Adding bio info to what I have posted will strengthen the analysis greatly. I am sure I don't have everything in the best shape so comments and advice is welcome. The analysis I made is generally based on photo image analysis using the traits I listed. Other information was added to make the thing more interesting. At first I totally rejected the HSCA analysis. But, more rational thinking prevailed. Because of the many instances of photo alteration one could say or claim that all of the photo record is Lee Harvey Oswald (Harvey). That didn't quite match what I was seeing. But, it did for the most part. Harvey, Lee turned into Harvey, other folks claimed as Lee or Harvey and unknowns photo altered into Harvey. Mr. Drew Phipps' head and heart are pointed in the right direction. However, his analysis may be flawed. With using eye measurements, whose eyes are you measuring? Many of the photos on the chart are composites made of Lee and Harvey. Eyes from one are added to another. And, then you have half faces of the two added together. How you come up with any worthwhile measurement from a vertically split composite photo. Phipps mentions chins, noses, and ears growing over time. That's true and could mess up an analysis. However, that is a phenomenon that is associated with older people. That's why I used characteristics that don't change. Earlobes or no earlobes is genetic and that doesn't change in a life time. The characteristic ear trait of two bends in the upper left ear rim doesn't change either. You can see this trait in baby Harvey and Harvey's mugshot the day or so before he died. Other traits that I have listed help in combination with these two to give a better identification of Lee or Harvey.

James DiEugenio, Was it Saville Row a la being a James Bond fan?

Jim, I have seen this wall chart before. Generally, it was not in a posting one could work with. I will try a screen capture and enlargement and see if I can do anything with it. I have radical website. I have things posted there that most people will have trouble accepting. I have worked for some time trying to identify various Oswalds. My best attempt so far is on that website. Here is a link to the Oswald Project. http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/tag/oswald-project/ The HSCA employed "forensic" anthropologists to identify various Oswalds. After using various scientific strategies and techniques their conclusion was that all of the photos of record show only Lee Harvey Oswald. That is the person we would call Harvey Oswald. I almost agree with them. A few photos missed the dragnet of the cover-up specialists. One is the high school photo of Lee Harvey Oswald (the original) and several others that are questionable. The Oswald Project is in 5 parts covering perhaps about 75 pages of text and photos. It is my best shot at understanding who Lee Harvey Oswald and his double Harvey were just based on the photo record. I can't say all is correct. It is just my best shot. Some things could change with new information. The cover up specialist used the same traits that I have identified to do there cover up work. So, I am fairly confident of the characteristics I have analyzed in the Dallas Police mugshot and the high school photo.

Thanks Jim, This is a great photo opportunity to express my thoughts on Oswalds. This looks like some of the work of the late, great Jack White. If this isn’t him then let me know who, please. I take it that the top row is Lee Oswald and the bottom row is Harvey Oswald. There are some changes I would make based on the following: Harvey has earlobes. This is from his mugshot at the Dallas Police Station. This is a main difference with Lee. Lee does not have earlobes. This comes from a high school picture. All people either have earlobes or not so this trait must be used in conjunction with others. Harvey’s left ear has a unique trait that is missing in Lee Oswald. This is a distinctive two bends in the upper rim of the left ear. If you find this missing for Harvey Oswald then the person is not Harvey Oswald. Harvey has a narrow nose whereas Lee has a fairly broad nose. Harvey has a narrow chin while Lee has a broad but weak (short) chin. Harvey has a wide neck when viewed from the front. Lee’s neck is less broad. Harvey as described by some has abnormally sloping shoulders Harvey has a first, left, upper incisor that is shorter then the rest. This is seen in his exhumation photos in 1961. Lee may not have this feature. Another characteristic of Lee Oswald is he may have been long headed. This is from a 13-inch measurement for his head in a Marine photo. These character traits will separate Lee and Harvey. The first 5 are best to use. Based on these I would take this consideration of the Lee row of photos: 1952 Lee and reclassify as Harvey. 1954 Lee I don’t know what to do with except tentatively assign as Lee 1956 and 1959 Lees are composites of Lee made into Harvey. This is based upon their narrow chins and narrow noses. 1957 and 1958 Lees go together based on their somewhat broad noses and broad chins. These are the only two possible photos of Lee. If you get better enlarged photos of 1956 and 1959 you will see both have the characteristic left ear traits of Harvey. The hair pattern of 1956 doesn’t match the patterns of 1958 and 1959. The closest match is 1956 and 1958 but, there are no other matching features. 1956 can not be 1959, unless 1959 did the impossible. Regrow hair that he has lost in 1956. The Harvey row: 1956 Harvey should be removed from the Harvey row and reassigned to the Lee row. If you compare Jack’s 1956 Lee with 1956 Harvey then you will see that Harvey has more hair. They are not the same in hair pattern. 1956 Harvey is the only good photo of the original Lee Harvey Oswald. This photo (due to being in the public record) was to difficult to seize and change into Harvey. Lee’s characteristics are based on this photo. These are: Ears that do not have earlobes Long somewhat broad nose A short but, broad chin These traits best match 1957 and 1958 in the Lee row I don’t categorize 1953 Harvey as Harvey even though he was identified as such by a school official. He has earlobes, a broad nose, a broad chin narrowed by alteration, and he lacks the characteristic two bends in the upper rim of his left ear. This last is a trait that only Harvey has. You can see these traits in the mugshot of real Harvey at the Dallas Police station. 1958- If this was a better photo you could determine whether the Marine had earlobes. He has a long somewhat broad nose and a weak chin. These are traits of Lee not Harvey. But, still this identification is iffy. This is a lot to drop on someone. But, your thoughts are always appreciated. I think it is a better way to identify Oswalds. I have used these techniques on photos that I would have sworn prior was one or the other of the Oswalds but, the traits said something differetn. In a photo with no clear alterations one has to go along with these traits. The mugshot of Harvey at the Dallas Police Station and the High School photo of Lee (clearly named in the yearbook) where a girl is pointing at him are what is used for the basic traits to identify Lee and Harvey.

Thanks Cliff, All my life I've tried to avoid medical things. So, the autopsy stuff is mostly greek to me. Except for the photo showing JFK's back wounds. Thanks for you advice.

Thanks for your reply Tracy, To me John Armstrong is an honest fellow. Jim Hargroves is also. Although I don't agree with a few individual items, mostly to do with the identification of various Oswalds, on the whole their theory is convincing based on what I am seeing in the visual record. Thanks for your reply.

David Josephs, "Correct Eddy... not only is there no room to simply "pass thru"... the reality of those kinds of bullets (if used) is shown below with a slightly smaller bullet.... No bullet traveled thru JFK's upper chest... sorry nutters." Great response. I've got a question for you. Can we really believe what the autopsy report says. Can we really believe that JFK was only shot once in the back as described by the autopsy people? There is so much BS in their report that naturally we might question other parts.

Evidence? What evidence? Call it any kind of bullet you want. Imagine all the firing angles you can. None lead back to the Sniper's Nest. I'm going to stick with Jesse Curry who said he never could put Oswald on the 6th floor with a weapon in his hands. And, J. Edgar Hoover who said the evidence is not very, very strong. You can't prove, by legal standards, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anyone fired a rifle from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest. 5 out of 7 witnesses that were the closest to the Sniper's Nest said the shooting came from some other place.