John Butler

Ray, 

I've discussed this issue in"Where was Mary Moorman and Jean Hill when the assassination happened?"

You were part of the discussion.

This was the article that has the Moorman high heel photo.

And, her purse.

Thanks Ray for your assessment,

We're not going to agree.  And, that's find, no problem.  We'll let others decide.

Ray,

This is posted somewhere by me in a post.  Couldn't find where so I am re-posting.

Clearly a high heel on her right foot.  The purse is visible too.  Notice here her shoulders are not hunched and her raincoat is shorter than shown in her Polaroid.

Ray,

It is a cropped and magnified portion of the Cancellare photo you show.  I used this in the Mary Moorman post which I going to have to look up.  It is not coming to mind but will do so and post here shortly.

Hi Ray,

This one does.  Simply magnify the area showing Mary.  I've provided a photo just showing this area magnified somewhere in the post of Mary Moorman.  It shows her right foot in a high heel shoe.  It also shows her purse which is missing in Zapruder.

Let me get you opinion on the next photo.  Doesn't this look amazingly like Altgens 6. I'm missing the R. L. Thurman freeway sign but other than that this does look amazingly like Altgens 6 with the presidential limousine approaching the Stemmons Freeway Sign with the vice-presidential almost in the Altgens 6 position.  Here is Z frame 170.

The President should be gripping his throat here rather than Z frame 255.

Chris,

The Zapruder film shows her with flat black shoes as it does in her Polaroid.  Some Z frames they are hard to see and appear white.  In Cancellare she had high heels.  

It had rained in Dallas that morning.  Recall the Tosh Plumlee story of a fellow fell down the slope of the south knoll and became very muddy.

Would Mary walk out onto the grassy area with high heels into the mud?

And, let's not forget her hunched shoulders that explains why her raincoat is generally shorter than her appearance in her Polaroid.  I'm not suggesting some sort of physical condition but one wonders.

The answer to your question on shoes they are not painted in as well as they should be.

Well, for what it is worth there are more problematic issues with the BYP.  I don't know whether Jack White caught this or not I would have to go back and read his list of 15 hits.  The one has to do with a shadow or, rather the lack of a shadow. 

The communist papers do not cast a shadow on Oswald's shirt.  The rest of his body, with the exception of the head, is highlighted from the left and front.  More to the front then left.  This is indicated by the small portion of his right side being shadowed.  Enough is shadowed from that angle to leave a shadow from the papers on his shirt.  There is no shadow there.  What does this tell us?  The composer of this photograph was not worried about shadows or to stupid to notice.  This again points to someone who was an amateur at this type of work.

This next is a bit of a stretch based more on highlights rather than shadows.  The shadow under Oswald's right arm may not match the shadow on the ground.  Sometimes I see it that way and others not.

Someone wanted to know what times the shadows represent.  Well, It would be instructive to go back and look at what Jack White said:

Jack White and the backyard photos:

Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.

8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.

I might contribute to No. 5 in this list.  The overall body outline in many places looks like a cut out figure.  I'm sure some of you fellas are old enough to remember your sisters cutting out paper dolls during the 1950's.  Oswald's figure has that appearance.  You wont and cannot find natural straight lines in nature.  The Oswald figure has several examples of unnatural straight lines.

Would a handwriting expert say these are the same?  I would say yes even though there are differences.  

Chris,

Michael Walton said this:

No magic cameras, people, nor gizmos were used that day, John. It all depends on the cameras, aperture, lenses, and so on.

Don't get impatient with the video below - watch it and listen.  I mean really, really listen and if you open your mind up a little (or a lot) you'll learn the difference between magic and why things happen the way they do in photography. It's really not that hard to figure out, but you have to really want to learn something in order to get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUYuUs1aaCU 

I looked at this video on aperture, focal length, and distance from subject.  With such a narrow focus shouldn't the background of Altgens 6 be blurred and out of focus.  The background is distorted for the Dal-Tex and the security vehicle but sharp and clear without distortion for the people in the crosswalk behind the distorted vice-presidential security vehicle.

Thanks Bill,

For straightening me out.  I think I got carried away there.  I'm going to have to eat crow on that statement about agreeing with everything Jack White did.  That's the "certain things" or "issues" I was talking about.  And, some of those issues deal with the Altgens photos and the Moorman Polaroid.

If you go back to my post on Mary Moorman you will see I am worse than Jack White.  I don't think she was wearing black flat shoes or white shoes.  I think she was wearing high heels.  Go back and look at my posts on Mary Moorman. 

Actually, it is difficult in some Z frames to see the flat black shoes.  But, if you look at many Z frames they are there.  That still doesn't stop me from believing she wore high heels that day.

To me Jack White wasn't showing fraud in Zapruder by his Moorman Polaroid measurements but the opposite.  He was anchoring Mary Moorman and Jean Hill in front of the Grassy Knoll.  It doesn't matter whether they were in the street or on the grass they were still in front of the Grassy Knoll and this supports the Zapruder film.  I think they were elsewhere as I have outlined in other posts.

I should amend my statement to most of what Jack White did in the visual area of Dealey Plaza.  For instance he said Altgens 5 is an authentic photo as is best used to show fraud in the Zapruder film by looking at the people in the East Elm St. crosswalk.  They are not the same as Zapruder. 

I have shown Altgens 5 to be a fraud.  I don't know why Jack White was saying it was authentic except maybe to point out Zapruder is a fraud.  I really don't know whether what he said is correct about the crosswalk people but based on most of his work I am willing to accept it.  Actually, I'm to lazy to check it out.

My mind just blurs out when it comes to Jack White's work on the Moorman Polaroid.  I am biased because I believe Moorman and Hill were in another location. So, I won't be trying to second guess what he was doing with the pedestal and the windows.  To me most of the people who have taken measurements to support Jack's idea or propose something similar are just wasting their time.  The Moorman Polaroid is not Mary's and is a fraud.

Thanks Brad,

That was a very interesting and fascinating post.  I am going to reread it.  If people go back and look at what I have been posting they will see a very challenging and different outlook on the assassination.  I hope I am introducing new material for thought.  But, the more I look at it people have went over this same ground in the past.  With the posts I have made I hope I have introduced something new.

My purpose is to challenge and debunk the first visual things that were put out to the American Public that in part convinced them and me at the time, 1963, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut killer of President Kennedy. 

These are in order of appearance to the public:

Altgens 6

Mary Moorman's Polaroid

Zapruder Film

and, the Backyard Photos

These are the "kill organizers" main storyline.

Jack White was my hero.  That is until certain things came up.  I wish he was still alive so I could ask him about those issues.  However, in anything I have looked at that Jack said about the visual record I have not found anything I would disagree with.  It is mostly what he didn't say.  I think Jack knew more than what he was telling and towards the end let a few things slip.  I agree with Jack White the whole visual record of Dealey Plaza is tainted.  There is a large number of films and photos that have been seized and suppressed.  They were probably destroyed. 

Has anyone ever wondered why there are no films or photos showing the passenger side of the presidential limousine cruising down Main, Houston, and Elm St. other than Zapruder.

I surveyed the available visual records showing Elm St., Houston St., the intersection of Main and Houston.  I think I have found about 25 or so (I will have to look at my notes for how many) people with cameras not covered in the visual record. 

There maybe roughly 13 people filming on the SW corner of Elm and Houston rather than the reported five. 

Hi Bill,

I went back and found the relevant post.  Brad Milch actually said that and I was quoting him.  And, trying to help with his post by adding to it.  Here's what he said:

From my memory, as a frequent lurker to the old JFK Lancer Forum (I could read the posts, but could not comment), the topic of Altgens photo 6 alteration was being discussed about the same time the Lancer Forum was hacked online & destroyed. In that discussion, someone was asking where else other than Dealey Plaza could a photo editor have obtained images to incorporate into Altgens 6?

From memory, the responses varied from 'anywhere in the Dallas motorcade, to images from the Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio motorcades the day prior to the ambush of JFK as well as past motorcades (Tampa, etc.)'. The consensus appeared to be that the images of the key players (JFK, John Connally, Jackie, Clint Hill & his fellow agents, etc. present in Altgens 6 could have been lifted from other images taken at different locations & incorporated into what is known as Altgens photo 6.

I never did anything with the old JFK Lancer Forum.  That's before my foray into JFK issues.  Brad was making in my opinion an excellent post.  My help is the photo and the writing that is not italicized.

I hope I cleared that up for you.

Hi Bill,

I've read what you sent several times and I don't recall saying it or at least I am unsure as to saying that.  However, if I did mea culpa.  Please send a clearer reference so I can look that up.

The reason I don't recall writing that is it does not sound like something I would write.

I have no problem saying images from one source are placed in other sources.  I simply don't remember talking about Clint Hill and other agents.  I guess I need to see the complete reference.  Maybe, this is taken out of context in a larger discussion. 

Whatever, I need to look at the reference.

Thanks Michael,

I watched the youtube video twice.  And, I started to look at episode 7 about distortions but it was about portraits so I skipped it.  All I saw in the first video was in all examples the background becoming blurred and went out of focus.  The Altgens 6 background is sharp and clear.  Distorted but, sharp and clear.  Particularly, the people in the East Elm St. crosswalk.

The point I was making (probably not clear enough) to Chris Barstow is that you can not take real measurements and apply them to a composite photo. 

The difference in locations and time of the presidential vehicle in both Altgens 6 and Z frame 255 point to human tampering.  The bit about "magic cameras" doesn't refer to magic but human tampering with the photo and film.  Altgens 6 and the Zapruder film are the art of photo editors.

PS

I must be losing it today.  I've had to re-edit this on names several times.  My apologies to those who I didn't get their name right the first time.  I hope things are ok now.

If Mr. Bristow is correct and the freeway signs are just off to the right then we have a cropped photo.  From Altgens position in the Elm St. roadway then both the freeway signs and the SW corner of Elm St. should be shown.  8 feet stretches to 20 feet because we see the light pole and the limousine but not the signs?  If one looks at the photo the light pole aligns more with the rear of the Secret Service vehicle rather than the presidential limousine then 8 feet stretches to 40?

The problem is that Ike Altgens was using a magic camera lens that day.  So was Abe Zapruder.

In Altgens 6 the security vehicle for the Vice-President is grossly distorted.  The Dal-Tex Building is grossly distorted.  But, the people in the Elm St. crosswalk have a normal appearance.

Zapruder, at Z frame 255, shows the same scene as Altgens 6.  Everyone says this.  In the Zapruder film the presidential vehicle comes out from behind the Stemmons Freeway Sign at roughly Z frame 215.  Actually, it does that a little earlier but, Z frame 215 works well with Z frame 255 to calculate 40 frames difference easily.  If each frame is a foot traveled then the presidential limousine is 40 frames or feet in front of the Stemmons Freeway sign.

We last see the Stemmons Freeway Sign at Z frame 241.  So, the presidential limousine is definitely in front of the Stemmons Freeway sign.   A goodly portion of the Secret Service vehicle is past the Stemmons sign.  By Z frame 255 both vehicles are past the Stemmons sign.

So, should Altgens 6 show the Stemmons sign 40 feet behind the presidential limousine because Altgens is almost directly in front of the vehicle.  That would be about at the rear of the Secret Service vehicle. 

If you look at the light pole in Altgens 6 it lines up with the rear of the Secret Service vehicle.  That’s about where the Stemmons sign should be.

The more you compare Altgens 6 and Z frame 255 the more they depart from reality. 

This is for Tom on 3-d models:

It is as I suspected.  2-d or 3-d shadows follow the laws of nature and move off from the light source depending on where the light source is.  Here we see two not three of the three different shadow patterns / light sources observed in the BYP.  The author of this failed attempt doesn't allow you to see the third shadow pattern by cutting it off at the bottom.

It would be way to noticeable.  The shadow patterns in this example are sharp and clear.  The Oswald figure's shadow would clearly portray this photo as fake.

The shadow patterns are clearly noticeable by anyone who takes the time to look at them and notice which directions they are going.  These shadows can't be denied or argued into something else.  They are 100% there and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks Alastair,

I see what you are saying.  Good call.  But, when I'm in an uncritical state I often wander about that alien transportation device in Elsie Dorman.

Alastair,

I've never heard anything about a "big alien".  I've made joking references to the silver balls in the Elsie Dorman film being an alien transporter device and Kennedy is now on the backside of the moon at a giant alien base directing world peace.  Of course I was just goofing there.

But, what about that "big alien"?

Sorry Tom,

All to often I say things that get me in trouble when I should have been more tactful.  Happened all the time when I taught school.  I should have grew up and matured. 

I don't really get your point about 3-d models.  Shadows move off from a light source based on where the light source is.  How a 3-d model of 2-d photo would clarify that I don't know.  What I see is 3 different shadow patterns moving off of 3 different and not in the same place light sources.  This gives you 3 suns in Dallas, TX.

Nixon was a far deeper and a more cunning thinker than most people believe.  He was way over on the dark side channeling the emperor.  People didn't "pillory" Nixon because they knew what he was doing.  Peace with Honor meant nothing to him.  He was trying to win the Viet Nam War.  Getting the Chinese to back off would help.

The monsters of my youth were not Dracula, not the Mummy, and not Frankenstein.  The monsters of my youth were Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. 

Kudos to folks like Sandy Larsen who say you do not need to be a photo expert or as others have said a photogrammetrist to be able to see what a photo contains.  That is what torpedoed Jack White and Robert Groden at their HSCA testimony.  The HSCA authenticated the BYP just as the WC did.  Both lied through their teeth!

To say anything other than the steps shadows are toward the left and the Oswald figure's shadow is toward the right denies reality.  The shadows are inconsistent not consistent.

I have been reading through older posts on this web site.  I seeing more examples than I want of people abandoning factual knowledge, logic, and reason in favor of pseudo-scientific measurements that with the right data set gives you the answer you are looking for.  A good example of this is trying to show firing angles from the 6th floor sniper's nest to various points along Elm Street according to the Zapruder film.  Why do that when you cannot prove legally, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anyone fired a rifle from the 6th floor sniper's nest?  Can you prove that the Zapruder film is 100% authentic?  If it is not should it be used?

What standard of proof should be used in judging whether something is true or false?  I try to use legal standards when possible.  I often fail due to lack of knowledge of the law.  The thing I said about Roscoe White being the author of the backyard photos is in my opinion a 51% or greater (more than likely) possibility.

I would like to hear your idea of how to judge whether something is true or false?

Here is what I find false:

• I will use directions in the discussion of the photo that are standard for people.  Right and left are as follows.  Lee Harvey Oswald is holding a rifle in his left hand and a newspaper in his right.  This is called the proper right when viewing figures in a photograph.  From the viewer’s perspective or perspective left Oswald has a newspaper in his left hand and a rifle in his right.  If you want to use this perspective just reverse what is said.  

•  Notice that the shadows of the steps to the right of the picture move towards the left side of the picture.  This indicates the light source in this is a photo is to the right of the Oswald figure.  It is the sun.

• Notice that the Oswald figures’ shadow moves to the right.  This is a direct impossibility. This is the first glaring mistake made by the photo composer.  There cannot be two suns shining and casting shadows in different directions at the same time. 

• This body shadow of the Lee Oswald figure indicates the light source or sun is to the left of the Oswald figure.  Are you beginning to get the idea that something might be wrong here; two light sources or two suns in one photo casting shadows in different directions?

• Notice the shadow under the Oswald figure’s nose.  This shadow is moving downward indicating the light source or sun is overhead and to the front.  This gives us a third shadow direction or pattern.  Three suns casting 3 shadows in 3 different directions.  This is a violation of the laws of nature.  This cannot be refuted or denied!  The evidence is in the picture and can’t be erased. 

• What can we conclude from all this?  Well, Dallas, Texas where these photos are supposed to have been taken is not on the Predator’s hunting preserve planet.  Adrien Brody is not about to walk out of the jungle into a clearing with many suns and planets in sky.  Dallas, Texas is on the earth.  There is only one sun in our solar system.

• So, the BYP has three light sources or suns for the types of shadows displayed.  That violates the laws of nature, but makes a framing and cover-up possible. Violating the laws of nature is not an uncommon occurrence when dealing with the visual record of the assassination in Dealey Plaza.  Most of the visual evidence in Dealey Plaza is fantastical or magical and is clearly fraudulent. 

• The BYP shown by Life Magazine is a fake! Jack White who studied these photos for many years lists for you 15 things that falsify these photos.  But, you only need one to expose the backyard photos for the hoax that they are.  Only one is necessary.  Sorry, the one I have chosen cannot be argued against by a sane person.  It is undeniable and irrefutable. The facts concerning the shadows and light sources are beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don’t know why Jack White didn’t recognize this or use it if he did. He used this argument in other places to invalidate photos with more than one light source.

The person who made the BYP is more than likely an amateur photo editor.  This person made the same kind of mistakes involving light and shadows an amateur artist makes when he first starts out.

To illustrate this point I will use an example from the art world.  Say that you are inspired by the TV artists and you want to make a painting as they do on television.  You assemble all the equipment you need, you’ve watched the videos, and now you are ready to make a landscape painting.  You want to put mountains and trees on canvas.

What is the first decision you need to make.  This first decision is the most important decision because everything else works off of it.  This first decision is where does the light come from?  You can bring light into to your painting from the right, from the left, from the top, from the bottom, from the rear, or from the front.  Once you have made that decision you must stick with it and not change it.

Let’s say you decide to bring the light in from the right.  You go ahead and paint your mountain and highlight it from the right.  Any shadows need to go off to the left.  During the course of making this painting you have made hundreds of decisions.  You decide to end the painting by putting a big tree in the front to show distance in the painting.  You paint the tree in and highlight the tree from the left and paint a shadow to the right.  Amateur artists do this kind of thing all the time.

This is a huge mistake.  You have introduced a second light source into the painting.  It’s an error the aspiring artist probably didn’t notice.  And, he won’t notice until later.

This is what happened in the BYP.  There are conflicting shadows and light sources.  This indicates that the photo editor was an amateur or was arrogant enough not to care knowing that his mistakes would not be noticed.

The amateur photo editor could be Roscoe White, who joined the Dallas Police Department in Sep. 1963.  He worked in their photo lab.

I will be more detailed in explaining this in the next post.

Thanks Michael,

Thanks for your heads up but, for my own purposes I want to take Mr. Dankbaar literally.  I want to make at least 2 more posts on this topic of the BYP.  

Hopefully by doing so I can put out an idea that should end the discussion on the authenticity of the BYP.  Drive the last nails into the lid of that coffin.  I really don't know why people are still arguing about those frauds after 50+ years.

Somebody once said if you can prove The BYP are fraudulent then The LGT and Warren Commission conclusions are conspiracy frauds.

Back to the original question, Jack White said there were conflicting shadows without explaining how the shadows conflicted.