John Butler

To me Jack White is a mystery.  I don’t understand some of the things he said about various topics.  I don’t understand what he was doing with the Altgens photos or why late in life he revealed information about Dick Bothun. 

He was dead set that the Zapruder film was a fraud and offered many explanation why that was so.

In the Backyard Photos, if my memory serves me, he gave 15 or so explanations why the BYP were false.  The strange thing is he allowed himself and Robert Groden to be beat up at the HSCA hearings when discussing the BYP.

In my opinion Jack White hints at but does not fully explain the most devastating aspects of the BYP.  As I said he hints at the most fraudulent concept in the BYP but does not state it fully.  In other discussions of other photos he comes right out and bluntly and forcefully states why that photo is false using the same concept he should have used in describing the BYP.

Roger,

The way I look at it shooting from the South Knoll has the wrong firing angle unless special circumstances are met.  The special circumstance is that the presidential vehicle has to be pointed in that direction so that the shot can enter from directly in front.

There is only one time that could have occurred.  That’s when William Greer made his wide and wild turn into the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets.  In straightening and moving his vehicle into the center of the street there may have been a brief moment when the vehicle pointed toward the South Knoll.

It’s a bit of a stretch.  The same as the next thing I’m going to suggest.  I did a post on the Marie Muchmore film and didn’t put this in it.  The reason being was I was getting a lot of “worst photo analysis ever” and “silly research” type of comments.   Some of the comments were fairly crude.  Here’s what I didn’t put in:

The black arrow points to a hazy, cloudy spot on the windshield in about the same place as the bullet hole in the windshield.  It could just be a light spot reflecting something.  President Kennedy is turned to the left and downward and appears to be in pain and distress.  Jackie seems concerned.  The fellows who made those comments would probably say too much imagination here.

As far as I can theorize there are only about 3 spots that one can shoot directly into the front of the presidential limousine to produce frontal wounds including the bullet hole in the windshield.  These are:

1. Down Houston St. from the TSBD (second or third floor offices or fire escapes) to the intersection, the Court Record Building, or to anywhere along Houston.  I favor the first two.  Something may have happened at the intersection of Houston and Main (why else dummy up photos like Altgens 5) or something happened in front of the Court Records Building with 8 films skipping that area.

2. The Grassy Knoll to the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets.

3. The Triple Underpass to anywhere along Elm Street.  Shooting from the Triple Underpass has special problems and I generally pass this notion over.  But, it is the best place for an assassin to be to shoot the President.

There is another spot I keep forgetting to mention when talking of this.  That is further north on Houston St. then the intersection of Elm and Houston.  It actually gives you one of the better shooting positions down Houston St.  One of the assassination films shows buildings, construction, and parked trailers there.

Michael,

Theres a problem with Altgens 6 and the Zapruder film.  Altgens 6 shows the president shot before he passes the freeway signs.  This supposedly corresponds to z frame 255 after the freeway signs.  These two visual records can't be reconciled.  

Most people just say they are the same without thinking about or really looking at the content.

The shooting of JFK in the front doesn't come out well from the front either.

l think Dr. Perry got it right.  The man probably dealt with hundreds of gun shot wounds.  Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front but, how?  And, from where?

No, probably not.  I see what you are saying.  Has to be someone with that kind of talent and expertise.

Just winging it here but, how about this:

• The assassination cover-up had been worked out before hand. 

• The assassination didn’t go as planned.  There were front and back wounds.  The cover-up plan had to be adjusted by the on-site assassination planners.  These were people like Edward R. Landsdale and Lucien Conein, and/or others of their sort disguised as Secret Service agents in the Sherriff’s Office.

• The cover-up begins with the people at the Sheriff’s Office knowing what to do first in managing witnesses and testimony.

• Word goes up of a general story within an hour or so to higher ups at the CIA, FBI, and the Secret Service.  Lee Harvey Oswald has been arrested and the patsy set.

• Word is passed to agents in the field, FBI and Secret Service, to begin managing witnesses and testimony within hours of the assassination.

• Word of what is needed in the cover-up is passed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to manage military medical personnel at the autopsy at Bethsheda before the body arrives there.

• The Real Zapruder film or films similar to it are shown to the directors of the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service to adapt the story.  Briefing boards are prepared to finalize the story.

• From November, 1963 to March 1964 Warren Commission personnel are selected and briefed on what to do.

• The only people who could control and manage this cover-u p are the initial boys. JEH and LBJ.

David,

It is certainly not a city scene reflected on the side of the limo.  There is a line of hills in the background. 

It's what photo editors do.  They match the foreground of a picture to the background of another.  Generally, there is no sinister intent.  The idea is to produce a better picture that tells the story (generally innocent) that you want to tell.  In this case the photo says President Kennedy drives through Dallas Streets.  I believe this is a Dallas Morning News photo. 

However, since this involves the day of the assassination it is suspect. 

Most of what we see of the presidential limousine is from the drivers side of the vehicle.  There are photos at Love Field showing the passenger side of the vehicle.

It is illogical to reason that all along the motorcade route people on one side of the vehicle took pictures and people on the other side didn't.

I don't trust anything about the Zapruder film.  I mentioned to some one I thought the film is an "utter fantasy" and I could add "horrid fantasy" to that.  That someone told me well the President did travel through Dealey Plaza and was shot.  He is correct.  But, I question how that happened.  The Zapruder film is not the answer.

This is 2017, roughly 53 years after the assassination, and no one has come up with an answer for the "big event" that satisfies everyone to the point they can agree that so and so is correct.  If people are truly interested in solving the assassination then old thoughts, old concepts, and old tools of analysis should be dropped. Why?  Because they are not working.  Something new should be thought of and tried.  Here's an example.  The LGT theory was torpedoed long ago by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry when he said I never could place Oswald on the sixth floor with a rifle in his hand.  If everyone agreed on that then Lee Harvey Oswald walks at a trial and is innocent. 

I added to this with the notion that you can't prove anyone fired a rifle from the 6th floor sniper's nest beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is based on the 7 closest witnesses to the sniper's nest.  5 out of 7 said they heard shots from some location other than the sniper's nest.  So, can you use any theory or data derived from measuring angles of fire from the sniper's nest?  And, so on with other information sets involving the sniper's nest. 

If one frame from the Zapruder film is a fake then can you use other parts without questioning their validity?

If Jack White is correct that all of the visual record of Dealey Plaza was seized and altered then there is no way to prove anything. 

If I am correct then a good deal of the visual record has been seized and suppressed.  This part of the record will never be seen.  It was probably destroyed.

Brad,

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 don't know if this will help with what you are saying but, look at this photo:

I could swear that the reflection in the side of this vehicle is from Love Field.  That looks like an airplane wing.  There is open field in the distance.  This is a photo that is supposedly downtown Dallas.  I think the color version of this is on the Jim Marr's Crossfire book. 

The second point to make with this photo is this is the last time one gets to see the passenger side of the presidential limo until the Zapruder film.  No where on North Main St., nowhere on East Houston St., nowhere at the Elm St. crosswalk, nowhere on the Houston Crosswalk, nowhere in front of the TSBD, nowhere in Mannequin Row, or down towards the Stemmons Freeway sign to we get to see any films or photos from those areas.

Isn't that strange!!  I did a survey of those areas and I think I found about 25 or 30 people with cameras.  I'll have to check my notes for the number. 

Here's my notion.  This is so you will not see any images you might recognize from elsewhere in the Zapruder film.

1. Could the Altgens 6 photo have been created in advance of the actual ambush of JFK (assuming a conspiracy to take JFK's life knew in advance where the hit would take place)?

2. Could the Zapruder film have been created in advance of the actual ambush of JFK (as opposed to suspicion of being a tampering victim afterwards)?

3. Was Jack White correct in his belief that ALL JFK attack visuals are fakes or alteration victims? Could those also have been created in advance of the actual ambush of JFK?

I think Jack White was correct based on my own experiences looking at things.

This is what I think happened to Hill and Moorman.  They were in Dealey Plaza long enough to be filmed and photographed hundreds of times before the assassination.  The on site assassin planners (hidden as Secret Service agents in the Sheriff's Office ,from Jean Hill testimony about Secret Service agents, chose those two to be markers for location in various films because of their distinct appearance and this was also done for many other things.

I don't really have any real proof but this is logical to me since I don't believe Hill and Moorman were in front of the Grassy Knoll but, at the SW on the SW corner of Elm St. across from the TSBD. 

I also believe that much of the imagery in the presidential limousine post Z frame 133 comes from the Gap prior to Z frame 133.

After re-reading this, it is a good thing to have a thick skin.  Thought I would post this for this discussion:

Karl Kinaski   

• Advanced Member
•  
• 
• Members
•  
• 602 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Austria

John Butler   

• Experienced Member
•  
• 
• Members
•  
• 127 posts
• Gender:Male

Not relevant here but Mary Moorman has a purse.  Not seen in Zapruder.  This is second example of Moorman purse.  Also, has very short raincoat on.

As said not relevant here, but since I caught a hard time elsewhere I thought I would point that out.

Very interesting post.

People keep saying in these posts that not everything is a conspiracy.  In the visual record I'm not finding much of anything that has not been tainted by photo editors.  Particularly, the information that was presented to the public early on during the first week or so after the assassination.  I think the following are tainted by photo editors:

Altgens 6

Mary Moorman's Polaroid

Zapruper Film 

And, other films that show pretty much what Zapruder shows

So, with that said how do you talk about how the assassination occurred without referring to one of these?  Would these be allowed in court after their flaws were pointed out?

What conspiracy theory could be derive without these?  Can we accept the parts we like and reject other parts?  Here is an example. 

The Zapruder film is altered from Z frame 1 onward.  Take Jack White's notion that Altgens 5 is authentic and Zapruder not.  This was based on two different sets of people that are  mutually exclusive in the Elm St. crosswalk.  If we look at the tires in Altgens 5 we know there was alteration.  So, how can we accept White's idea knowing both are false.

If we reject what I call the Zapruder Paradigm (visual information listed above that limits what we can talk about), then how do we evolve a theory to too account for the Parkland Hosiptal head wound description of President Kennedy.

Speaking of which, I believe President Kennedy was dead with seconds of being shot in the head.  He was DOA at Parkland.  You simply cannot survive long with that kind of wound removing the amount of cerebral and cerebellar tissue that it did.  I've always wondered why the Parkland doctors went through the charade of using live saving techniques on a dead body.  My best answer was that they had to show that they tried to save President Kennedy.  David Lifton has now clarified what he had been hinting at for years.  Their was evil intent on the part of some Parkland doctors requiring that Kennedy remain "alive" so that the evil intent of body alteration could be performed.

I'm not certain I like either answer. 

Ollie Curme's post has this:  Testimony from two Secret Service agents in the followup car would seem to support this.  See John Costella's Assassination Research pp 44-45:

http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf 

I read through Mr. Costella's list of witnesses.  Many are the same as the ones I used.  Where we differ is that in all cases whenever possible I used what the witness said in their first witness statement.  Many witnesses made multiple statements. I believe in many cases what the witnesses said in later statements, particularly in Feb. and March, 1964 are not that reliable due to changed statements, alterations, and coercion.

Witness testimony had a tendency to evolve toward the LGT concept.  Bonnie Ray Williams, a star Warren Commission witness, testimony will serve as a good example of what I am talking about.  Overtime, his testimony is filled with inconsistencies and changed testimony.  Consider the following:

Dallas Sheriffs Statement November 22, 1963- He said when he arrived on the 5^th floor with Harold Norman and James Jarmen they went to the windows.  He said he saw the President’s vehicle turn from Main onto Houston Street.  He heard two shots that sounded if they came from directly above him.  He did glance upward, but saw no one.  He said they (Norman and Jarman) did not realize the president had been shot.

FBI report November 23, 1963- In this interview Williams states that he went to the 6^th floor and stayed a short time about 3 minutes.  He then went to join two other men on the 5^th floor.  Williams states he and the others were at the middle windows of the 5^th floor south side.

FBI report January 8, 1964- Williams says he was on the 6^th floor when he heard Jarman and Norman on the 5^th floor.  He said he joined them on the 5^th floor at about 12:05.  And, around 12;30 they watched the parade.

FBI report March 19, 1964- Bonnie Ray’s testimony in March, 1964 had changed from this November, 1963 testimony.  He stated that he was located at the center windows, which repeats what he said in his November 23, FBI statement, on the south side of the 5^th floor.   The shots came from directly above him.  This means the shooter fired from the center of the building and not the sniper’s nest.  He further stated that as the presidential motorcade passed by the building on Elm Street he heard 3 shots. He glanced upward and saw nothing.  He said he did not know the president had been shot.

The words “passed by the building on Elm Street” could be taken to mean that the shots were heard when the presidential vehicle was in front of the TSBD passing by.  Alternatively, the words could mean after the vehicle passed the TSBD.  Often times this kind of statement is changed by adding “Just” to the “passed by”.

The question here is this testimony coaching for his upcoming Warren Commission testimony?

Warren Commission testimony (March 19, 1964?)- Bonnie Ray Williams testified that Oswald was a loner and did not speak to anyone.  He said that Oswald would read the paper and laugh to himself.  Others testified to this kind of behavior involving Oswald.  (Was this true or simply painting Oswald as a demented loner?)

Williams said he thought everyone in his crowd, 6^th floor floor layers, was going to watch the parade from the 6^th floor.  They didn’t show up so he ate lunch at the 3^rd or 4^th set of windows facing Elm St.  He finished his lunch by 12:20 and went in search of his co-workers.  He joined them on the 5^th floor.  If he was at the 3^rd or 4^th set of windows on the 6^th floor then he should have seen the people there that were mentioned by other witnesses.  Chicken bones and a sack tie him to that spot at that time.

He says Harold Norman was at the first window and he was at the second window and Junior Jarmen was two or 3 windows over.  He said he saw the motorcade turn on to Houston from Main St.  The presidential vehicle turned on Elm St. and drove past his window.  The president was brushing back his hair when he heard the first shot.  Then there were two more shots fired.  They were close together.  

 Williams said “— I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded it even shook the building, the side we were on like it was right in the building, the second and third shot.”  Williams agreed with Harold Norman that the shots came from above.  He said he did not hear shells hitting the floor or the action of the bolt being moved.  Only Harold Norman heard these things.  He said he thought Junior Jarman didn’t say he heard shots above.

Mr. Curme's statements and the Harris film seem to support my analysis of 50 witnesses who were located the closest to the 6th floor sniper's nest or saw some activity at the TSBD.

These witnesses were in the TSBD, or on the front steps, or nearby on Elm Street or Houston Street when they heard shots.

I analyzed their statements to see where the President was when they heard shots.  24 out of 50 witnesses, nearly half, heard shots when the presidential vehicle turned off Houston onto Elm or when the President was in front of the TSBD.

Could someone explain the frames presented by Robin Unger so that I don't get the wrong idea here.  The frames are related to what was happening in the intersection and in front of the TSBD?

Has anyone done the same thing with events in front of the Court Records Building on Houston Street?  There are 8 films that go haywire there or skip that part of Houston Street in the film record.  At least. I can't find any film or photo that shows the presidential limousine passing that building.  All I've seen skip that area. 

This post is amazing!  Almost 10 years later I posted the same frames from Tina Towner as Maarten Coumans.  She and others were discussing splices in these frames.  

There are many splices in the film throughout it.  They really didn't look at the frames for content.  The first frame posted is a fine example of using black paint to obscure imagery.  The photo editors of that frame did not want you to see what was happening.

The second frame explains what is happening in written language.  This frame is what I call the "hit X" frame.  

I posted these frames as a gift of understanding from Tina Towner.

This film is heavily edited.  No where do you get to see who is in the doorway of TSBD instead you see black paint.

Jackie Kennedy looks like a mannequin or robot.

Sorry Joe,

I didn't mean to imply politics as politics.  just interested to know if you thought this might be Raphael Cruz?

Raphael Cruz does not match to anyone in the New Oreans photos of Oswald passing out leaflets.

Joe,

Whose trial was this?

And, are you relating this to Trump / Cruz politics?

Thanks Brad,

Perfect explanation.  Now I can say with some confidence that Altgens more than likely did not go to Parkland.

I have always wanted to say that.

The question is "Is the photo sent out at 1:00 CST the same photo shown on the CBS news at 6:35 or a substitute.  They could have sent many photos or updated photos to the AP before 6:00.

The alterations to Altgens 6 required more then just a few minutes.

Thanks Andrew,

Its nice too have someone agree about the suspicious nature of Altgens.  I always thought as a photographer one would take a lot of photos and then select the better ones.

If, indeed, you have found a visual mistake concerning Ike Altgens appearing twice in the Z-film frames, may I be among the first to congratulate your sharp eyes, John. Any visual proof that the Z-film was the victim of tampering is important to the history of the JFK cold case.

Twinned Altgens is just one of many things wrong about the Zapruder film.

The biggest clustering of mistakes is on the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  There are two different versions of reality presented in Elsie Dorman and Zapruder concerning the SW corner.  The number of people is different.  The number of photographers there is different.  There are groups of people (as many as five) in one film and not the other.  There are many couples (about 5 couples) extra in an area the Zapruder film shows only two people then after the gap 4 people. 

- As the motorcade press cars moved away from the concrete divider in front of the TSBD towards the triple underpass, Richard Bothun is nowhere to be seen in the film footage shot by Malcolm Couch. On the other hand, the footage shot by James Darnell shows Ike Altgens on the Elm Street sidewalk below the north pergola with no Richard Bothum in sight, suggesting only Ike Altgens was present in either direction, not Bothum.

That is an excellent observation.  Dick Bothun is not the only character used by the photo editors to plant photos into the visual record.  I would take a good look at Phillip Willis.  He is a very suspicious character. 

Your observation above just about nails the notion that Dick Bothurn probably did not take the pictures credited to him.

Brad,

- Neither photographer photographed the rail yards, the Pullman trains parked in the rail yard area behind the north pergola, the triple underpass or the southern knoll area post-assassination, etc.

Ike Altgens was a photo editor for the Dallas Morning News.  I believe his photo-taking job was done once the assassination was over and his real job began afterwards.  Altgens 5, 6, and 7 are fakes. 

What does a photo editor do?  He takes part or parts of one picture and adds them to another.  He inserts objects into photos.  The purpose is to tell a new and different story.

Take Altgens 7 as an example.  If you add the 10 or so railroad men and a portion of the railroad bridge to a photo that does not have railroad men on the bridge but, has the presidential vehicle approaching the railroad bridge, then what do you have?  Altgens 7.  It's not a hard task for a photo editor.  It's basic 101 stuff.

Think about Officer J. W. Foster.  He said he allowed the railroad men on the bridge in testimony.  I don't believe it for a minute.  I believe Officer Foster would have CYA in that situation.  If he allowed railroad men on the bridge one could of perhaps spit or urinated on President Kennedy's head as the vehicle passed under the bridge.  He would of made sure nothing could affect his career or well being.

There are other frames and photos that show no one on the railroad bridge.

You can see Officer Foster with his DPD white hat off the railroad bridge and the railroad workers are to his left (screen right). 

Whose correct Bond or Altgens 7?

Ike Altgens appears in Bothun photo 4. Do you suspect some photo hanky panky there, John?

Yes, I do.  It would be hard to prove.  I've actually tried to do that with looking at other photos showing the opposite side of Elm at the same time.  Cancellare, if my memory serves me.  I couldn't find him in other photos.  That may simply be a time factor or different angles factor.

There are the shadow problems in Bothun 4 indicating alteration.

I have noticed the same thing about Bothun/Altgens photos.  It's not really suspicious they were in the same places at the same time.  But, everything else about Bothun makes you want to question that.

Why would Bothun give all of his photos to Altgens home base, the Dallas Morning News?  Why was he never questioned by anybody?  What was Jack White doing by covering up what he knew for decades?   

Sandy,

I keep coming back to Police Chief Jesse Curry's statement in which he said roughly "I never could place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand".

I think what you are presenting could be part of the reasoning for Curry to say something like that

Great work. 

Marion Baker is a suspicious character.  He left the motorcade to investigate pigeons flying off the roof of the TSBD.  He was never called to task for that. He left his duty station on his own initiative.  That's something you don't do in the military or a paramilitary organization such as the DPD.

The whole bit of the gun in the stomach of Oswald in the 2nd floor break room broken up by Roy Truly has always been a bit hard to swallow.

Alastair,

Glad you brought up Altgen's bag.  He is accredited with taking only 8 photos.  I've always wondered why such a small number of photos?  He was a professional.  He had his bag with extra cameras, lens, and plenty of film.  He went out to Dealey Plaza before noon.  Why not more photos?  Good question, I guess.

Your dead on about the ageing process.  People were still asking me for an ID when I bought a beer at 26 yrs old.