John Butler

Just as a matter of curiosity. Does anyone know what the object is on Oswald's body running from his left shoulder to under his right arm? It doesn't appear to be shirt. He comes out of the door of the Texas Theatre without it. And, just before entering the vehicle he seems to have lost his shirt and acquired some sort of restraint. Any opinions?

It doesn't mean much at all. I wall 5'11 when I went into the service and I am now 5'9 from old age. It took a long time to do that. I recall measuring height in my 30's with kids at school and was still 5'11. Old age and arthritis has taken its toll. The idea that Oswald was 5'11 at 17 years and shrunk to 5'9 at 24 years just doesn't work. You might get 5'10 out of 5'11 if someone remeasured at 5'10 and something like 3/4 of an inch and then reported it as 5/10 rather then include the partial inch. That kind of measurement could come from simply slumping. However, that's just speculation.

Thanks Chris, I probably misunderstood what you were saying. It is really hard working with these old films and film frames and trying to make sense out of what you see. I think the problem is the frames don't match and there appears to be a frame in Nix that is not in Zapruder. One of the missing frames folks talk about in different camera speeds for Zapruder.

I have watched the whole Clint/Jackie frames in Zapruder one frame at a time. I don't see the scene, No. 2 in Nix, at all in Zapruder. Scene No. 2 in Nix has Clint grasping Jackie's arm high in the air above the trunk. I didn't see that in Zapruder. I have went through the frames twice. I will do that a third time and see if anything changes. What I see is this. I don't think this is parallax viewing. Nix has different frames then Zapruder. Zapruder lacks the Nix frame showing Jackie's arm in the air clutched by Clint.

Once again Jeremy is wrong with his outrageous claims. I seem to be living in his head rent free when he is making comparisons. If Jeremy is basing his reasoning on Chris' work than his reasoning is as flawed as Chris' work. The position of Chris' dummy does not match either the Zapruder frame or the Nix frame. In 1 Chris has the dummy's arm out from under her body while Zapruder shows it is under her body. In 2 he doesn't show the arm at all. In Nix the arm is up in the air clutched by Clint Hill. I don't think Sandy is wrong at all. This demonstration by Chris does not prove anything. Jeremy's outrageous claims generally lack proof, but are not short on fantasy claims. The images don't relate to each film frame. I don't think parallax views are appropriate here as an explanation. I am more inclined towards the Zapruder frame not matching the Nix frame. They are different events happening in a short period of time. The images do not match. Sorry Chris, For the bluntness. I think you need to rework your demonstration with the correct positioning of the arms. I'll look forward to that.

Jim, This information has always been fascinating to me. The stats fit me is why, except it took 50 years to lose those 2 inches. I'll make a copy of this chart. Here again, if I am remembering correctly, I was told long ago that the height of a person was to be measured correctly because it was one of the ways to identify a body found on the battlefield. This conversation between Steve and You is very interesting. I read David and John's new work. Great stuff. As far as a "throwdown", it's a loose term generally in reference to an unidentified pistol dropped at a crime scene to throw off the investigators reading of the facts of the event. I believe Oswald's revolver was a throwdown. I think he was not supposed to walk out of the Texas Theater. A wallet fits a loose definition of "throwdown". I am sure I remembered the wallet on the ground. Thanks for refreshing that memory.

Jonathan, I see nothing in your "here" that refutes what I have said. I have talked about all of that on more than 1 occasion. One would have to suspend credibility and deny reality to believe what you see there. Since you see things in your own manner, I see no reason to communicate further.

Sandy, What you see as tan raincoat is the woman's purse. Look at the frames below. The tan part only covers a small area. Where are her tan raincoat sleeves? You won't be able to find those simply due to the fact she wasn't wearing a tan raincoat. 1. The Lady in Blue does not have a babushka or head scarf. Instead she has blond hair (which might be a wig) and a black head band. 2. She has on a short sleeve dress and not a tan raincoat which has long sleeves. Tell me where you see long sleeves in the photos below. 3. She has on a white belt that completely circles her waist and is not covered by a tan raincoat. It is not a mystery. The Lady in Blue is not the Babushka Woman. She is someone else that I suspect was a Jack Ruby associate. Betty Oliver or Tammy True, AKA Nancy Myers. Myers was an older woman who not only stripped for Jack Ruby at the Carousel, but may have run a safe house for whoever Ruby wanted to protect. Tammi seems to like dark clothing and head bands. I seem to be on to something here. Someone edited a photo of Tammi True and edited out her iconic black head band. The Babushka Lady, in this Nix frame, arriving in Dealey Plaza after the assassination. She is about in the same spot as the Cancellare photo shows her.

Ray, To me it is a matter of perspective in viewing the vehicle. Todd Wayne Vaughan in his motorcade work describes the vehicle as a Ford Mercury 4-door sedan Model 54A Monterey with Breezeway design. The Mercury Maruader has a design as you suggest. The rear pillar does slope towards the front. The vehicle in Dealey Plaza was a Monterey rather than a Marauder. That doesn't matter there are other photos to show that the Johnson ss vehicle was a Mercury Monterey Breeze design. The front pillar or post is slender and not wide in both models. But, it is a two door vehicle in the Marauder model. Even if you are correct in your assumption about the rear pillar of the top of the Merc Monterey then it still does not matter. (Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying you are correct.) Look at the front pillar or post of the top. It is very, very slender and not wide at all. The Zaprudrer film shows the vehicle with a wide front pillar for the roof. That is not a characteristic of the Mercury Monterey or Marauder. The red arrow indicates a slender from pillar for the roof and not a wide one as shown in the Zapruder film. That is what you see in Chris Davidson's gif. The only thing I can make of that, and it won't change, is that something occurred with the Johnson ss vehicle that the editors of the film did not want shown. The film editors altered the film. I speculated that the Johnson ss vehicle was held at the intersection for a brief period and then released. Meaning it did not make the turn with the rest of the motorcade at the intersection. This would not have put the Mayor's Car in the intersection and that would disrupt the testimonies they made. As I said this is speculation and in reality something different may have occurred. That's all I have to say on this Ray. I don't need a series of endless questions because I didn't answer your question. I did answer it here, and this is all I have to say from this point forward.

This looks like the 3 Camera Cars at 1 to somewhat over a minute after the assassination. It does not relate to what I said earlier. By the time of the events of this scene people had time to move over to the railroad bridge over Elm Street. I believe this is a Dilliard photo from Camera Car #2 and after the assassination. There is at least 5 photos showing no one on the bridge. Compare the difference: A crop of the same scene:

Same to you. It seems there are lots of folks who know nothing posting.

Ray, That is a case of seeing what you want to see.

I don't think so. There will be the same material and more to come. I'll make sure you have a chance to review it in your usual manner.

It is obvious you know nothing of film editing as practiced in the 1960s. Check out David Healey's written work on film editing.

From your illustrations that would appear to be so. But, not. It is simply a matter of perspective. You are showing the vehicles from two different perspectives. And, even if they were two different vehicles (not so) then that still would not explain why the Monterey Mercury is heading north while its top is heading south. As far as Pat seeing men above Elm Street, those are just light and dark places not resembling men. Officer Foster and the railroad men were standing to the right of the bridge or north of the bridge one could say. Just ask Jeremy. Z 160 is a better frame for comparison on perspective. That's why I used Z 160. It is a matter of perspective.

Jeremy doesn't accept simple sight things as proof. Don't know why, but he is continually saying I need to provide proof when I have. The Lady in Blue is in Zapruder and in the Willis 7 slide. She was a real person who has been edited out of most films and photos during and after the assassination. I think this is because of the association with Jack Ruby. I hold Jack Ruby to be a conspirator and speculate that he wanted to have his own film of the event. I further speculate that he sent Betty Oliver or Tammi True to do that filming. My candidate for the Lady in Blue is Tammi True, Jack Ruby's No. 1 stripper. Her real name is Nancy Myers. She was involved in other Jack Ruby situations such as the Cuban exiles. She may have run a safe house for intelligence operations.

Butlerian? Indicating a theory? No, just the facts of what is seen. What you see confirms what about 4 other photos and film frames also indicate. There is no one on the bridge and the folks who are supposed to be there, Officer Foster and the railroad men, are off to the north side and not on the bridge as shown in Altgens 7. There are several photo/frames that show as the p. limo moves toward the underpass to see the same thing as Couch. Bell is unusual as it does both. If you look down by the underpass I believe you can see the p. limo going under the underpass. It's blurry there and may be another vehicle before the National Press Pool Car and the Johnson ss vehicle.

Illusions, copying errors, and misunderstood proof. Those are poor excuses for what is shown. As far as the Johnson ss vehicle check with Todd Wayne Vaughn in his Presidential Motorcade Schematic Listing version 9.00, November 22, 1963

A problem with Mary and Jean’s first statements Another problem with Mary and Jeans first statements at the Sheriff’s Office on Nov. 22, 1963 involves the shooting of President Kennedy. They described the shooting in a way that is different from other witnesses and as portrayed in film. Mary said that when she snapped her picture of the President, later known as the Moorman Polaroid, she heard a shot. In all, she heard 3 or 4 shots. The problem is that the first shot she heard had to have been the shot to President Kennedy’s head. Her shot is either paired with Zapruder frame 312 just a small part of a second before the headshot or with frame 313 and the head shot. That leaves 2 or 3 shots to come after the headshot. This is not the way the majority of witnesses and films show how President Kennedy was shot. This witness statement by Mary does not seem to invalidate the Moorman Polaroid, or call it into question. Mary’s statement is either held to be inaccurate, or of no importance. As far as I known nothing is said by others about Jean Hill saying the same thing. She said in her first statement at the Sheriff’s Office on Nov. 22, 1963 basically the same thing that Mary said about the first shot. Jean Hill says something somewhat different than Mary the wound caused by the first shot. Mary’s first shot has to be the head shot as it is portrayed by witness statement and Dealey Plaza media. Jean said that when the p. limo was close and as Mary was taking the photo a shot rang out and the President grabbed his chest and fell across Jackie’s lap. Mary also said when the shot rang out the President slumped over, but not into Jackie’s lap. Jean says he grabbed his chest as the first shot was fired. This would not have been the head shot due to the horrendous wound inflicted upon the President head. He may not have stopped breathing as they say at Parkland, but he was essentially dead from that wound. The shooting of President Kennedy is portrayed by witness and film as the first shot strikes President Kennedy in the back and exits his throat. Some say the first shot missed entirely and the back/throat shot was the second shot. We can see the throat shot in Altgens 6 and the Zapruder film. Neither show the President grabbing his chest or slumping over or falling into Jackie’s lap. Perhaps Jean Hill saw this movement of his arms as seen in Altgens and Zapruder as grabbing his chest. Altogether Jean said there were 4 to 6 shots. That means 4 to 5 shots occurred after the first shot. This also is not the way that the shooting of President Kennedy is portrayed by witness and film and the conclusion of the Warren Commission. So, why is their testimony different from other witnesses? Many people conclude from this testimony that the Moorman Polaroid #5 has been tampered with. These are the conclusions of John Constella in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax on page 274, the 2003 edition. He says in his 2nd and 3rd conclusions that there is no way to tell where Mary and Jean were at in Dealey Plaza. They could have been further up the street. The 3rd conclusion is that the first photo, which may have been two photos, may have contained more explosive imagery than the head shot photo. And, these 1 or 2 photos were not taken after #5, the near head shot or head shot photo. The first photo taken may have contained more explosive imagery. This is the Glen McBride Polaroid. It has been tampered with by enlarging the trees near the TSBD to cover the upper floor windows. And, it may have shown the next consideration. If Mary and Jean were truly across the street from the TSBD on the SW corner of Houston and Elm as indicated by Hill Exhibit No. 5, that photo could very well have shown Harvey Oswald, the Prayer Man under the trees by the TSBD. The John Martin film shows Prayer Man under the trees taking pictures as the motorcade pass that spot. There is even a camera flash to indicate picture taking. That spot would be exactly across the street from Mary and Jean as indicated by Hill Exhibit No. 5. And, across the street according to Elsie Dorman: The two women indicated by the red arrow are in the Zapruder film. But, not where they are standing in Elsie Dorman. This frame is no more than 1 or 2 seconds from the p. limo showing up here. None of the other people, including Pierce Allman and Terry Ford appear in Zapruder. In Zapruder Z 063 we see 4 women of interest. The two pictured above plus two others that are not seen in Elsie Doorman. The two women we don’t see in Elsie Dorman, but do see in Zapruder are in the place of the two women orginally shown in the first Dorman frame. The two women there must have moved further east and the other two women are shown in Zapruder and not Dorman, all in a second or so. The two women in black are standing there at the same time Elsie Dorman was filming, but they are not in her film nor are the other folks filmed by Dorman are in the Zapruder film. I don’t believe John Costella knew about Hill Exhibit No. 5. It may have changed his conclusions. I don’t think he knew about the importance of the Elsie Dorman film in showing who was on the SW corner of Houston and Elm in comparison to the Zapruder film as the p. limo passed through that area. I don’t think he knew about the John Martin film and who it showed under the trees taking pictures in front of the TSBD as the p. limo passed by. I don’t believe he knew about approximately 90 witnesses who said they heard shooting when the p. limo passed the TSBD. To me all of this calls into question the validity of the Zapruder film and Mary Moorman’s Polaroids as reliable assassination information.

Pat, Here's another thing we can agree on. I watched a tape of an interview of Gerry Hemming. He struck me as a pure BS artist, the military kind.

Jonathan, I have no idea. It is clearly what happened. If what I showed is denied then I have nothing else to say to that person. I speculated sometime recently that it is possible that the Johnson ss vehicle was stopped in the intersection in front of the Mayor's Car. Maybe, just for a few seconds. This would throw off the location of the Mayor's Car in the intersection and the statements of the witnesses which were positive for the Official Story. This I believe a Couch frame or photo. What we see in the foreground is the National Press Pool Car. Ahead in the distance is the Johnson ss vehicle. What should be inbetween is the Mayor's Car. I don't see it. Hence the speculation. But, even that doesn't make sense. If the Mayor's Car was released before the Johnson ss vehicle since it seems to be absent in the photo, then that doesn't make sense. But, the Mayor's Car not being between the two vehicles doesn't make sense either. There is many, many things in Dealey Plaza that doesn't make sense. In this photo where are Officer Foster and the 10 or so railroad men?

Pat, Here's another thing we can agree on. I watched a tape of an interview of Gerry Hemming. He struck me as a pure BS artist, the military kind.

Jamey, Yep. I didn't really want to challenge Jean's creditability on the little dog/ toy dog/ flowers aspect. What she first said and later said is one of the things I thought was suspicious. The second thing is their account of the shooting of the president. I'll have more to say on that in another post. Jean has been challenged on a number of things. Her testimony and Mary's is not shown in the Zapruder film or any other. About Jean calling out to the president and waving and Mary being in the street is not shown in Zapruder or any other film. Hill Exhibit No. 5 has importance. Or, at least Arlen Specter thought so when he classified it Top Secret. This clearly gives Jean and Mary's location in another area, the SW corner of Elm and Houston. I am of two minds about this. One mind agrees with you and the other doesn't due to the reasons above. I guess I will always be on the fence on this or until convincing evidence comes out.

Ray, True, the vehicle is traveling north on Houston Street. That's not the problem. The top of the vehicle is orientated in the wrong direction. The top is going south while the lower body is going north. Here is the correct orientation of top to bottom of the Johnson ss vehicle. Frame Z 145 show the correct orientation. And, then the wrong orientation in Z 158.

Thanks Ray, I was sure you had something in mind other than a chaser of whiskey after a beer. Those things are in the past Ray. I don't hold grudges. Let's let those things lie in the past and start a new, more civil beginning.