John Butler

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yikes, Jean Hill said they were across from the TSBD. OMG! That means the Moorman photo is a fake!

Only, not...

Like it or not, it is a fact.  Classified as Top Secret and hidden until the ARRB.  These 3 facts are meaningful.  Believe it or not!

Recall that Mary said when she took that "Grassy Knoll" Polaroid she heard the first shot and then 3 or 4 later.  Definitely not the official story.  She never changed that.  That account matches what the witnesses who said shooting occurred in front of the TSBD.

43 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Giant railroad man possibly sitting/crouching on right hand side pillars? Overlooking Dealey to the left

The giant railroad man is behind someone and not near the rail.  I won't swear to it, but I think one can actually see his feet up in the air behind that fellow near the rail.  Another curious thing about that Altgens shot is you can see to the other side of the bridge.  I believe that is impossible from the position Altgens was at when he took that photo on Elm that close to the bridge.  The bridge is some 115+ feet wide.  Elm runs downhill, and not uphill.  There are 7 tracks on the bridge.

This is what it looked like back in the day.  It is impossible to see to the other side from Altgens position.  There was no other rail to the rear in those days.  That is a modern addition.

Here's another view of the bridge.  It is roughly the distance from the bridge as Altgens, but on North Elm.  I think you can go back to the intersection in front of the TSBD and you still cannot see the railing on the west side of the bridge.

It is not possible to see to the other side of the bridge from Altgens position.  From Bell's position yes.  But, I have my doubts due the partitions of the monument that Bell filmed through or didn't.  I don't see how those partitions are not in the frames.  Someone have a good explanation?

You can't even see the fence that was present in 2015.

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Better quality equals more detail.

Sharpening added.

Chris,

I believe that is a few frames later.  Bell has both kinds of scenes.  I think I have made mention of this several times.

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

f he still thinks the photo is a fake, will he tell us exactly what's wrong with it, and explain how any alterations could have been made in the very limited time available?

WC Exhibit Hill No. 5:

and,

and,

TSBD is the background for her Grassy Knoll Polaroid.  Which by the way isn't the Grassy Knoll, but should the TSBD.  I don't know when this was changed, but according to Jean Hill's testimony it was.  The interview with Arlen Specter was a hostile one.  Jean fought to get this information in her testimony.

It is a shame she later changed her testimony and that testimony in later years said much the same as Mary Morman.  If I remember correctly, Mary Moorman never changed her testimony.  She was always down by the Grassy Knoll.

There is a film out there somewhere in which Mary is very nervous describing where she was at.    It may be the same film where she said she wasn't wearing white slacks that day.  I keep mentioning this in hopes of jogging someone else's memory and iding that film.

Bond Photo 6:

Bell Film:

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler wrote:

Pat Speer replied:

Actually Jeremy:

John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in:

That's how to win an argument!

• Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake.
• Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake.

Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose!

The problem with using this technique is that, sooner or later, you'll run out of legitimate evidence, and everything will be a fake. Unfortunately, John has reached that point. He wrote earlier:

By the way, if any casual visitors have stumbled across this thread, you may be getting the wrong impression. I'm sure that only a small minority of Warren Commission critics believe that a significant amount, let alone all, of the evidence has been faked.

(Apologies to any poker aficionados if my 'losing hand' and 'all-in' analogy is inaccurate.)

Patsy Paschal:

There are several more photos showing no one on the bridge.  Should I go on?

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler wrote:

Pat Speer replied:

John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in:

That's how to win an argument!

• Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake.
• Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake.

Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose!

The problem with using this technique is that, sooner or later, you'll run out of legitimate evidence, and everything will be a fake. Unfortunately, John has reached that point. He wrote earlier:

By the way, if any casual visitors have stumbled across this thread, you may be getting the wrong impression. I'm sure that only a small minority of Warren Commission critics believe that a significant amount, let alone all, of the evidence has been faked.

(Apologies to any poker aficionados if my 'losing hand' and 'all-in' analogy is inaccurate.)

From the Robert Hughes film:

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in:

Quote

Foster committed perjury.  He said what they wanted him to say.

That's how to win an argument!

• Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake.
• Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake.

Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose!

Jeremy,

Don't ascribe your techniques to me.  

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in:

Quote

Foster committed perjury.  He said what they wanted him to say.

That's how to win an argument!

• Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake.
• Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake.

Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose!

Foster said,

"Mr. BALL. I have a map that I will---just a moment. I will get it.
Mr. FOSTER. All right. (Off the record.)
Mr. BALL. Tell me where you were standing on the triple overpass about the time that the President's motorcade came into sight?
Mr. FOSTER. I was standing approximately along the---I believe the south curb of Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. Were you on the overpass?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir; at the east--be the east side of the overpass.
Mr. BALL. On the east side of the overpass?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir."

and,

"Mr. BALL. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)

and, the record had to be corrected and improved:

"Mr. BALL. Now, where were you standing?
Mr. FOSTER. Standing along the east curb of---east side of the overpass over Elm Street there. About the south curb.
Mr. BALL. Over, above the south curb of Elm?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL Will you put a mark on there? Mark an "X" where you were standing and write your initials right next to that "X".
J.---what are the initials?
Mr. FOSTER. J. W.
Mr. BALL. J. W. F. That marks where you were standing.
Mr. FOSTER. Approximately; yes, sir."

His testimony had to match Altgens 7. 

If you look close every person on the bridge is surrounded with a halo of light.  I believe this is an indication of cutting and pasting.

A closer look:

I can hear it now.  That's just light reflection.  

Who is the giant railroad man standing on the left-hand side behind a person.  Giant?  Standing on a box?  Wrongly placed in the film by the alterers?

And,

Where is Officer Foster?  Is he the last man going north on the bridge?  His Dallas Police white had doesn't show up very well.  But, that is where he said he was.   

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Gary Macks explanation has too many large holes in it. I believe by the time he told the story the others were dead and could not verify Mack's account.

Chris,

It is just one more story in Dealey Plaza that has holes and is false.  There are way too many people making up things, like false stories, to justify Lone Nutism and stir controversy into the understanding of Dealey Plaza.

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If you read the historical record, John, you'll see that the railroad men made numerous references to their being on the bridge and watching the motorcade pass beneath them. William Greer has even said that's why he hesitated in the plaza. He saw these men up on the bridge and was afraid he was driving into an ambush. 

Your claim Foster wouldn't have allowed them to be up there was 100% wrong. Here are Foster's words:

Mr. BALL - Now, you had instructions to keep all unauthorized personnel off of that overpass? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL - Did you do that? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL - Did you permit some people to be there? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL - Who? 
Mr. FOSTER - People that were working for the railroad there. 
Mr. BALL - Were there many people? 
Mr. FOSTER - About 10 or 11. 
Mr. BALL - Where were they standing? 
Mr. FOSTER - They were standing along the east banister. 
Mr. BALL - The east banister? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir; in front of me. 
Mr. BALL - In front of you. Will you mark there and show the general area where they were standing? 
Mr. FOSTER - They were standing along this area here [indicating]. 
Mr. BALL - You have marked a series of X's to show where about 10 people were standing? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. 

So, yes, there were people on the railroad bridge. And no, they didn't lie when they subsequently claimed they were up on the bridge as opposed to the side of the bridge or wherever you choose to believe they were "really" standing. 

I have read all the testimony of these witnesses.  I have watched the Mark Lane interviews.  Foster committed perjury.  He said what they wanted him to say.  He later said different things.  Officer White on the other hand spoke truly.  Why be considered crazy with a Ghost Train on the bridge that kept him from seeing or hearing anything during the assassination while nobody else believed a train was there?  And, then there is the 3rd officer, Officer Brown out on the Stemmons bridge.  

I know the railroad men said they were on the bridge.  Oher evidence contradicts that.  I first notice this in the badly edited Patsy Paschal film.  Someone or an editing team didn't get the word.  They didn't put the railroad men on the bridge.  Officer Foster's white cap is visible just off the bridge to the north.  In part I believe the railroad men were agents of the company they worked that were sent out to say things that would keep their company out of the investigation occurring in Dealey Plaza.  No train.  Railroad men on the bridge.  Officer Foster verification.  Shooting from the Grassy Knoll.  I believe this was prepared to keep the railroad company (I'll have to go back and look up the name) out of the investigation and any thought of a train being on the railroad tracks during the assassination.  The railroad bridge is the absolute best place to shoot for the assassination in Dealey Plaza on Elm Street.

5 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Yes, true. But your ‘honest interpretation of a single event’ may be different to mine. One event may have multiple explanations. You, me- everyone - then has to weigh up the options and decide which one you like. I happen to believe the film stayed with Zap and NARA supplied a chain that could not be disputed. Or it would have been.

No problems Sean,

A person believes what they believe.  Intelligent people will find a counter argument whether it is valid or not.  Speaking of beliefs, I have doubts about the NPIC/Hawkeye Works story.  But, those doubts have nothing to do with the so-called chain of evidence on the handling of the film.

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Add the railroad men to John Butler's ever-growing list of witnesses who suggested conspiracy

The list contains more than 105+ witnesses.  I just can't remember from time to time whether that number is 108 or 114 since I took some off the list due to their statements being more arguable than what I am comfortable with. 

31 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Add the railroad men to John Butler's ever-growing list of witnesses who suggested conspiracy, but were nevertheless part of a plot to conceal the alteration of the photo evidence. Priceless.

That's not what was being said.  The 10 or so railroad men could see the same events if they were stationed above Elm Street, or just off the bridge to the north.  There is more than 5+ photo sources that show there is no one on the bridge just before the shooting.  They don't show a train.  There are witnesses saying a train was there during the shooting.  Officer Foster would not have allowed those men on the bridge due to mishaps occurring.  3 of Dallas' finest said a train was there.  One didn't at first, but later admitted a train was there.  

Altgens 7 shows them on the bridge, Bell shows them off the bridge and just a few frames later on the bridge, and there are others which I am not recalling at the moment.

What the railroad men did testify to was in nature a conspiracy with shooting from the Grassy Knoll.  That is priceless.

I don't understand the bit about railroad men concealing alteration of photo evidence.  What they talked about to Mark Lane was seeing smoke rising above the Grassy Knoll suggesting a rifle being fired.  Rifles use smokeless powder.  I sure what they were seeing was steam from the heat of the round.  It was a humid day.  It had just rained prior to the assassination.  I have read their testimony and some said something different from the official story and are included in the list of 105+ witnesses I collected saying something different than the official story about where shooting occurred.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm sure Chris can appreciate that an outsider, someone with a casual interest in the JFK assassination, who stumbles across this forum hoping to find out more about the subject, might get the wrong impression if all the nonsensical stuff goes unchallenged.

Sandy didn't say this.  Jeremy B. did.

Jeremy has a disturbing habit of expressing his opinion as if it is the opinion of others.  Someone with a casual interest would not know enough about the assassination to judge whether something is nonsensical or not.  Of course, everything that Jeremy disagrees with is "nonsensical stuff".  And, of course his opinion and the folks that agree with him are the ones that count as true and nonsensical.

On 2/19/2022 at 12:09 PM, Sean Coleman said:

Of course NARA could be tellers of untruths as could Mr.Zap…..but you gotta believe something sometimes 

Why?  The truth doesn't depend on quantity or randomness.  The truth depends on an honest interpretation of a single event.  And, there could be a long series of true events.

On 2/19/2022 at 12:13 PM, Pat Speer said:

John, your idea that there was plenty of time to work on the Z-film is just wrong. Frames from the film were published in the 11-29-63 issue of Life, which was on the streets days before and almost certainly sent to press on the 25th or so. These frames are identical to the frames seen today. It appears you're also claiming the Moorman photo is a fake. Well, the photo was shown on television around 2 1/2 hours after the shooting, and Moorman tried to auction the photo off a few years back. Are you claiming she's a fraud and a huckster?

There was plenty of time to alter these frames.  This is all the public was allowed to see.  Add Moorman's Polaroid and the Altgens photos and you have the official story.  Somewhere near 100 witnesses said these scenes happened in front of the TSBD.  The action was over by the time we see the first frame, Z 133 above.  The work was done at the Hawkeye Works and at the NPIC.  These are in the "original" film since they were altered to be in that film.  The rest came later.   

The rest of the film took more time.  There was plenty of time to do that later after all of the witnesses' testimony was gathered and all other films were in the possession of the government.  This is what John Costella meant by his thinking that the film was built from the ground up. 

Stage sets in Zapruder:

1.  Mannikin Row- this group of 19 people between the Stemmons Sign and the lamppost near the TSBD does very little moving.  And, that is suspicious.  Many have remarked on this.

2.  The crosswalk at the intersection of Houston and Elm on East Houston.  This group of people in Zapruder does not match the ones shown in Altgens 5.  It is a stage set.  Jack White first noticed this.

3.  The SW corner of Houston and Elm.  The number of people on this corner in Zapruder does not match the number of people seen in Elsie Dorman during the same time period.  There are people in Elsie Dorman who do not show up in the Zapruder film.  I would like to say the same for Zapruder people not in Dorman, but I am not certain at this point.  The different number of people first noticed by yours truly.

No. 1 is somewhat arguable.  Nos. 2 and 3 are not.  Since, the critics here do not pay attention to facts or clearly seen images then they can say whatever they want. 

I think Mr. Healey would probably call those groups traveling mattes.

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

OK. I took a look at it, and, sad to say, Linda was talking out of her butt. Both she and her interviewer seem confused. Her father took photographs, which were developed as slides. He did not make a film from which frames could be removed. Now, to her credit, she doesn't say anything was removed. But says instead that some train was blotted out from her father's film. Only Willis 5--her father's most famous slide--barely even shows the railroad bridge. Now, she was probably thinking of Willis 6, taken maybe a minute after the shooting, that does show the railroad bridge.

Now, in some ways, this is kinda funny. If you were interviewed by someone 28 years after an event, how much detail would you remember about your father's home movies--or slides--of this event? But because she likes attention, and is not afraid to go against the official story, she suggests that a sinister SS somehow removed a train from her father's "film". Which makes absolutely no sense, when you think of it... A train's being on the railroad bridge was not problematic to the official story, but people being on the railroad bridge were. And they were shown in a number of the photos and films, including her father's slide. So, no, no mass cover-up of a train occurred. 

There's also this. Linda makes out that her father's slides were scooped up by the SS. But her father told Trask he kept the slides after they were developed and took them over to show the Dallas Morning News. He then loaned them to the SS on the Monday after the assassination. It follows that they wouldn't have reached Washington until the 26th at the earliest. Well, a  Z-film frame showing Willis exactly where he needed to be was published in the 11-29 Life Magazine, which was already completed and possibly even on the streets. The idea that some evil guv'ment agency to which both the FBI and SS were providing photos faked the Z-film to add in witnesses such as Willis and Croft just doesn't fly.

Now, if someone wants to suggest a few individual frames were altered, that's a different story. But the wholesale creation of a film from scratch that somehow magically places witnesses just where they would subsequently claim they were is just ludicrous, IMO.

I'm not certain Pat watched this short film, or he simply didn't understand what Linda was saying.  Particularly, about the train behind the Pergola in the railroad yards.  Maybe he confused me with her.  I am a proponent of a train being on the Triple Underpass during the assassination based on witness statements.  I call it the "Ghost Train" since there is no evidence of it except witness statements.  There is sufficient evidence to show the railroad men were not on the Triple Underpass above Elm.  They were nearby with Officer Foster just off the bridge.   

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I asked John Butler if he was aware that the act of copying a physical film will generate visual anomalies such as the ones he is fond of citing as evidence of alteration. He replied:

Quote

NO!  I don't grasp those points.  I think they are ludicrous

Oh dear! I'm sure that John, like everyone else, does actually accept this obvious and uncontroversial fact. Unlike everyone else, he just doesn't want to admit it.

Jeremy,

I continue to say no.  There are two sources for the imagery I use.  Groden's films and John Costella.  The "obvious and uncontroversial fact" is something you should confront with honesty and unclouded eyes from preconceptions and suppositions that only reside in your head.

You are like a dog with a bone, gnawing on something that doesn't have much meat on it.  

11 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

After watching the Willis interview I find she talks about her dad's "film" and a missing "frame" but she also calls her dads photos  "slides" and refers to her dad's "picture". I don't see any reason to think she is calling his photos a motion picture film.
 Her comments about the missing train is specifically about the view of the train behind the "cement arcade" that you could see through the arcade windows. She was not referring to the overpass. Some of the Bond photos do show the train in the train yard behind the arcade. They also shows the train ends before it would appear between the pergola and knoll fence. That and the Hughes film of the Pullman cars in the train yard tell us right where they sat.  The cars would not be visible in Willis 5 unless they had a view of the right side(Eastern 1/3) of the arcade(Colonnade). The Willis family likely saw the trains through the arcade when they walked farther west for Willis 6 and mistakenly assumed they should be visible in Willis 5.

Chris,

Once again.  Well said.  The Willis family were speed demons.  They moved around quickly.  After viewing the assassination on Elm they can be seen in the Hughes Film near Main Street.  They got there quickly also??  

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If you think Croft and Willis made miraculous runs, you should think about Altgens and Bothun. Here were two beefy middle-aged men, both photographing the limo as it turned onto Houston. And yet, there they were up ahead of the limo as it drove down Elm. 

Richard Bothun.  I don't know what he really looked like.  But, in Zapruder he is a carbon copy of Ike Altgens.  Bothun was a railroad worker.  Guess who he gave his film too?  Altgens' Daily Morning News, if my memory hasn't failed me.

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm assuming you've never been to the Plaza. If you had, you'd realize that the northwest corner of Houston and Main is just a short jog from the middle of Elm. 

I've been there.  Last time 2015.  Houston Street is roughly 200 feet.  I don't remember the exact dimensions.  Croft ran from the south side of the intersection of Main and Houston to the SW Corner of Elm.  That is if he did it?  Maybe something like 250 feet.  Zapruder shows he is there waiting for the p limo to come by.  Elsie says he wasn't there.  He does look painted in.  He is standing close to where Allman and Ford should be. 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Undoubtedly, the most notable thing in the Linda Willis film is that she is soooooo good looking.  😋

 

ha, ha, very charming.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There was no "Pierce and Terry's film." And the girl with the gold dress in the frame at far left is Linda Willis.

True.  There is no Pierce and Terry film.  But, Elsie Dorman shows they had cameras and were taking photos.  Maybe they just liked to carry cameras around.  What happened to there film?  I have always suspected that Robert Croft was not on the SW corner.  Do you know where he was at in the intersection of Main and Houston?  He was on the south side of the intersection on Houston Street.  To beat the p limo to the SW corner of Houston and Elm he would have to have made a similar miraculous run such as the one Phil Willis made.  He had a longer distance to travel.

In Zapruder Croft looks like he was painted into the film.  His much credited photo may be either from Allman or Ford.  He is not in the Elsie Dorman film.  OBTW, Phil is either.  Are they really in the Zapruder film?  There is no more than about a second or two difference in the films.  The p limo is just about to turn the corner into the intersection.

As far as Linda identifying herself as the dark haired girl in the gold skirt, you yourself said she was "talking out of her butt".  If she can't be trusted with what she said, then why believe her in this instance?  That's been gone over before and the consensus was she is not Linda.

I wonder who is making up things now? 

On 2/19/2022 at 12:47 PM, Pat Speer said:

Once again, John, you're just making stuff up. There is NO testimony from Phil Willis on the day of the assassination. He took his photos home, and did not give them to the FBI. No one from the Willis family was interviewed until June of the next year.

Linda says differently.  Check out John Deignan at the top of the page.  The above piece is skillful piece of nonsense designed to charge someone with a malicious accusation.  The above was designed to ruin a fellow's honesty and place doubt on what he said.