John Butler

Courtesy of Chris Davidson. Prayer Man. Oswald in a with t-shirt is an argument for two Oswalds at the TSBD and strengthens the Roger Craig story of Lee Oswald as (Craig identified as the man at the DPD) the man seen by Craig entering a Rambler. Prayer Man (Harvey) was on Elm and later the door of the TSBD in a reddish shirt.

The man in the red shirt from the John Martin film. Prayer Man.

Thanks. I didn't bring up two Oswalds in this thread. Others did. After making one more comment I too will not post further for the One Oswald crowd. The right hand photo is from Robert Oswald's book, A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother. The date on this photo is Feb., 1958. This was taken at a hunting event at Robert's in laws in Texas on their farm. At the time the original Lee Harvey Oswald was stationed in Japan at the Atsuki military base. In November 20, 1957, Lee Harvey Oswald's unit is sent to the Philippine Islands. On March 7, 1958, Oswald's unit sails for Atsugi, Japan. He was on maneuvers in the South China Sea at this time in February. There are no government records indicating he took a leave and returned to the US during this time. If Lee Harvey Oswald was on maneuvers in the South China Sea in Feb., 1958 then who is that in the photo? It is Harvey, the double. Harvey was in New Orleans for a period of time and not in the service. I think he was AWOL living at 210 Dauphine - SENATOR HOTEL. Robert's "mistake" on the date was eventually realized and the date was changed to Sep., 1959. Notice Harvey's receding hairline. Later he uses a comb over to hide it. This is what the original Lee Harvey Oswald looked like in 1958. Lee has more hair and less of a receding hairline on each side of his head.

Looks like I goofed on those dates. This should take care of that. The left hand photo has Marina's daughter in it. The middle photo is probably around 1961. There is no mistake on the right hand photo even though Robert Oswald changed the date from Feb., 1958 to Sept., 1969 1959. I could have written JC's response and saved him some time. The one with boobs must be Marina. Yes, Marina was something else in those days. Take the Oswald represented in the center photo and answer this question. If you saw that version of Oswald and was asked later (days or months) would you say he most resembles the left hand photo or the right hand photo? No JC, you can't answer since you are blinded by your convictions as a One Oswalder. I would answer without studying this and as would most people if asked the question cold, it would be the left hand photo. The right hand photo looks to much like Lennie from the Of Mice and Men book. But, according to self proclaimed authorities this is one person, Lee Harvey Oswald and no one else. I see this differently. The left hand photo and the right hand photo are the same. This is Harvey Oswald, of unknown name. The center photo is Lee Oswald. I can make a case for this based on standards I developed from studying photos of what everyone thinks is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. There is solid evidence I can use that the left hand photo and the right hand photo are not Lee Harvey Oswald, but his double. By deduction, the center photo must be Lee Oswald even though this photo was taken in Russia about 1961. There is no doubt the left hand photo is of Harvey Oswald the man shot at the Dallas Police Station.

For you One Oswalders, here is a photo quiz. Which of these photo(s) shows the original Lee Harvey Oswald and which photo(s) is the doppelganger, Harvey Oswald. I have given you hints on date and place.

Hmmm? Let's see. Two Oswalds at the TSBD. Two Oswalds leave by different means. One leaves by get away car and was seen by Roger Craig. One leaves by bus/taxi at testified by bus and cab driver. No. No. No. Roger Craig was not close enough to the vehicle to practically ID Oswald. No. No. No. Evidence says that the bus driver and taxi driver testified falsely and other evidence was manipulated. Two Oswalds leave by unknown means? One Oswald left by unknown means? No Oswalds leave the TSBD? So, the question becomes "How did one or possibly two Oswalds leave the TSBD?" Did Oswald leap from the 6th floor window and fly away with the pigeons that Officer Baker saw? If reasonable people can argue over this. then the cover-up specialists did their job.

I have to compliment again. That is some catch to see that. I believe it is Linda. She even looks like she has her camera. And, she would be in about the right position for the Dorman film. But, Rosemary should have completed her run to the grass unless she stopped momentarily. I believe it is less than a minute from Dorman to this Z frame.

Very interesting. I wonder who the person in the red box is? Of that group of people in Dorman standing there only the lady in the tan coat with the white collar makes into the Zapruder film. If you say the lady in the red box does, I'll look for her. In the left hand Bronson frame those folks are generally accredited to be the Willis family, the grand parents, Phil, Marilyn, Linda, and Rosemary. They can also be seen in Skaggs in about the same place. "I believe that's the Willis family in the Bronson frame, but I don't see Linda there among them if she was in a light blue blouse and a dark blue skirt." I don't see Linda either in blue. There is someone standing by the grandmother whose name I use to known. Maybe that's her. Could be Mrs. Willis and the other female is Linda. It is hard to say. There maybe color differences for Bronson there. "The girl in the red box is the one I'm referring to who is in Zapruder. It doesn't sound like it's Linda Willis". I seem to recall someone else thought that was Linda. I don't recall who, perhaps it was Chris Bristow. He'll probably read this and let us know. I remember arguing with someone that wasn't Linda because of her dark hair.

Chris D., I'm not doubting what you say. I've said on several occasions that you have a keen eye. I'm just not seeing it. Linda has on a light blue blouse and a dark blue skirt in Dorman. I can't find that in the Zapruder frame. The best I can see where she should be is a set of female legs in a dark blue skirt. I think there may be a person in a yellow shirt of jacket standing just to her front. If that's not her I don't see anything else. There's a person behind Howard Brennan and the retaining wall with a light blue shirt or blouse. But, I think that person is a male. There is definitely a lot going on there on the SW corner in the two films that just don't jive. It was easy for me to see that Linda had vanished since several others had in the two films. Maybe, too easy. I've looked through the Z 180's up to Z 195 and still don't see anything other than what I have described. Frame Z 161 has Linda back around the corner nearer to Houston Street than where the Dorman films shows her location. She is behind Howard B. on the walk near Houston. She should be there in Z 179. What's there is the female legs and dark skirt with a yellow top. That could very well be Linda or not. They are in the same place within 1/2 seconds time.

Here's a montage that might offer some explanation for Robert Croft. This montage begins with a frame from the Elsie Dorman film. I'll finish this later. She Who Must Be Obeyed has called me to task and I have answered. Now, on to the discussion of the frames in the montage. Dorman frame: In this Dorman frame we see Linda and Rosemary Willis running from Houston Street to the SW corner of Houston and Elm. If we compare this frame to others, we see that the time of the frame is perhaps about 5 seconds or less before the p. limo turns into the intersection of Houston and Elm. There is a frame montage that shows this fairly well. In this montage we can see Linda with her camera and Rosemary is blacked out. What we don’t see is Phil Willis or Robert Croft or in the Zapruder frame either. The man behind the traffic light in the Dorman frame is too short for Robert Croft. There is also another problem. Linda and Rosemary are not in the first part of the Zapruder film from Z 000 to Z 132. But, in Dorman they are on the corner when the first motorbikes make the turn and are seen in Zapruder for 132 frames. The Willis girls said they ran along side their father, Phil to get to the SW corner. This is not true according to Dorman. And, because of Phil’s extra long leg in Z 157 I suspect he may have not been there at all. So, who took his slides? Linda, perhaps. Well, what about Robert Croft? With his height, youth, and long legs he should have beaten Linda and Rosemary to the corner. Was he there on the corner? We have to assume he was since there is little evidence to the contrary. Lacking legs and appearing as if painted in certain frames is not enough evidence. Say, for purposes of discussion, was there anyone there that could of taken his slides? Is there some controversy here? Yes, there was!!! In Dorman we see two men standing about where Croft is standing in Zapruder. In Dorman, we don’t see Croft. In Zapruder, we don’t see the two men. Who are these two fellows? They are two newsman, Pierce Allman and Terry Ford. In Dorman they are taking pictures. In Zapruder they are not there. What happened to their cameras and film? Pierce Allman said the shooting (head shot, If I am remembering correctly) occurred directly in front of him. There is also something else that is very interesting. The two women in the black coat and tan coat are seen in Zapruder closer to Houston Street. Here, in Dorman they have less then 5 seconds to get there where they are seen in Zapruder. It is not a great distance, but the woman in the black coat disappears in Zapruder. That mean anything? Ah, it just another vanishing person. What am I saying? Basically, from what I see in an analysis of Dorman and Zapruder, plus what I have learned from others, the whole intersection of Houston and Elm is a stage set with characters moved in and out of the films to justify the official story. Huh? The man’s crazy. Let’s start with the intersection of Elm and Houston at the crosswalk between the Dal-Tex and the Court Records building. Jack White said years ago that the scene as show in Zapruder is fraudulent. Or conversely, the scene of the crosswalk in Altgens 5 is fraudulent. Not a single person was the same in that area in Zapruder and Altgens. Jack, I believe, favored Zapruder for the reality there. I don’t. Next, we have Mannequin Row. This is the area between the lamppost at the corner of the TSBD and the Stemmons sign. There are 19 people standing there. They are suspicious because they don’t seem to move that much, hence Mannequin Row. In other films and photos, we’ll use Bronson as an example, there are less people there by half or so. This is very suspicious indeed. Now, back to Elsie Dorman and the Willis girls. We see in the Dorman frame that Linda has beaten her sister in the run to the SW corner. She stops to take photos as Rosemary races ahead. We see this in the Dorman frames and also in Zapruder. What else do we see? Or, don’t? The Vanishing Sister: Linda vanishes in the Zapruder frames. She is there in Z 147, Z 161, but not in Z 179. They are not there in the Zapruder film before the Zapruder Gap, Z 000 to Z 132. They appear afterwards from Z 133, or maybe they made it there in the Zapruder Gap, which I think is probable. They showed up at the SW corner during the Zapruder Gap. This is indicated by the Dorman film. The problem with that is Rosemary, in Dorman, has nearly completed her run to the grass, But, in Zapruder which is later in time, she starts her run beginning at Z 133. Another problem we see here, is that the two women one in blue and the other in black are out of place according to Zapruder. In early Zapruder, before the Gap, these two women are not on the corner at all. After the Gap, they may have been moved up by Houston Street if they are there at all. To end this, it is my belief that the intersection of Houston and Elm as seen in the Zapruder film is a stage set built from the ground up. Do I have any evidence for this? Some. John Costella thought so. First off people vanish from one film to the other. People seen in films and photos are not the same in a particular area. Jack White indicated the crowd at the crosswalk between the Dal-Tex and the Court Records building is not the same, not a single person is the same in Zapruder and Altgens 5. The group of people between the lamppost and the Stemmons sign is very suspicious. There are 19 people there and in Bronson the film shows about half that number there. And, I have indicated various people seen in one film and not the other. The count of people on the SW corner varies in one film from the other at the same time.

Here's a montage that might offer some explanation for Robert Croft. This montage begins with a frame from the Elsie Dorman film. I'll finnish this later. Something seems to be interfering with my posts. I lost more than half of this post. I'll re-post below.

David, Very accurate. You and Chris D. are being paid attention to in this series of comments. Chris D. brought back this post with new info. Since that time the views have changed from 17.2k to 20.4k in a short period of time. I hope I have contributed. I think I have since what is being said has stung a fellow or so of the opposite view. JC seems to a regular critic of mine. That pleases me. I know what I have said has some merit. As far as Robert Croft's vanishing legs, I don't have an answer for Chris D. I have noticed in some Z frames that Robert Croft appears to be painted in, but so do other characters on the Southwest Corner of Elm and Houston. IMO, there is definitely editing going on there.

There are more problems with Robert Croft. I really don't know much about him, but from what I have read there should be more of his photos available. "It was the most gruesome, horrible thing I have ever seen in my life,” he told the Powell Tribune in 1963. "I don’t know if I will ever get over it.” Croft took 22 images. He has rarely discussed that moment with anyone, including family.” Where are the other 20 photos? Are they available? In particular where is the one where Kennedy is shot? “Croft told the Powell Tribune for a story published Nov. 26, 1963, that he was 30 feet from JFK’s limousine when the shots rang out at around 12:30 p.m. Central Time. During an interview Croft did on April 20, 1988, 25 years after the assassination, with JFK researcher Richard Trask for Trask’s book “Pictures of the Pain,” Croft offered more details on what he witnessed in Dallas. He said he was winding his camera to get as many photos as possible. He took three, and was trying to snap a fourth when he heard a shot ring out in the concrete canyon of Dealey Plaza. Croft told Trask the photo was “taken simultaneously with the shot which killed the President,” according to the book.” And, where was Kennedy shot? Croft says 30 feet from him. He was standing near the end of the concrete near the grass on the Southwest corner of Houston and Elm. In saying 30 feet did he mean east or west of his position? If 30 feet east of his position then that is further back towards the intersection more than half way past the TSBD. If 30 feet west then that puts that event about where we see the p. limo in Betzner and Willis. Where can a fellow see more of the Croft photos? Lost or destroyed? Hmmmm? Imagine This: "Online and printed reports, based on an FBI file, state that Croft took 22 images on his roll of 36-exposure Kodachrome-X film before it was processed. Three were of the Kennedy motorcade. One was of the motorcycles in the advance guard; the other two showed the presidential limousine. The more famous of the photos, frame 18 on the roll, shows first lady Jacqueline Kennedy looking right at Croft. He was standing on the south curb of Elm Street on the driver’s side of the limo, facing the Texas School Book Depository. President John F. Kennedy is next to his wife and is shown in profile. Texas Gov. John Connally and his wife Nellie are in the middle of the 1961 Lincoln Continental convertible in the jump seats. The driver is Secret Service Agent William Greer, with Secret Service Assistant Special Agent in Charge Roy Kellerman riding next to him in the front seat. It’s an iconic photo, one of the most famous taken on that day. It appears on dozens of websites and has been published in books, magazines and newspapers. According to the book, “Matrix for Assassination: The JFK Conspiracy,” Croft took a fourth photo at the scene. He believed it was snapped at the exact moment as the devastating head shot struck Kennedy. But when he received his photos back from the FBI, this slide was “a complete blank.” The FBI told him his camera appeared to have malfunctioned at that moment." And, what else did they do to his photos? Change things so that they had the content they wanted? Well, before saying such things one needs to look at all of Croft's photos.

Chris D., This series of posts are becoming more and more interesting and entertaining. A third camera man behind Zapruder, and Croft with missing legs in a spliced frame where his legs should be. You expertise in finding technical errors is now being matched by your keen eye in finding content errors. I looked over frames prior and frames after. He has legs before and after the Z 212 splice. If I am getting this right there are 3 films involved. One Z 212 with the top half of Croft, a second one without the bottom half of Croft, and a third with both. 2 films altered into a 3rd. I wonder what JC will have to say about this. No evidence? No proof? It's just speculation? There was no alteration!

Gots to be them thar disappearing reptils. No shadors thar.

Making your own decisions on what has happened in Dealey Plaza is what a person should do. If Ron Bulman has a certain opinion then that opinion is good for him, maybe not others. I do have some far out speculations and hypotheses. I have said once or twice in comment that I am probably one who is the farthest out in thinking on some issues. Why? It has been 58 years since the events of Dealey Plaza and people are still arguing over this and that with little agreement on issues. The official story of the Warren Commission overlays what happened in Dealey Plaza with lies, forgeries, coerced testimony, changed testimony, and production of altered evidence. This has been done to the point that one can not get to the truth due to the intensive argument and confusion about what really happened. I use what I call "out of the box" thinking on many occasions. The bit that Ron Bulman mentions is about the AMIPA film. There are frames that show President Kennedy with grimaces on his face, cheek widely bulging, and the appearance that he may have been shot in the back. What do you do with that? Ignore it? Or, well he is waving to the crowd later? Then ignore it? Something caused the way Kennedy looked in those frames. We have had a marvelous example of out of the box thinking recently. Chris D. notices there is something wrong with the Zapruder film from the perspective from where he was shooting the film. He goes looking and finds in Weigman that there is an extra camera man standing on a retaining wall behind Zapruder. No one else has done that in 58 years of research. Should that be ignored because it doesn't agree with you opinions or biases? He also suggests there may be more films and just perhaps Sitzman may have been filming also. This is based on what appears to be a dark object in front of her face. Should that be ignored because of your biases? Were there more then 3 films similar to Zapruders shot at the same time. Were there films shot before the assassination to serve as base films for a new composite film? These are questions worth asking. Many don't because of the biases and opinions of other folks here on the forum. Facts alone, due to alteration or not with consequent argument, will not tell the complete story of the events of Dealey Plaza. It is my opinion one needs to go further. Your critics and friends will tell you if you have gone too far and do not have a relevant view.

JC seems to be confused by your calculations. Even when you post something simple which even a low math ability fellow like me can understand. Thanks for your good work. Particularly, with what you showed in the Weigman film. For me and Zapruder frames, my biggest interest is in how many frames were there between Z 132 and Z 133. I don't believe there is a way to count them other than making a good guess. I expect to hear from JC with his count which is Zero.

David, JC has these things to say which seem to me to be mantras. It's like he is kneeling before a stone image and chanting: That's just speculation, there's no evidence, and there is no solid proof in a loud voice. It doesn't seem to matter whether there is or not. It just the thing one keeps hearing from him. JC says he has all this experience and credentials, but he is not demonstrating anything but the mantras I have suggested. Maybe someone would take him more seriously if he did.

Sean, Thanks for your kind words. JC does have that negative comment habit which would be completely worse if the editors allowed. I believe he or Jeremy B has been scolded about their negative approach to making comments here on the forum. Comments on this forum should be about your work or a rebuttal of someone else's with facts, opinions and speculations clearly labelled as such. JC does seem to be a persistent critic of mine, but I don't really pay that much attention. I answer occasionally, as far as really considering what he has to say? Nope.

This is my comparison of the two photos based upon characteristic traits found in his mug shot at the Dallas Police Station that I developed some years ago. Similarities: 1. The hair pattern of a balding male is the same in both photos. 2. The eyes and eyebrows are the same. 3. The left ear is the same in structure showing the characteristic two folds in the upper rim. 4. The neck can be said to be the same. But, I don't think it is because it is less wider than Harvey's in the mug shot. This is particularly so on the left side of the neck for the passport photo. Differences: 1. The right ear appears different. It appears like a reverse of the left ear. It too has two folds, but shouldn't. 2. The face mask alignment of the nose to the mouth is off and not aligned correctly. 3. Shadows may have been added to make the jawlines similar in the two photos. I might add a note here on the study of anatomy. An organism's parts or features must be exactly precise or other structure and function comes into play indicating something different.

But, the fraudulent photo is. Most folks show the right hand photo this way instead of the entire photo. The left shoulder is cut off in this photo indicating it is a photo of a photo that was not entirely successfully copied. I will not go into the discussion of whether this is a photo of Harvey Oswald or a face mask of Harvey Oswald. Generally, you see a light copy of Harvey in his sweater, and not a darker photo which gives away the mask outlines. The left hand mug shot of Harvey is ok.

I sorry Jonathan to add to your confusion from time to time. Dealey Plaza seems to be a confusing place for you. Maybe you should have taken my earlier advice and limited your reading of what was going on in Dealey Plaza, if this is so confusing for you.

JFK Assassination: Dick Russell, author of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" about Richard Case Nagell who had foreknowledge of the Hit in Dallas, TX. Nagell also claimed to have known LHO in Japan--both used the alias "Alex Hidell" and both had a few identical contacts in their address books. This is from a youtube video.

And, he sweater is a give away as noted earlier. I seem to recall or read somewhere that Mexico City is high enough in the mountains in a warm country to have a pleasant climate year around.

This is well stated and the general notion of faked events can be applied to other things within the JFKA. How many facts does one need to know something strange or fraudulent is going on? One or more? I think one does the job of letting you know things are strange. Then you can begin looking at other things. And, of course the work of David Josephs, et al said to me, yep I was right.