John Butler

Chris, The top arrow refers to the black or shadowed square at the end of the cigar. The left arrow refers to some kind of square or nearly square object on his hand. There is some kind of design on the square. The right arrow refers to a polygonal, transparent area beginning at the end of the wrist. Those don't appear to be shadows. Chris here's another to fog the brain cells of a normal person. This is strange. Where is the guy in the tan raincoat (possibly with a microphone) in the left hand photo. Ruby takes maybe two steps and the microphone guy disappears. In the right hand photo you can possibly see the hands of the cigar smoking man. In the left hand photo is that one amazing big arm for the cigar smoking man? That arm's almost as big as Oswald's torso.

Here is an interesting article. If what is said is true it will add more information about Ed Voebel. It may help supplement Bart's excellent police report. "The American Chronicle Exposing evil, dispelling delusion, trumpeting truth, The American Chronicle covers historical and current topics relevant to the American experience and republic. Friday, February 10, 2017 Who Was Ed Voebel? Even seasoned JFK Murder researchers may not know any details about Ed Voebel, but he turns out to be very important to the Oswald Project in a negative way, and whose importance was such that the CIA murdered him. Before proceeding, we must confess to an about face regarding Oswald doubles. Previously we had spurned the idea that there were 2 concurrent Oswalds managed by the same dark forces who murdered the president. We knew that there were Oswald impersonators, and that was enough for us. However, after prodding from an article by Ralph Cinque, we decided to explore the matter further, after which we are forced to conclude that John Armstrong's thesis of Harvey and Lee is much more compelling than we originally thought. To keep the names clear, we will follow Armstrong's practice of referring to the American born Oswald as LEE, and the Hungarian born Oswald as HARVEY. Thus it was Voebel's fate to meet both of them. HARVEY is the man accused of murdering the president and J D Tippit. Voebel met HARVEY first in 1954 when a piano fell on HARVEY's legs at school. He survived the ordeal and the two became playmates for the spring. A few months later, Voebel befriended LEE after his rockem sockem fight with Johnny and Mike Neumeyer in the fall while in 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans. LEE lost a tooth in that fight, after which Voebel and 2 friends helped LEE clean up. Following the fight, Voebel took a picture of LEE in the class room which eventually became plastered around the nation when Life magazine published it in 1964. The picture clearly shows LEE missing a front upper tooth thanks to the fight. In 1971, Ed Voebel became mildly ill, but went to the Oschner clinic for treatment, a mistake which would cost him his life. Someone, perhaps Oschner himself, murdered Voebel at age 31 just as he murdered Dr Mary Sherman in a most gruesome fashion in 1964. Oschner was a long time CIA operative who was heavily involved in the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas' Dealey Plaza. One of Oschner's projects for the CIA was the invention of a cancer weapon which was highly lethal, and was ostensibly targeted against Fidel Castro. The reason for murdering Voebel was that he knew too much about LEE and HARVEY Oswald, knowledge which the CIA could not afford to let propagate since it would expose Allen Dulles' lies about HARVEY and implicate the agency directly in the murder of the president. The evidence of the missing tooth is highly important in securing the thesis of 2 Oswalds. HARVEY Oswald was exhumed and extensively photographed in 1981, and positively identified based upon his dental records. HARVEY had all of his teeth, proving that he was not LEE, and that LEE was indeed a separate and distinct person from HARVEY. We do not know what became of LEE Oswald - he may in fact still be alive. His brother Robert, still alive as of this writing, may be the last person to know the fate of his brother. But if he values the few remaining years of his life, he will go to his grave with his secrets."

Jim, Yep. You are right. Who else has caught the pocket difference in almost 57 years. Most artists copy images. They will use a model (sometimes live), a photo, a postcard, a calendar, or something that has an image to copy. To successfully copy that image you must know the details of that image. You must be able to spot those details to use in transferring that image in your artwork that make that work a recognizable duplicate of the image your copying. My best example of this in relation to this topic is a Time cover showing Harvey Oswald. You could have left this detail out of the painting and no one would have noticed. The image would still be seen as Harvey Oswald without that detail. But, it would become evident to the artist that studied the photo and perhaps be seen as an alteration. Other people (this detail is rarely seen in other people) have these bends in their ear. It may be genetic is some sense. If you have an image that you think is Harvey Oswald, then this detail of two bends in the upper rim of the left ear can strengthen your belief that you are seeing an image of Harvey Oswald.

Your conjecture is plausible. After the assassination Robert became at the least a co-conspirator. I can hold two opposing ideas in my mind and believe in both until the evidence falls out one way or the other. That gets me in trouble a good deal of the time by expressing one of those ideas. The tale told to Robert might have been the same one told to others about war with the Soviet Union and nuclear destruction. After all it supposedly convinced Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Ron Bulman posted a pdf that had 3 frames from the film in which Ruby shoots Oswald. This shows that the original question is not a man, but a hand holding a microphone.

Your not alone in being driven crazy by the photos of Lee Oswald. It is my firm belief that Lee Oswald has been edited out of the photo record except for high school photos that can't be changed, photos showing Lee at a distance, generally to small to see much and to low a resolution to scale upward, and to blurred to matter. Then there is the composites and face masks that change Lee into Harvey. Robert Oswald would have to say any photo reputed to be Lee Oswald, including those of Harvey, were Lee Harvey Oswald. IMO, Robert Oswald is one of the conspirators. It is my strange, and really not that provable believe, that Lee Oswald was the person handing out leaflets in front of the trade center that has Chauncey Holt in that series of frames. Lee's face is covered by Harvey's face. Some see it and others don't.

John K, Thanks. Keep me posted. I think some valuable things will come from those boxes. I want to check those records against the Russ Geck story.

Ray, Good catch. The collar on the jacket in the 1958 photo does appear to be larger. Also, the 1958 jacket has an upper pocket. I can't see that pocket on the CE 162 jacket because it may be covered by the tag. It does not look like a pocket is there. I will try to find other photos of CE 162. CE 162 does not have an upper pocket.

Jim, The memory must be shot. I could have swore that you referred to that photo as Harvey at one time. My opinion at an earlier time was that it was Lee, but later decided you couldn't tell who that was and decided it might be someone else, or so edited you couldn't tell. He has Harvey's hair pattern, nose, ears, and chin. But, not Harvey's overall appearance. All of these things can be argued. I notice that in the 1957 Marine Corps photo of Lee he is beginning to show the same pattern. It is remarkable that some one could pick out two kids that looked alike and determined (maybe) that it was likely they would have the same hair pattern and looks as adults. Not plausible. So, lacking further evidence I'll go along with the Lee Oswald interpretation at this time. Thanks for the clarification.

There is a hand there. It is holding what I believe is a microphone. That's my better guess.

Chris, I get to agree with you on this. I had to look up the term pareidolia. It is a well known phenomenon, but I had forgotten the word. In other frames and photos I can not see any other person than the other detective to Oswald's left. However, the angle of the camera may place someone else there and that person is covering up the left hand detective from a position further to the front and left. My best guess is the hat covering his face as you said or motion blurring of the hat.

Thanks much Steve, I'll make a copy of those for future reference.

John K, Box 5 is particularly important. Box's 1 and 4 are also good for finding new material. Any information on Emil Gardos and Grace Amelia Blair Gardos is important also. Any scrap of information on their early years since about 1935 would be important, regardless of whether we can see any importance now. Another thing might be good. The Gardos relation to Gus Hall, Louis Weinstock, and others living in Yorktown, NYC. I would suggest your contact copy the following: 1. Box 5 20 pages 2. Box 4 Folder 14 Genealogical material 10 pages 3. Box 4 Folder 1 20 pages 4. Box 2 Folder 7 Legal Cases 30 pages 5. Search Box 1 for any relevant material related to the FBI document- associations of any kind. 6. Search Box 4 for any related associations or material that can be linked to the FBI document. 7. Also, Box 3 for any related material. Copying 400 pages is a expensive, lengthy and tiring endeavor. I can't advice your contact to copy the whole box. Let me know what this costs so I can help defray the costs. Email to jbutlers@bardstowncable.net

Jim, I have finally understood why you and others consider this photo as Harvey Oswald other than factual statements. This hair pattern of Harvey is covered up in later photos by comb overs. The balding spots to the left and right of Harvey's head is covered by comb overs as demonstrated in this photo. You have to look closely. And,

David, Excellent images. Has anyone done more comparisons like this with other alleged Oswald doubles?

John, Great! Maybe, if your contact can provide information to check the Russ Geck story that would be great. Fred Blair's papers are voluminous. Does he need to know what to look for at U. of Wisc., Madison?

Steve, There are letters in this mentioning Gus Hall and Louis Weinstock. Do you know where someone can get a copy of these letters. 1. Gus Hall involving photography 2. Louis Weinstock involving a letter from the Worker.

Jim, I have looked at various photos and film clips and can find no one wearing a mask or knit cap, perhaps. This to me suggests a shadow, but it should not be as dark as that. The next thought is it may be a film / camera artifact. It that doesn't work then it could be an alteration. I does not seem that because the other photos / films do not have it. My best guess it is simply the detective standing near Oswald to the left. He has a black hat which may have blurred due to the action of the film. Hope this helps with understanding.

Ray, It is in the original film clip at the beginning of this series. This comparison: The street signs at the intersection of Elm and Houston are missing in the right hand frame. In the Zapruder frame they are prominent. I was asking David if he had any idea why that would be. Does this film frame come from some time after the 1963 date of Zapruder? I'll get back to you after I look at a film clip in Stephen Lavin's new comment. …. Stephen Lavin said: "it is clear that the film clip at the beginning of this thread comes from Stones JFK - which is a compilation of footage both real and re enacted - see from 0.36 " and the scene is the same: That seems to take care of that.

Thanks David, I always read your comments. There's always something new and interesting such as below. A different way to look at things. In that particular film in question the road signs at the intersection of Houston and Elm are missing. Any notion why?

I have looked at all of the reenactments I can find and nothing looks like the film in question. At best the film can be described as Zapruderesque. But, it is not the Zapruder film. I can see no one has identified the background information on this film. So, it is open to speculation. But, some are. They are somewhat different in appearance. I don't know what that means. The buildings on east Elm are the Purse Building and two others. In Zapruder we see the Purse Building and one other, a small building, and then behind that a reddish building. The Court Records Building is prominent in both. The Purse Building in both films has a different slightly different appearance suggesting there is some time between these films. It also suggests that the photographers were at different filming locations. In the film in question you can see further east on Elm Street. But, the Dal-Tex and TSBD are missing. This might suggest that the right hand side of the film has been cropped. I am sure that others with a better sense of photography can verify or reject that. In the Zapruder frame there are road signs across Elm Street and those are not in the other film. The red light is clearly visible in Zapruder, but not so discernible in the other film. It may be there, but I am distracted by what appears to be a face in the air. Once seen, it is difficult to unsee and is a distraction to what is in that area. The crowds are not the same. Particularly, the group known as Mannequin Row. The Lead Car seems to be correct as a white, 4 door, 1961 Mercury Monterrey. Seeing the Lead Car says this scene is in the Zapruder Gap. (At least one can think that is so. But, maybe not.) So, all things considered it is not a reenactment as indicated by other reenactment films. It appears to be a reconstruction or manufacture of the scene of the presidential motorcade turning onto to Elm Street built from different scenes acquired elsewhere. Unless someone can provide better information on this film, I would dismiss it as having any significance to anything.

If it helps to see what is being talked about. Which reenactment would this be? Can anyone identify exactly what this film is? Or, is this an unknown photographer? (I favor reenactment, but still need to ask) There were many out and about that day. Just survey the existing record of photos and films and you will see many unknowns.

Mark said, “While doing this work, and making all of the required measurements, I didn't detect any glitches or jumps in the car sequences or any other problems that I would expect to see if there had been any evidence destruction. I would suggest that the smoothness of the action in the animation implies that the visual record is complete and has not been tampered with.” And, “Taken at face value Zapruder is confirming that the film is the same as when he saw the original version before he handed it over to Life, but he can't vouch for exact frames. This seems plausible as he was unlikely to have counted the frames on the original or the copies before they were handed over. This account contradicts the claims of those who say the whole film is a concoction, with large chunks removed (e.g. the turning of the corner) or recreated in a film studio. However, it does leave open the possibility that the odd frame here or there may have been suppressed, as David and Chris suggested earlier in this thread. While I'm not in a position to prove or disprove these claims, I feel that the authorities would be taking a huge risk in doing this so I suspect this isn't what happened.” …. I believe Abe Z. said he didn’t turn his cameral off and filmed the entire parade. The Zapruder film is in three parts and the middle part is missing. The first part consists of 132 frames at the beginning of the Zapruder film. The second part is missing. And, the third part begins at Zapruder frame 133 and goes until Z frame 486. When the facts are summarized, it looks like this: 132 frames divided by 18.3 = 7.2 seconds. First Part 415.4 frames divided by 18.3 = 22.7 seconds (22.7 seconds multiplied by 18.3 = 415.4 frames). This is Mark’s measurement which is real close to my guestimate of 22 seconds. Second Part 353 frames (486-133) divided by 18.3 = 19.2 seconds. Third Part This short display of facts says that the longest part of the film is missing. This part is known as the Zapruder Gap. What this would look like visually is this: …. …. “John Connally is convinced that the first shot missed him, and if he is correct then there must have been at least 4 shots in total because there was definitely a shot fired well after the head shot (over a dozen witnesses reported this shot). 2 shots in 2 seconds is proof of multiple gunman because Oswald's gun couldn't be operated that quickly. 4 shots in total is proof of a second gunman as only 3 shots were associated with the TSBD, so the second gunman was located elsewhere.” Mark takes the testimony of a dozen witnesses to say there was a fourth shot. Would he believe this? I have listed on the forum twice a list of over 50 witnesses that said shooting occurred in front of the TSBD. This means that shooting occurred in the Zapruder Gap. How many witnesses do you need in order to believe something? Over 50+ witnesses are not enough when it runs contrary to your beliefs. But, 10 are believable when they concur with what you believe. The Zapruder film is a fraud and that has been proven too many times by many different people. I’m with Jack White on questioning the entire visual record. There are a few things I don’t believe have been tampered with, but they are few and far in between.

Louis Budenz was the editor of the Daily Worker at the time Helen Levi Simon, known as the writer Maxine Levi, was working there. Below is an interesting photo of Louis Budenz. I'm sure any resemblance to Harvey Oswald is coincidental and illusionary. When you compare photos there is hardly any resemblance at all.