John Butler

I think the moderators should close this thread. Instead of being a research based thread it has become one of personal attack, insults, and spurious research to refute what I have stated. This thread needs to be closed.

Why show a video with what appeared to be a mentally handicapped person? It didn't relate to anything but a personal attack. Again, what's a "Dougal"?

What's a "Dougal"?

Clark, We can't put the "taunts and insults" aside. You are welcome to your opinions. I do not agree. These "worthy contributors" are neither respectful or worthy when they try to shut down debate based on personal attacks and insults. Remember back when this used to be your game also. You were the worst attacker when I first came to the forum. You have since cleaned up your posts. I appreciate that, but totally reject your opinions.

Mitcham, Do you and others realize your taunts and insults make me a sympathetic figure? Do you realize your behavior makes my work more credible to people when you can not reply in a fact based manner. And, have to resort to the behavior you exhibit. In other words your replies are counter productive and harmful to your arguments. Your replies are not based on reasonable argument but unreasonable despite in your desire to refute every thing I say.

Mitcham, You can’t correct mistakes that are not mistakes. Your use of altered media didn’t work. I am not mentally deficient or retarded. Your insults will be reported.

Mitcham, That is a poor visual presentation. In the yellow rectangle you have cut off the part of the woman in the tan coat with the white collar that would identify her. Why did you do that? This visual will identify the correct women in that spot in Elsie Dorman and they are not the two women as seen in Z 101. And, you can see the two women with their heads in a lightened version of that frame in the Dorman Mosaic. This should be sufficient for you to see the truth. I don't intend to answer your tactic of a series of endless questions. If this doesn't satisfy you then I can offer you no further help.

Mitcham, I think I gave clear explanations for what I was saying. Sorry, you didn't understand. I'll see if I can't point you in the right direction. This is Zapruder frame 101. It is in the montage in the lower left section. These two women who I have named the Ladies in Black are not in the Elsie Dorman film. They should be at or near the location of the two women, the one with the tan coat / white collar and her companion in the black coat. These two women are shown in the Elsie Dorman frame and the Elsie Dorman mosaic. They are also shown in the Zapruder film. Let me repeat. The two women above who I have named the Ladies in Black (both are in black coats) are not in the Elsie Dorman film.

Could these be the two ladies (in the Yellow rectangle) you are looking for in Dorman, Mr Butler? One appears to have a white collar.  Mitcham, No. Those two ladies there are not the ones I am talking about. The two Ladies in Black are shown only in the Zapruder Frame 101 in the montage. They are not shown in Elsie Dorman. The lady with the tan coat / white collar and her companion in black are shown in both films. That is the problem. Which film should I believe?

The Ladies in Black This photo montage asks the question “Where are the Ladies in Black in the Elsie Dorman Film?”. They are shown in the Zapruder frame, but not in Dorman. In the photo at the top of the montage we see two women. One is shorter and dressed in a tan coat with a white collar. She has a companion dressed in a black coat. Both of these women are shown in the Zapruder film and the Elsie Dorman film. In the Zapruder film you generally don’t get to see the woman in the tan coat’s companion because she is blocked from view. At times the most you can see of her is her legs. Dorman shows the two women at the end of the pavement where the grass begins going west toward the Triple Underpass. Zapruder shows them a little forward to the east of that which is perhaps just the camera angle of Zapruder. The problem here is in Zapruder we see two women in black who I have termed the Ladies in Black. They are first seen in Z 57-58 and continue to be there until about Z 210. This is before the Zapruder Gap and then afterward. They are not seen at all at the location of the woman in the tan coat and her companion in Dorman. The Dorman frame and Dorman mosaic do not show the Ladies in Black at all. And, that is the problem. Which film is correct? This can also be added to the content problems of Z frame 157.

Thank you Mr. Gordon for looking into my complaints. I expect criticism due to the subject matter, but not personal attacks, because my work is harmful to both LN theory and CT theory based on the Zapruder film and other things. If one part or many parts are fake, then it really can't be used reasonably in a theory or essay due to reasonable doubt being established. I am not the first to prove that the Zapruder film is a fraud. This was done long ago, decades ago. My work shows you in more detail, what most people miss, just how fraudulent the film is.

Bojczuk He says: The paranoid stuff is certainly liable to harm the public image of those who question the lone-nut theory. Is this parade of apparent stupidity purposeful misinformation, or a humourous wind-up, or simple craziness?" "The majority of this tin-foil-hat stuff is surely the result of delusions and irrationality. But does that account for all of it? How much, do you think, is the result of what Mr Cross calls purposeful misinformation? Are there so many genuinely deluded people around that it isn't necessary for rational criticism of the lone-nut theory to be deliberately undermined? " "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.". This is simply more insult and harassment. Unfortunately, there is a group of people on the Forum when they can't refute what you are saying they result to this kind of rule breaking behavior. I suppose this kind of behavior has some beneficial effect to them. Generally, I don't pay much attention to these insults and ridicule. It's water of a duck's back. When Michael Clark reported me for lapsing through frustration and doing a similar thing, I thought the rules should not be enforced in a one sided manner. I corrected my lapse in judgement. I have been reporting this and will continue to do so when a member, such as Bojczuk, makes such a post as the one above. Bojczuk, You have clearly broken Forum policy. I am not deluded, paranoid, irrational, stupid, disinformative, or any of your insulting remarks. Can you refute what I said about the SW corner of Elm and Houston? Post reported.

Jim, I generally bow to your opinions based on your long years researching this topic, better resources, long years of thinking about the Oswalds, and others who are of help. I can see why you are saying what you said. It is evidence and fact based. I like the idea that Harvey was around Lee to learn things about his life in preparation for the defection. I agree with your statement that Lee was not employed at the TSBD. I generally like to push the boundaries. Sometimes, that pays off and you find a different way to look at things and a greater understanding. Other times, that might result in a blunder and making a big mistake in your thinking. I done a few of those. I offer this for your consideration. I think Harvey and Lee had a closer relationship than most think. I base this on a picture in Russia of an Oswald and Marina hugging. The Oswald's face is hidden from view. But, his left ear was not. The Oswald in the photo did not have the characteristic 2-bend crook in his upper left ear rim. This is a characteristic of Harvey. So, the conclusion is Lee was in Russia. They shared Marina. Being a spy, that was her role. And, that sharing continued on the return to the U.S. It explains some of the odd things about the Oswald pair. I believe the surly, uncommunicative, and distant Oswald at the TSBD was Lee. They may have looked alike enough to pass, but I would bet they didn't sound alike.

This is simply more insult and harassment. "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.". Post reported.

Members 2,131 posts Report post Posted 8 hours ago As prompted by you tube, if you like Golden Earring... A real blast from the past. Just 10 year's after the JFK assassination, before Watergate broke. Note the outfits and the setting. https://www.bing.com/search?q=golden+earring+radar+love&filters=ufn%3a"golden+earring+radar+love"+sid%3a"a5248ad1-b558-673d-2511-b46c9caf20e6"&autoplay=1&FORM=SNAPST Full screen, full volume for best results. This is simply more harassment. I am not in the Twilight Zone and I don't think you are referring to my most recent post. You can't refute what is there so you devolve into insults and harassment. Let me remind you of the Forum rules: "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.". I will be reporting this post as continuing harassment.

Bulman, I am not insane and my work is not either. I have reported your post to the moderators for review.

Mitcham. There is nobody in the red box. It is an anthropomorphic shadow. We are just going to have to disagree. Blow up the man-shaped shadow and you will see leaves inside. Several witnesses in the 4th floor office with Elsie Dorman could not see the presidential limousine under those threes much less a man. Just as conjecture, let's say you are correct and it is a man there under the trees. So? What's the point of pointing out a man under the trees. I think Davidson was trying to make the case for someone in the Dorman film crossing the street but that didn't work out. Explain to me why this is a big deal to you.

Mitcham,, Nope. Sorry. It's just tree branches and shadows. Leaves on the inside of the shadow can be see. Cross, Not everything is fake. Just what I write about and show to you is. The difference between the number of people on the SW corner of Elm and Houston in the Zapruder film and Dorman film is real. It is a radical difference between the two films. It needs an explanation. Meaningful research questions what you see and if you see something that is different from others it needs to be shown. If you want to stay comfortable with the theories about the assassination you have then by all means do so. Simply ignore what I am talking about. But, the problem is you can't. What I am saying has to be debunked by any means necessary, by any means necessary. Following Michael Clark, I will no longer tolerate personal attacks. From this point on I'll report the first to the moderators. I may even go back and report those on this thread.

Chris Bristow said, "What is this GIF you posted? The cars make it look like the photos are taken less than a second apart yet the Stemmons perspective changes. What is up with that? " I don't know either. But, here are the two frames of the gif. It looks like an overlaid image gif shifting the cars slightly forward to the west and leaving the background the same. Or, it appears that way. The right hand image is deblurred. But, that makes it more blurred than the left hand photo and maybe the tiniest bit smaller. If that's the leaning lamppost then it is not covered by the second frame and stops well short of the lamppost. I would think the size difference makes the Stemmons sign shift slightly. Or, it appears that way.

Mitcham, I edit one of my posts to you since I realized I made a math error of 48 rather than 4.8. Old eyes reading a calculator is the only excuse I have. So, things now read as: "Mitcham, Glad to see you are using a data argument rather than insults. I used two frames from Davidson's gif. These clearly show shadowed areas between branches as an anthropomorphic figure. This is what happens when you put together a .gif with frames set at .08. Elsie's camera didn't record at that speed. She recorded at 16 fps. This gives the illusion of movement particularly when the wind was blowing strongly that day in Dealey Plaza. Many witnesses commented on the strong wind that day. There was rain in the morning. The airport was covered with water in places as the motorcade left. There was a strong wind in Dealey Plaza noted by many." This is frame 16 from Davidson's gif. It shows leaves in the shadowed area he claims is a man, a shadow man.

Well Mitcham, After the advice of Michael Clark this post is edited to: Mitcham, Your last few posts are somewhat incoherent. Could you explain further.

Thanks Michael, I have made several assessments myself. The rules should not be one sided. Reread some of the things said to me lately. Call others to account and I will give you more credit than currently.

Well Mitcham, After the advice of Michael Clark this post is edited to: Mitcham, Your last few posts are somewhat incoherent. Could you explain further.

"NOTE: Frank and Gloria's memories of LEE Oswald, had they testified before the Warren Commission, could have exposed HARVEY and LEE. While LEE was working at Tujague's on the 3rd floor of the Sanlin Building, in January, 1956, Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald was working on the 2nd floor of the Sanlin Building for the J.R. Michels, Jr. freight forwarding company. The manager of J.R. Michels, Jr. was Nick Mazza, and was a close friend of Frank DiBenedetto. HARVEY and LEE worked in the same building, for freight forwarding companies, in January, 1956." This furthers my notion that Harvey and Lee always worked the same areas. They separated at times, but always came together in the same areas working the same jobs. Work in N O, in the military in Japan, the summer of 1963 in N O again, and at the TSBD. The business of the two being, if they were there at the same time, at the Sanlin Building could have been training in their role as a "double spy".