John Butler

Paul, There appears to be missing frames. Davidson's gif is deceptive in the sense he is not using the best material. He is covering up what I showed in Z frame 157. He directs your attention to one of the Ladies in Black so you won't pay that much attention to Phil. He has chosen the worst Zapruder frame enlargements or altered frames so that you don't see what I am talking about in Z frame 157. Zapruder in a lot of frames is not clear but blurred and hard to interpret. But, no where have I seen any frames as bad as the ones Davidson is showing in that .gif. Gifs are easily manipulated. Here is a comparison of what he didn't want you to see. Phil Willis' extra long leg is a photo copying and photo altering mistake. IMO Phil Willis was not on the SW corner when the presidential limousine went by. The so-called Willis Slides were filmed by Phil's daughter Linda. That's speculation and I can't prove that, but that is my feeling. Even though I can not say this or that convincedly, it is suspicious. I don't think Phil made it to the SW corner because he is not in the Elsie Dorman film and Linda and Rosemary are. They supposedly ran there side by side. There are Robert Hughes frames that look a lot like the Willis family just off Main Street grass directly after the assassination. The film is so bad you really can't prove that. Davidson's earlier .gif involved seeing people through the trees on Elm Street in frames of the Elsie Dorman film. To me they were just anthropomorphized shadows of gaps between tree branches. There were 3 witnesses in that window with Elsie Dorman. They all said they could not see the presidential vehicle under the trees let alone a single person. Vickie Adams, Dorothy Garner, and Sandra Styles said they could not see the limo under the trees when they heard shots coming from the west. They and other witnesses confound the idea of shooting out of the 6th floor Sniper's Nest.

Doesn't seem to be the same view or perspective. Also, the black and white is from a higher perspective than the color Dorman. They don't seem to match. The Dorman perspective looks as if it is almost at street level. Your opinion would be appreciated.

Robin, I have no disagreement with what you said there. Linda has on a blue top and goldish skirt or dress. Rosemary has on a white jacket. In Zapruder, she precedes Linda and Linda stops and shouts at her or takes a photo IMO. Our disagreement is over who runs into the SW corner of Elm and Houston first. Either one depending on the film. Phil is in the street about to take a step backwards. I don't find him in Elsie Dorman, but do find Linda and Rosemary. It is possible being youngsters and Phil being middle aged and a war victim that he got there later.

Davidson, "Really. That's how you want to address us." Yes, absolutely. It is kinder than the things you and others have said. "Your version of reality is alot different than ours." Absolutely true. I don't really know what version of fantasy / reality you folks are in. "Maybe Phil is in front of the black dressed waving lady on the curb and just out of view in Dorman. " And, then again maybe not. I can find no identifiable male of Phil's age and description in the Dorman film. And, I damn sure can't find one with a super leg as shown in Z 157. "The mosaic fails to show the last part of Dorman. Once you realize this, you can take that part and lighten, stabilize, look through the tree then create a gif which shows someone in black waving (red box). Then you can match up the common people in the gif, along with Z, and learn that you were wrong about perspective again. btw, that's probably Croft at far right walking to his location. Think that might create a timing problem?" I don't need to show the last part of Dorman. In the next post I will need to do that. If Phil Willis and Croft are in the Dorman film that really would be a timing problem. But, in reality they were leaving the intersection of Main and Houston moving towards the SW corner of Elm and Houston. They have to be there and probably arrived during the Zapruder Gap. Elsie Dorman said she quit filming before the presidential limousine turned into the intersection. So, for the two to be there in Dorman is nonsensical. Dorman is closer to the first 132 frames before the Zapruder Gap. You really need to quit posting these deceptive .gifs. What you are describing as people seen through the trees is just gaps in the branches showing shadowed areas. There is nothing in the red box except gaps between branches and dark shadows. Yo, Ray that's your cue to jump in here and talk about your shadows and "two pole experiment" "If it was me, I would think differently and realize I now have a sync point between two films and use that to show there are problems with the Z film. But, I'm not holding my breath that you will heed the advice, so I did it myself years ago. You were offered advice by others to go back and research some of this stuff." Absolutely, I will think differently. I don't need a sync point to discuss whether people are there or not. You can use the mosaic or go back to the individuals frames which I have done in a prior time. The mosaic, although not completely accurate, serves to make the point. Pardon all this black and red type. It is not me it is the forum software.

I don't have any problems Ray. But, you do with this silly, pathetic, and deceptive post. Do you know how stupid this is? If not just look at what I am posting. A 184 X 80 resolution image cannot tell you anything informative. You can't enlarge the images you posted. All you get is blurred pixelation. Yep. I am digging a hole. Right through your disinformation garbage. And, this post has a very unpleasant smell. Please stop posting nonsense. The SW corner of Elm and Houston is shown very well and it is your own ignorance and malicious desire to prove me wrong on anything. Get a life Ray. Go outside for a while and get out or your basement computer place. Take a vacation.

Robin, Thanks for those frames. I don't think I have the ones of the limousine turning into the intersection. Good catch on the camera. I have done some work that suggests there are more than 30 people who filmed that day and we have no record of what they filmed. I hate to disagree, but the second person to the west has long, dark hair and the Willis girls don't, and IMO is not Linda Willis. This first person could be Linda Willis since she has the general appearance of Linda seen in earlier frames. I was going to post a few, but you have already done so. You say the little girl in yellow in the frames posted is Linda rather than Rosemary. Well, then where is Rosemary. I think Rosemary is the small girl in a yellow jacket which could be a color problem for a white jacket, actually in the highlights the coat is white. And, in the last frame it is white. Rosemary had on a white coat. The older, taller girl in front of Rosemary is Linda her sister. In Dorman, Linda (not the mysterious camera woman) precedes Rosemary into the SW corner of Elm and Houston. It is the other way in Zapruder. We can't have it both ways. I know you folks need only some kind of argument, right or wrong, to challenge someone and when that doesn't work you can join the Mitcham Gang with personal attacks.

The problem is that other people didn't think the way you folks do. Their different thinking led to President Kennedy's murder in Dallas. My whole family were rabid Kennedy fans and supporters. One member even cast an Electoral College vote for Kennedy. Maybe because of being a juvenile in juvenile rebellion I was not and continued to not be a supporter until 2015 when I looked once again at the Life Magazine photo commonly called the Backyard Photo. That changed everything.

Sit up and pay attention. It is not over yet. The next content problem in Z frame 157 is that of the two women in black clearly seen near the end of the pavement in Z frame 96. I call them the Ladies in Black. Z frame 96 and 147 were chosen because their color is about the same and are fairly clear when enlarged and are before and after the Gap. They were also chosen because they are representative of the scenes showing the two women in black. You can see these women from Z frame 58 to about Z frame 209. Z frame 147 is essentially the same as Z frame 157 in showing the two women in black. The content problem in Z frame 157 is that these two women seen there are not in the Elsie Dorman film. Since we can not have two versions of reality one film has to be wrong. Or, both are wrong. Briefly, there is another content problem in these images. In Zapruder Rosemary runs into the SW corner of Elm before her sister Linda. In Elsie Dorman Linda runs into the SW corner before Rosemary. They run into the SW corner before Phil, their dad shows up. He is not in the Dorman film. There is one last problem to deal with later. Here is a contrast lightened view of the mosaic scenes for better viewing.

Davidson, Let the reader decide if this material is unsightly. You are certainly not a judge with the value of your material as recently posted. Anybody can pick out two men in suits and claim they are Allman and Ford. A lady once told me doing family research that it is all about location, location, location. Allman tells you in the video where he was by standing in the spot. He stands there in the video in front of the steps near the end of the pavement going west. It is not across from the TSBD entrance or the upper part of the SW corner. He is near the grass on the west end of the pavement of the SW corner. Both Allman and Ford had cameras and a good question might be what happened to their film? If you notice there is not a crowd of people around him and Ford. And what about the other 8 people there, less the two women shown in Zapruder. They are not shown in Zapruder near the grass. Did they all just wander away? Or, maybe in your delusions they were never there. OBTW, if you watched the video Allman says that when Kennedy rounded the corner onto Elm, Boom! More than 50 other witnesses said shooting occurred there. I guess you will have to rant and rave about how wrong Allman was. Some do. He said the shooting occurred in the intersection.

Yo, blathering Mitcham Gang. Let’s move on to another content problem found in Zapruder frame 157. This one involves Pierce Allman and Terry Ford. Pierce Allman was a reporter for WFAA Radio in 1963. He, and a companion, Terry Ford stationed themselves on the SW corner of Elm and Houston. They were on the west end of the pavement near the grass when the assassination occurred. You can watch Pierce Allman in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNUSFxdrKtE The problem with the two is that Allman and Ford appear in the Elsie Dorman film and may not appear in the Abraham Zapruder film. There is a difference in time, a slight difference of no more than 14 seconds, between Z frame 157 and this frame from Elsie Dorman. Compare the following, or any Zapruder frame showing the SW corner with the Elsie Dorman frame: You might notice that there are more people there in the Dorman film. Except for the two women in the center the rest are never seen in Zapruder. That is another content problem that will be discussed later. Some people will use any tactic to save the Zapruder Film as one that is true and valid. Just this one frame, Z frame 157, destroys it's validity far better than arguing the technical aspects of a leaning lamppost. The Zapruder film is a malicious fake piece of trash from the U. S. Government during the Johnson administration that has fooled the American public for years. Mainly, because there are people who will fight bitterly to keep the notion alive that the Zapruder Film is a true record of the assassination of President Kennedy while in reality is a fake and a bad fake at that. I will withdrawn this statement as being contentional "You can search all of the frames in the Zapruder film and you will not find the two men, Allman and Ford."

Ray, Don't pretend you don't know the answer. You do it all the time.

It's to piss off Ray Mitcham. I inadvertently misspelled his name on one occasion and he made a big deal out of it. Ray consistently harasses and abuses me in his posts. It's just a small way of paying him back.

This is from Mr. David Healy: Here's a link too Dr. John Costella's presentation at the University of Minnesota in 2003 regarding his Z-film analysis with his 'proofs', the entire presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1B3_sICTAc I would far rather place my confidence in what John Costella said and proved rather than Bristow, Josephs, and the Mitcham Gang. This also goes for Healey and White who were also at this conference. Report post Posted 3 hours ago Thanks David. Nice Recap. Willis stabilized. How is JB ever going to prove Willis's leg is extra long/wide when a gif like this appears and someone says he's stepping backwards up on the curb. Think differently about proving the extant Zfilm is alteration filled. This is the kind of stuff people are supposed to believe because it comes from self proclaimed experts in film analysis. Here is Davidson phony, deceptive .gif that each image flashes by at .08 seconds and gives a false impression of what is being seen. Frames 156 to 159 flash by to quickly to be seen adequately. So, we are left with the first and last images to try to understand. There are 8 frames in the .gif and most do not show the following adequately. There is plenty of time to look at frames 156 to 159 and see what they show. "Super leg Phil Willis is a photo editing image in these 4 frames. Everyone but Davidson has dodged this. And, you can see Davidson attempt to validate the Zapruder film above. Davidson says "Think differently about proving the extant Zfilm is alteration filled" Why should I think differently when rubbish such as his is posted. It doesn't look to me that he is stepping backwards as portrayed in Davidson's deceptive work. This was just one of three content problems listed in Zapruder frame 157. Josephs says there is no original research here. That may apply to him and in my opinion it does. His work is not that good and he does make mistakes. 1. The difference in the people in the crosswalk on east Houston and Elm is a Jack White piece that goes back years and it is not original to my work. It is just one of the content problems in Z 157. 2. Try to find something about Phil Willis' extra long leg on the forum before I brought it up. 3. The same goes with the Johnson Security Vehicle being a photo edited image (two rear ends). Try to find that before I brought it up. 4. I haven't gotten to the group of 19 people between the lamppost and the Stemmons sign yet. Parts of them are seen in the four frames just posted. They are a fictitious group. I have posted on this several times and feel no need at this point to offer any more proof. This is original also. 5. The next may not be original as I believe others have posted about it. This is Linda and Rosemary's appearance on the SW corner of Elm and Houston. In the four frames above they have just arrived and Rosemary is making her run. She is far ahead of Linda. Notice the presidential limo is well on its way down Elm Street, but hasn't passed the Stemmons sign. In Elsie Dorman they arrive at the SW corner well before the presidential limousine turns into the intersection. Their order of running into the SW corner is reverse with Linda first and Rosemary second. Don't that big a deal, but it shows one of the films is wrong. We can't have two different realities. 6. There is a problem with the two women standing next to Phil Willis. This is original to me. 7. There is a problem with Pierce Allman and Terry Ford. This is original to me. 8. There is a problem with the number of people on the SW corner in the Zapruder film and Elsie Dorman. Elsie Dorman shows far more people there than Zapruder. This is also original to me. Try to find something about that on the forum before I brought it up. These are the 8 content problems in just Z frame 157. There are more throughout the film. Why worry about Chris Bristow's analysis of John Costella's theory. Between the two I will choose Costella every time. I forgot to mention that Z frames 156 to 159 must be torn frames also. I went on the internet to research torn film frames in the Zapruder film and couldn't find anything. Since Josephs didn't provide a source for his claim does anyone else know anything about torn Zapruder frames that had to be patched?

David, I guess Z frames 158 and 159 were torn also. Can you back up your claim that the film was torn. What reference can you site on this? If I am recalling the Fetzner Symposium of 2003 there was no mention of torn film. I sure those experts would have been all over that in the film. You can check Jack White's presentation for the post I made concerning his view of Zapruder and Altgens. That is where that came from. John Costella surely would have said something about that. He said the film was almost technically perfect except for a few minor changes. He didn't say anything as I recall about torn film frames.

David, I see you made no comment on Phil Willis? Go back and look at Z frame 157. If you are an honest person you will see what I am talking about. But, you will probably blather on about something else. Make sure you point out in you disinformation advice to not argue with what you can't argue with. Just ignore it. Don't forget the personal attacks and mention the cointelpro thing again. And, then get angry and spew more hate and despite. LISTEN and LEARN: Read my posting with some degree of understanding the English language. I am using John Costella's Zapruder frames. The first frame is Z frame 157. The other is a photo known as Altgens 5. Jack White compared these two: The Zapruder film at the east intersection of Houston and Elm with Altgens 5 photo of the same area. This is Jack White's idea. Didn't you get that when you read what I posted or did you just go off on one of your rants. Let's stick to these two images I posted and not Z frame 162. If anyone needs an intervention it is you and your bullying of new members on the forum. What difference does 25 years of experience amount to for a over arrogant, bullying forum member who is never wrong. You and Ray and others of your ilk need to get together and hoist one and celebrate the disinformational trashing of Jack White and some of the things I have posted. I am sure you will agree with them and they with you. So, what else is new? We have been done this road before. And, nothing you or the Mitcham Gang say can change my mind. If I am wrong I will immediately acknowledge it. Can you? Stay tuned there will be more. Just for you I might go back and repost some of the Moorman things that send you into ranting and raging. "Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know...." is a good saying in reference to you. This is all about saving the Zapruder film since in forms the basis of some of your work. Do you recall when I trashed one of your postings about firing angles from the 6th floor. I reminded you that no one can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that shooting did occur from there. BTW David, do you even know what your "cointelpro" means? From Wikipedia a definition for you and then you can decide where I went illegal: COINTELPRO COINTELPRO (portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) (1956–1971) was a series of covert, and at times illegal,[1][2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.[3][4] FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive,[5] including the Communist Party USA,[6]anti–Vietnam War organizers, activists of the civil rights movement or Black Power movement (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr., the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), environmentalist and animal rights organizations, feminist organizations,[7] the American Indian Movement (AIM), independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left. The program also targeted the Ku Klux Klan in 1964.[8] According to Noam Chomsky, in another instance in San Diego, the FBI financed, armed, and controlled an extreme right-wing group of former members of the Minutemen anti-communist para-military organization, transforming it into a group called the Secret Army Organization that targeted groups, activists, and leaders involved in the Anti-War Movement, using both intimidation and violent acts.[9][10][11]

Ray, Do you ever get tired of breaking the forum rules on personal attacks? Mitcham, Bulman, Davidson, Andrews, and Cross. I should have a name for you guys. How about the Gang of Five? No. the stats may change. The Mitcham Gang might do. I will name this gang of people after you since you seem to scour the forum looking for anything I might post so you can refute it in a spiteful manner. Your really not to concerned with the facts or correcting things, but making an attack on me and whatever I say is your goal. If you were concerned about correcting what I am commenting on then answer the question. Yeah, I do watcha movie or two. Did you read a lot of comics when you were a kid like Dana? Here's one from the movies "What about his legs?" If you are out to correct me then answer the question about Phil Willis' extra wide and long leg. You can't can you? Hence, the vituperative attacks. Do you even know what dyslexia is? That was a problem that we use to call an "unspecified learning disability" because it was not well understood why kids lacked the ability to read well. Looking at the definition today, they still don't really understand the phenomenon. Pareidolia is new to me and thanks for the word. Did you sift through the dictionary to find what I have already warned people about in earlier comments, anthropomorphizing objects. Ray, you are not very original. Well, what about Phil Willis' leg? I call it a super leg just for convenience. Can you explain Phil Willis' super leg as something other than a photo editing mistake? What about your confreres? They haven't made an attempt to explain Phil's super leg. If you are not going to do that then let's move on to content problem No. 4 in Z frame 157. Jack White long ago compared the group of people in Zapruder that are standing in the crosswalk on the east side of the intersection of Houston and Elm to a group seen in Altgens 5. His comparison concluded that not a single person was the same in Zapruder and Altgens 5 in that area. The following comparison gives you an idea of the people involved. The people under the red lines were compared by Jack. Zapruder has better frames than Z 157 for this comparison, but I thought I would stick to Z 157 even though the crowd is hard to see.

Hmm, BS. Let's see, Ray. I don't think your "two pole experiment" is up to snuff. I don't think it will fit into the paradigm of natural philosophy. What that means Ray is that it is not scientific. I did ask you for an explanation of Phil Willis' extra large leg, but I see you have declined. I will try to help you out. Here is an explanation after the style of Dana Andrews. You see Phil Willis was one of the early X-Men and he could grow this extra long leg and leap like Superman long distances. He jumped from the NW corner of Houston and Main to the SW corner of Houston and Elm. Of course his daughters Linda and Rosemary had to say they ran with him to the SW corner so that he could keep his identity as Grasshopper Man a secret. I want to thank Dana for using his wonderful writing style. I've been thinking about what could have gotten you boys so riled and I think it is this statement: "Z frame 157 is a wonderful example of what the Zapruder film really is. It is a lying piece of government trash designed to fool the public and coverup the real story of Dealey Plaza" The heart of the lie in Dealey Plaza is the Zapruder film. Everyone uses it and most think it is real. People pay lip service to the notion that the Zapruder film may be a fraud, but they go head and use it anyway to explain some of the dumbest ideas I have ever read. "Disninformation attempt". At times I can make a stupid blunder and have done so a couple of times. But, everything I post is what I consider to be truthful and not disinformation or anything untruthful to forward some cause or defend some position in the Kennedy Assassination. Stay tuned Michael there is more to come. OBTW, if you fellas think this is so outre, based on disinformation, and stupid why do you waste your time trying to refute it? Do like David Josephs, put me on a blocked view.

Ha Ha Ha, I get considerable amusement from exposing you fellows for what you are. I see that I have brought out the usual crew again. "Two Pole" Meacham, "Horse Carp" Bulman, "Ranting" Davidson, and even Dana Andrews who I haven't heard from in some time. I guess I stepped on sensitive toes here. Well, there is nothing new in that. It has been almost 56 years with relatively no progress in the Kennedy Assassination in recent years because of people like the usual crew. Z frame 157 is a wonderful example of what the Zapruder film really is. It is a lying piece of government trash designed to fool the public and coverup the real story of Dealey Plaza. Here is one for you Ray. It is an oldy, but goody. I have even pointed out the shadow for you. Can you apply your "two pole", I will generously call it a theory, to explain it. That makes 3 content problems with Z frame 157. There are more. I will continue with others later.

Why should I refute the things that you say since they are obvious disinformation nonsense. I'm thinking about starting a new topic "A Review of the Strange Imagery Found in Dealey Plaza". There will be a ton of this kind of false, edited images. You can have a field day thinking up goofy stuff.

Ray Mitchum, You say your not a LN or even a secret one. I don't know whether I can trust that since the facts don't seem that important to you as long as you have an argument. For instance your explanation of the "Johnny Cash" car (Johnson Security Vehicle) is about as dumb as your two pole loopiness. "Not being a LN, maybe I could suggest why the car has two "rear ends"😀. The Windshield white triangle shown on the windscreen is obviously a reflection of light. (the black is the reflection of a building on the screen" Why should I refute this nonsense. Take another look at the vehicle. I took a look at your Z 157 example. That is John Connally you have captured in you white rectangle. The person you are referring to is turned around backwards and I don't recall any instances of President Kennedy doing that. Do you know that there is probably more than a half dozen content problems with that frame. Couldn't you use a bigger view of that particular frame. Or, are you keeping it small just so it is difficult to assess? OBTW, one of your confreres, after criticism, went on a rant and said he didn't have an "effin Master". Do you, Ray? Do you have an "effin Master" that makes you write these ludicrous comments? Just curious? Or, have you departed the land of reason and rationality for the land of disinformation and despite?

It looks like old Ray Mitchell needs to go to the dictionary to learn a new word. Your arguments are specious. Specious mean superficially plausible but, totally wrong.

Bart Kamp is actively being monitored and censored on something he just posted an hour ago. Keep up the good work Bart. Post more. This indicates Bart is being actively monitored and this makes me wonder how many other forum members are being spied upon by someone or some entity? This is almost 56 years after the big event. Why?

Mr. Healey is right. Why argue over whether a lamppost is leaning or not when there are far better examples of photo editing in the Zapruder film than a leaning lamppost. Here is just one example of many found in the Zapruder film. I don't know what is going on with the Johnson security vehicle in Altgens 6 and here in Zapruder. Maybe Chris can straighten this out with examining the camera, camera angles, and perspective and calculated nicely with the appropriate math. I've often called this the Johnny Cash car from his song building an auto which was "put together one piece at a time". A car with two rear ends, one in the front and one in the back, probably beats out Johnny's car in strangeness. The front windshield of this vehicle makes absolutely no sense. I will be interested in what the LNs say about it. Here's another from the same general area of the Zapruder film. This is an enlarged crop from Z frame 157. It appears that Kennedy is laying his head on the side of the vehicle and his arm is flopping around outside the vehicle. Shot and dead? This is truly strange imagery but, I am willing to bet that my detractors will have some loopy explanation for this.

On ‎5‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 6:32 AM, Sandy Larsen said: "Andrej makes a good point. How could Frazier say that the person being pointed out -- Prayer Man -- wasn't Oswald when he had no idea who it was? An objective person would say that it might be Oswald for all he knows. I wish the person asking the question would have asked Frazier how he knew that it wasn't Oswald standing there. Did he know that Oswald was somewhere else at the time? When Frazier says he doesn't know who Prayer Man was is where I lose confidence in Frazier's veracity. Any time I watch a Frazier video I come away with a similar impression. Just a good old boy doing the best he could with what he had. Maybe or maybe not." Andrej, I think you have said in a neat fashion what I was saying earlier without listing examples of my reservations concerning Buell Frazier.

When Frazier says he doesn't know who Prayer Man was is where I lose confidence in Frazier's veracity. Any time I watch a Frazier video I come away with a similar impression. Just a good old boy doing the best he could with what he had. Maybe or maybe not.