John Butler

This is a bit off topic but, has anyone seen any other examples of time being shown in any imagery in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination? These are the only two that I know of and one, the TV time is questionable. Isn't that strange that there is only one for sure image? I know of only the one just shown below from Jim Hargrove. My paranoia says there may be something to the time not being shown time after time in Dealey Plaza imagery.

Altgens 5, 6, and 7 are all fakes. The position of the Stemmons sign rules out Altgens 6 and Zapruder 255 being the same. I'll leave that at that. Have you noticed in this gif that Lovelady is shorter than PM and than is taller than PM. Taller in Weigman and shorter in Couch. What's it all about, Alfie? Well, it could mean that 30 or more seconds have gone by and Lovelady has changed step positions. Or, it could just be bad photo editing. The first frame of the gif shows a blurred Lovelady and the second shows a sharper, clearer Lovelady. How do we do that? Why aren't all frames shown at the same speed? BTW, people in the early part of this thread thought that Weigman and Couch happened directly after Altgens 6. At least that part of the lore of Dealey Plaza has been improved. I don't get this: "This may be possible but I will not spend hours doing it because your mentally deranged master does not understand anything and uses you to challenge me. He did so several times in the past and it never ended well for his messengers. I am sure that you are bright enough to understand the problem, however, I would be grateful if you could also convey this information to that mentally disturbed individuum on the other forum. First of all, I don’t have an effin MASTER and nobody uses me for anything. So cut with the cr—p. I do my own research. Do I converse with him on another forum and agree with him sometimes, yes." Where did Andrej say this in this thread? I read through twice and haven't seen that. Has something been erased? Why else is Davidson going through this rant? Whose his "effin MASTER"? Just curious? The gift shows PM drinking a coke as most people think. Or, is he doing something else with a shiny object? How would a dark green 6 1/2 ounce coke bottle with a dark liquid in it put out that much illumination in the dark shadows of the doorway.

Does this describe, albeit edited probably by Specter, the forehead, hairline wound which required a triangular cut moving toward the direction of the center of the forehead?

Andrej, The old adage that a picture is worth 10,000 words certainly works here. Substituting the image of Sarah Stanton for Prayer Man should cure folks of the notion that Prayer Man is a woman. Claiming such was just a disinformation tactic used by disinformation artists to confuse and belittle an issue. And, some still claim that if what Davidson said is something he believes in. "That person is either one of two heights(described previously) depending on what step you believe he/she is on." I still don't get his work. He is counting pixels between to misplaced lines and then offering some unrelated video not connected at all to what you are describing. Huh? I do have another thing you can work on if you have any interest and spare time. Prayer Man is seen to be holding an object. Almost all folks believe that object is a coke he supposedly obtained on the 2nd floor and then came outside the TSBD with. Your models of Prayer Man's hands are the best I have seen. But, those models indicate he is holding something other than a coke. He is holding something about 10 inches give or take between his hands. I guess he could be holding two cokes, but that is not plausible. This hand grip position is almost exactly the same or is the same as the alleged (by me) figure of Prayer Man on the Elm Street Curb in John Martin. The object in Prayer Man's hands in the Couch / Darnell frames occasional becomes brighter in some frames. Since his hands are near sunlight the object he has in his hands may flash with the light indicating a metallic object. Occasionally, this appears to be square object. If you think this is interesting or of any value I would appreciate your thoughts.

This is the kind of research I don't care much for here on the forum. Davidson has arranged his presentation to take height from Buell Frazer and Oswald with his blue lines and therefore deny the accuracy of Andrej's model. He said he is eliminating the hair aspect. In doing so he is saying that Prayer Man's head is not the same height as Frazier's Chin. This not realistic. It puts the height of Prayer Man's head at the level of Frazier's shoulders. And, that old dodge of camera perspective doesn't work here. It appears that Davidson's blue line is at the same level as the red line in Andrej's model.

Chris, What's your point? Just trying to understand what you are saying. Why rotate the graphic 1.3? Doesn't that change the perspective unnecessarily? Your blue lines are placed to low on Frazier's head and Prayer Man's head. That lowers the height of Prayer Man in relation to Frazier and seems nonsensical. Why would you eliminate the hair aspect when by placing your lines lower your are eliminating part of Frazier's skull height and Prayer Man's skull height.

For those people like myself who did not know who this fellow was: American History > The Assassination of JFK > Ian Griggs ▼ Primary Sources ▼ Ian Griggs Ian Griggs was born at Hornchurch, Essex, in 1939. Griggs was a Ministry of Defence Police Officer (1971 to 1994). He has been involved in researching the assassination of John F. Kennedy since 1966. Griggs has visited Dallas on twelve occasions and has travelled extensively throughout the United States in order to study the case. He has met and liaised with numerous eyewitnesses to the assassination, fellow researchers, journalists, police officers, authors, etc. in the USA, Canada and Europe. In 1993 Ian Griggs appeared on BBC-TV Breakfast Time. He was also a guest on the live San Francisco cable TV show Assassination Update and at other times on various US television and radio stations. In 1994 Ian Griggs was a member of the International Perspectives panel at the Assassination Symposium on John F. Kennedy (ASK) held in Dallas, Texas. Ian Griggs presented major research papers to the COPA Conference in Washington DC in October 1995, to the First Conference of The Fourth Decade in Fredonia, NY in July 1996 and to five November in Dallas conferences of JFK-Lancer in Dallas (1996-2000). In 1998 he received the JFK-Lancer New Frontier Award "in appreciation of your contribution of new evidence and furthering the study of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." Ian Griggs has had five major articles published in leading US journal The Fourth Decade and is a regular contributor to the quarterly US research journal The Assassination Chronicles. He has contributed research articles to US journal JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly and to British journals Dallas '63 and The Dealey Plaza Echo. He has also contributed research articles to internet journals Fair Play Magazine, JFK: The Voice of Reason (UK) and JFK Link (Australia). His comprehensive research manuscript on the assassination, Kennedy Assassinated! - Oswald Murdered! was published in Dallas in November 1994. It deals with the manner in which the British media handled the news of the two killings in November 1963.

Givens' answer on Oswald clothing is different from any other person and is way out there. That is unless I missed someone. Was he color blind and seeing green for red. Most color blind people cannot distinguish between the two colors and see green / red as the same color. Or, maybe he is describing the other Oswald. I believe Lee Oswald as versus Harvey was also lurking in the TSBD. They did that in many other places. It is said Oswald was surly and would generally walk off muttering something if spoken to. I don't think there was much difference in their appearance if seen briefly or at a distance. But, there voices may have been different.

Ramigo Arce? Any kin to Danny Arce?

Andrej, It has been a while since I have posted on your Prayer Man analysis. I think you have clearly made your case. Criticism from others should be looked at for something that might be helpful but in the main should be dismissed. You have worked and reworked you analysis to the point that anyone who reads it should fine that analysis easily understandable. The facts and figures you use are IMO dead on and not subject to a fact based criticism. You can stand proudly behind your work. With that said I find your color analysis of CE 151 extremely interesting. Your greyscale to color analysis suggest that CE 151 is a color that may be between a light (pink) to medium color of red. Not exactly pink or light red but the shirt is several shades up from there. I have something I would like for you to look at if you can find the time and think this might be interesting. I have long contended that Prayer Man was on the Elm Street curb filming the assassination as it happened. He has time to return to the doorway of the TSBD before Weigman shows up to film the doorway and we see Prayer Man there. If Officer Marion Baker could make his run to the doorway in 4 seconds Prayer Man had about 3 times that amount of time to make it there. To the point, Prayer Man on Elm Street in the John Martin film has on a red shirt. This is a red that is darker than the CE 151 photo. This may be due to the color intensification of older film types and age. If you have time take a look at this montage and see if the color of the shirt of the figure on Elm would match your work if adjustment for film color of an old film. There is about 4 or 5 seconds (about 70 frames) of this type of imagery on John Martin. I've added Andrej's shirt photos to strengthen the idea for comparison.

"John B., I agree that Buell Frazier's statements about the bag do not ring true, but he may have been just a scared kid getting pushed around rather severely by the cops. Can you imagine the heat that must have been placed on him?" I agree, in part. The Dallas Police were a murderous crew best exemplified by the death of Oswald. As far as the rest of it, I think progress is being made in this thread on understanding the actions and motivations of Truly, Baker, Shelley, Lovelady, and Frazier. William Weston's spider web made an impression on me. If Weston is correct the people in charge there would be capable of anything there masters wanted. If I am correct about Oswald and his camera then it wouldn't have made any difference where he was at in the building or out on the steps or on the Elm Street curb. There was a plan to make sure he was where he was supposed to be or not in films and photos and testimonies. There was a well thought out and prepared cover up plan that could be adjusted as circumstance dictated. The shift from seeing someone on the 3rd or 4th floor stairs to the 2nd floor breakroom is a good example of on the fly adjusting of the cover up.

I believe that that I heard in a video or read that Buell Frazier described the Oswald paper bag as 22 to 24 inches in length. This was a slightly different statement than 27 inches. IMO, Buell Frazier chose 27 inches as a compromise between the standard paper grocery bag of 17 inches found in the 60s and one that would hold a rifle disassembled which would be several inches longer than 27 inches. Or, maybe he was convinced that a 17 inch bag was not acceptable and could not be made to go higher than 27 inches for a bag that would fit under Oswald's arm. People generally kept the larger paper bags to put garbage in before the days of plastic bags. I'm not that certain when plastic bags were introduced but, paper bags were standard in those days. Here, I will go off on one of my biases. Simply, ignore this if you find it unbelievable. IMO, based on the Martin film, Prayer Man had a camera in his hands. He went back to Irving Thursday night to get one of his expensive cameras. He took it to work in a standard paper bag. I believe two films show him with a camera, the Martin film and the Couch / Darnell film. Many people see Buell Frazier as just a young, good old boy doing the best he could with what he had. I don't. Buell Frazier's statements do not ring true. Shelley, Lovelady, and Frazier deny the reality of Doorway Man and Prayer Man. They deny Oswald's alibi. If you read the statements of the people working at the TSBD one would think that Oswald took the day off. A lot of TSBD employees say they did not see Oswald that day or they did not know him. And, all most all say at the critical time of 12:25 to 12:30 say they didn't see Oswald. I think that goes farther than just the reluctance to be involved but, to fear. That would be fear of the authorities in Dallas and what they might do and particularly with the FBI taking the same line as the Dallas Police.

I wonder what "truths" would come out in this camp fire conversation?

I took my own advice and am glad to report that the Ferrell copy is a copy an not the original. But, it is a true copy of the original CE 1381. You can make the comparison here. Unless someone finds something different like a typing script that wasn't around in the 1960's then these statements are accurate.

"Vicky Adams has always denied seeing them near the foot of the stairs when she descended. They denied seeing her there at that time. Vicky Adams WC transcript is suspect, allegedly. (Why in the world was it marked "Top Secret"?) But she did (apparently) initial it in 1964 with the lines about her seeing Shelley and Lovelady, so in the end, we just don't know whether she saw them, or not. What Vickie Adams said was important enough to change. Maybe changed even as late as the 1990's. Here is another example of something "fishy" about what Vickie Adams said on March 23, 1964. I picked this up on the Mary Ferrell site. It definitely is not an original document. Some one had retyped this document and was passing it off as the real thing not a copy. An older version of MS Word processor randomly in printed text printed a line or a few words in a smaller text. This was a big frustration in using MS Word in the 90s. Can what is stated in this supposed Commission Exhibit No. 1381 be trusted. Were things changed here? Someone needs to find the original copy of this and see if anything has been changed. Vickie Adams is said to have denied seeing two men on her way out of the building to the railroad yards much later in time. Can that even be trusted?

A lot of if then and maybes as far as witnesses go according to what you are saying. I don't see selecting some from others as a realistic option. Neither one of us were there so therefore we have to rely on what they said rather than impose our own interpretations on their statements. "You said the shot on the corner had 50 witnesses" What I said was the whole assassination took place in the intersection and in front of the TSBD according to 50 + witnesses. Actually Chris, there is enough reasonable doubt on just about anything about the assassination and that is why people are still trying to find answers to what happened. It is nearly impossible to get folks to agree on any particular aspect of the shooting.

Chris, Thanks for the response. I didn't measure Jackie and John's shoulders at first. She just appeared to be wider. After your post I went back and lightened the crop so you can see Connally's whole form. I measured that against Jackie's and she came out just a tiny fraction wider. As far as trusting Newman, I don't. His first statements are a bit wild and unverified by others. He sees Kennedy standing in the vehicle. I think in his first statement he gave the impression he was closer to the TSBD than other media shows him. I have reservations on Bill Newman. Why pick him or several others when you have 50 + witnesses saying the shooting of the president happened in the intersection and in front of the TSBD? It because of the all pervasive influence of the Zapruder film over the last 40+ years since it was shown on TV. I base my allegations of fraud and fakery in the Zapruder film on its content problems and not its technical merits. I am not great with anything technical. The content problems such as the 19 people I call Mannequin Row between the lamppost and the Stemmons sign on whether they were there or not. Whether there was anyone on the railroad such as Officer Foster and 10 railroad men when Altgens took Altgens 7. The Johnson security vehicle with two rear ends one in the front and the other where it should be. Phil Willis' extra long leg. etc. My original idea on how to fake the Z film was you really don't have to change anything except the contents of the presidential limousine. That idea is supported by some frames in Zapruder that don't quite put all of the limo back after a cut and paste, I think if memory is working right that z 157 is a good example. Simply transfer the action from the intersection to down in front of the Grassy Knoll. Then you can have shooting from the rear which is not likely if the shooting occurred in the intersection. The imagery from the Zapruder Gap in my opinion is what we see there.

Adam, That is really interesting. It looks like someone has "monkeyed" with your version. There are things that look like a hooting baboon, skull, and John Connally in sections. With magnification it looks less like anthropomorphic figures. But it still looks edited by someone.

What a bizarre Z frame! Z 223 crop from John Costella's z frames: I don't see any of the bizarre things in the Z frame above this one in this crop of Z 223. The only thing I see as unusual is Jackie Kennedy is larger or appears larger than John Connally. She has broader shoulders. ** I had a lady tell me once in a genealogy discussion of ancestry that location- location- location was the answer to what we were discussing. Once I checked the location she was wrong in general and in detail. If someone wants to use the Z film for the location of the presidential vehicle when the first shot occurred needs to work out alternative scenarios because as soon as you settle on say Z frame 222 as the moment of the first shot you will have others saying No! No! I personally think the Zapruder Gap footage has been transferred further down Elm Street so that a shooter can be placed in the 6th floor sniper's nest whether the Kabuki drama of a man with a gun was enacted. You can't prove that anyone fired a shot from there beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor can you prove that the first shot occurred at any particular Z frame beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't even prove how many times President Kennedy was shot in the head beyond a reasonable doubt. In another thread I listed at least a half a dozen shots to the head that has been claimed from time to time as a skeptical listing. The Zapruder film may be almost technically perfect as John Costella claims but, it has so many content problems that once these are listed and shown it becomes very difficult to not consider it a built from the ground up fake. Costella said that he thought is was built from the ground up and I didn't understand that for the longest time. The content problems in the film back up what he said. So I don't know what guys like Chris and Chris do to get some accuracy or pin point accuracy in their work. There are always skeptics.

"The first round that struck JFK in the back was fired from the rear and from an elevation of less then 41 feet. Poor old John Connally has to be moved out of the way of the back shot in order to hit the windshield with a fragment. Or, vice versa. What about his wounds and their placement? Or, did I just imagine all that business about the "magic bullet" of Specter? Did that back / throat shot miss Connally? Or, did a fragment fly upward from Connally's arm or leg to hit the framework for the windshield causing that nice round dent that doesn't conform to a fragment hit? Is a second shot needed. Oh, that would make four!

The various frames and photos taken in front of the trade mart shows without doubt that Bill Shelley was there. You folks that claim otherwise are welcome to your opinions. Question: Was Bill Shelley made the handler for both Lee and Harvey? Did this occur with the TSBD in mind since all the book companies were moving over there that summer? And, Dealey Plaza is Murder Plaza, the absolutely best place to carry out a sniper assassination. There are so many places to shoot from. Both worked the same projects in Russia, New Orleans, and Dallas and it would be natural for each to cover the other while the other was doing something else. That was the purpose of the double spy. More Mission Impossible stuff. IMO, this is Lee Oswald (no earlobes) in this photo covered with a face mask of Harvey. It is my belief that the intensification of the framing of Harvey Oswald began in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans. It is difficult for people to tell Lee from Harvey because almost all of the Lee photos have been converted into Harvey. And, that is a position that will drive LN's secret and open into rage.

Chris, To connect the windshield/throat shot to one from the front one has to have a location on where the presidential limousine was located when the first shot occurred. Change that location and you have a different angle and perhaps a different direction. Isn't that your problem? I don't think anyone agrees on where the first shot occurred. Most folks use the "x marks the spot" in Dealey Plaza provided, I think, by Robert Groden based on the Zapruder film. MY view of the Zapruder film is completely different than his. There are over 50 witnesses who have said shooting occurred in the intersection and in front of the TSBD. That is certainly enough witnesses to raise reasonable doubt on what happened and where the first shot occurred. Other than that most folks can't agree on what spot or frame in the Z film where that happened. How can you compute angles without knowing exactly where the presidential limousine was located?

I have just donated. A yearly subscription rate is fine by me. The forum was really changed and improved by James Gordon in recent times. It is a much more civil place to be. I would like to see the rules of the forum maintained and guests and viewers allowed access to the forum and even comment if they so desire. In other words keep things as they are with the new subscription.

I am glad I am not the only one out in La La Land suggesting there is something up with Danny Arce. He is difficult to place in Dealey Plaza exactly by his testimonies. Altgens 6 shows him talking on a hand held radio in front to the Dal-Tex. He was a communications co-conspirator. This Martin Blank has posted some great info. BTW, as far as patsies go don't leave out Chauncey Holt.

Sandy Larsen is a sharp, intelligent and well seasoned researcher. If I am reading him correctly he is expressing doubt that the Krome insert is from the Bell film. And, you can clearly see that doubt in what Krome posted. In the insert there are people by the bridge ornamental detail and there are no people in that particular Bell frame. The area seems to be blacked out. This is one of the problems of the Bell film. I thought since Sandy has doubts about this I had better go back and take another look. I believe the Krome insert is from the Bell film as I have posted earlier. In checking this out I think I have run across something that might be interesting about the Bell film. First, there seems to be some kind of disconnect between parts of the railroad as shown. I can't figure this out. That is interesting but, what is more interesting is the section in the upper right hand corner. The section marked in red in the following: People have a tendency to anthropomorphize or zoomorphize inanimate objects. We tend to see human or animal forms in objects. That might be what is happening in the upper right hand portion of this frame. I see a human face on the train or billboards or buildings or whatever that structure is. Things like this should be dismissed unless there is something else at play involved. If you look closely at the shadows of the trees and the tree branches and their leaves you will see painted artwork. In other words this scene has been edited. This leads me to believe there may be a face there. Is this one of the photo editors. From time to time I have noticed other odd things in other films and photos. Why this editing? It wasn't necessary or was it? Is the scene with the Stemmons Freeway and vehicles edited too? Why would someone do this? What is being covered up. There is definitely editing going on with the painting of shadows and tree branches. You can see the brush strokes because the artist really didn't take his time to do this thinking this would never be seen. Here are more frames showing artwork in the scene and what may be a human face or faces. The artwork in these frames is of poor quality in shaping the tree shadows and branches of the trees. The area enclosing the human face is crudely outlined in black. It is not a structure having form and regularity. That and the other poor quality artwork is the reason there may be some reality in seeing this as a human face. This is way off Jim's topic but, I thought it might have some amusement and provoke some thought about the authenticity of the Bell film.