John Butler

I was wondering when Chris Davidson was going to show up. It looks like I am being entertained with more pictures of tires as phony as the earlier ones. You folks must really feel threatened by this thread. I don't know whether to call you guys secret LN's or CT's in denial. Doesn't matter what I am posting threatens your fantasy land of 55 years. At least Jeremy Bojczuk is dealing with the topic at hand. But, he is a biased commentator and somewhat of a fanatic who loves to twist statements. "Look, there aren't any reasonable objections to the lone nut theory! All of those conspiracy theorists are crazy, paranoid fantasists!" Is this for real or laughable? As far as this goes: The smaller frame is familiar and from Muchmore just before you see Edgar Smith. The motorbike cop blocks his view. I would not have submitted this. What the larger frame is I don't know. It doesn't have either Officer Joe Marshall Smith or Edgar Smith on the southeast corner of Elm and Houston or under the windows of the Court Record Building. This makes this frame very suspicious. The frame does have an officer stationed in the middle of Elm St. at the intersection. It looks to be from an elevated position. Bell and Zapruder shot from elevated positions. The angles don't seem right for either of them. Can't be Zapruder because the scene is much clearer. Can't be Altgens because he would be blocked by folk on the southwest corner of Elm and Houston. So, who? Not a clue. Is this some secret film no one knows anything about?

Krome and co. have it almost 100% correct but, not all the way. On returning to where I first developed this information in , I see where people could say I confused Officer Barnett with Officer Joe Smith. But, I understand why they did that and why I said what I said. The identity of these officers is confusing because there was supposed to be 3 officers at the intersection and the film record shows there may have been four. In some of the WC statements where these officers said they were located is confusing and was further confused by the WC interrogators such as Liebeler. Edgar Smith said he was stationed under the windows of the Court Records Building and not on the corner of Southeast Houston and Elm. That was about 30 or 40 feet south of the Southeast corner. He also said there were two Smiths assigned to that corner, the southeast corner of Houston and Elm. This frame is from Escape From the TSBD: The Fire Escape Plan- From Edgar Smith’s WC testimony. “to carry placards, but if I should notice anyone attempting to throw them or any thing like that, I should take them into custody. I was assigned to the corner of Houston and Elm Street. I got to my traffic corner about -- Mr. LIEBELER. Before you get to that - let me ask you a few questions: What did you say your name was, Edgar L.? Mr. SMITH. E. L. - Edgar L. Mr. LIEBELER. There were two Smiths on that corner? Mr. SMITH. Yes; I understand that.” ** “Mr. SMITH. Well, ran down Houston Street and then to Elm, and actually, I guess it was a little bit farther over than this, because after they turned the corner I couldn't see any of the cars, there were so many people standing there around the corner. Mr. LIEBELER. So, you were a little bit farther south down Elm Street than Position "A"? Mr. SMITH. Yes; possibly a little bit farther south than that - yes; I was under these windows here. 567 Mr. LIEBELER. That's the county building there you are talking about? Mr. SMITH. Yes; a little bit farther down. Anyhow, I couldn't see down there without running over here, and I run down here at the time to see the Presidential car go under the triple underpass at a high rate of speed, and I pulled my pistol out and there was people laying down there and run down the street and that was about all. I thought when it came to my mind that there were shots, and I was pretty sure there were when I saw his car because they were leaving in such a hurry, I thought they were coming from this area here, and I ran over there and checked back of it and, of course, there wasn't anything there. Mr. LIEBELER. You thought the shot came from this little concrete structure up behind No. 7?” ** If there were two Smiths on the southeast corner of Houston and Elm, then who was on the northeast corner. We have a choice of Welcome Barnett or an unknown. Welcome Barnett from his testimony can be placed in the center of Houston Street but, also on the northeast corner of Houston and Elm. Welcome Barnett said in his WC statements: “Mr. BARNETT - We divided our duties. Mr. LIEBELER - How did you do that? Mr. BARNETT - Well, as best I remember, we each picked a corner and got on the corner. We were advised to stay on our corner, not to cross over to idly talk, but to stay on the corner and keep our eyes open and be ready. Mr. LIEBELER - Which corner did you station yourself at? I have a picture here of an aerial view - you can sit down - Commission Exhibit No. 354. Of course, you can recognize the intersection of Elm and Houston here in the left-hand upper portion of the picture; can you not? Mr. BARNETT - I was right here. Mr. LIEBELER - At No. 1. Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you remain there at all times from 10 o'clock until the motorcade arrived? Mr. BARNETT - Yes; well, of course, I was here until we got word to stop the traffic, and I stepped out of this position here. I had to stop traffic from Houston here and help the other officers stop it on Elm, and stop this traffic on this small street that goes in front of the Depository Building. ” This could mean after the shooting had occurred word came to stop the traffic. ** That leaves the officer standing in the middle of Houston Street as Officer Barnett or an unknown. It is also the reason I believe Officer Barnett was the officer directing traffic after the shooting contrary to his statement. The two Smiths ran to the Grassy Knoll immediately after the shooting. Barnett ran up Houston Street and then around the TSBD. He came back to his post after that. So, that leaves an unknown directing traffic after the shooting and stopping the Mayor’s car and after a short time releasing the Mayor’s Car and the National Press Pool Car. Whoever was there directing traffic then stopped the Camera Cars on Houston Street for about 30 seconds. Or, it could have been Welcome Barnett leaving his post after the shooting and directing traffic, the motorcade, on Houston Street as it moved north on Houston. Enough distraction! What about the 50 witness statements on shooting in the intersection of Houston and Elm. Only Jeremy has tackled that with a rebuttal. I don't think he did very well but, at least he tried to debunk those statements. As far as the trall (misspelled Ray) has made his usual meaningless, garbage noises and others have made hay of distractions, why can't they concentrate on the seriousness of the charge that shooting occurred in the intersection before the motorcade reached the Grassy Knoll?

I do have to apologize for an error in the info on this Towner frame. I have a bad habit of spelling Welcome Barnett's name as Welcome Barrett. Everything else is fine. Welcome Barnett at WC: Mr. BARNETT - Well, as best I remember, we each picked a corner and got on the corner. We were advised to stay on our corner, not to cross over to idly talk, but to stay on the corner and keep our eyes open and be ready. Mr. LIEBELER - Which corner did you station yourself at? I have a picture here of an aerial view - you can sit down - Commission Exhibit No. 354. Of course, you can recognize the intersection of Elm and Houston here in the left-hand upper portion of the picture; can you not? Mr. BARNETT - I was right here. Mr. LIEBELER - At No. 1. Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you remain there at all times from 10 o'clock until the motorcade arrived? Mr. BARNETT - Yes; well, of course, I was here until we got word to stop the traffic, and I stepped out of this position here. I had to stop traffic from Houston here and help the other officers stop it on Elm, and stop this traffic on this small street that goes in front of the Depository Building

You two fellows need to check your vision, get glasses or better glasses, or at least look at the evidence. I don't think you boys have looked at the evidence, maybe in a cursory way at best. Two photos and two films put Officer Welcome Barrett in the intersection and not on either the northeast or southeast corner of the intersection of Houston and Elm. 1. Altgens 5 2. Altgens 6 3. Marie Muchmore film 4. Robert Hughes and, the Tina Towner does show an officer on the southeast corner but it is not Welcome Barrett. That particular officer is Edgar Smith. Officer Barret is shown in the intersection where he said he was in his WC testimony. That makes 6 sources including his testimony. Learn to look at the evidence on hand not the evidence in your warped and deluded minds. Stop your trolling activities and get a life.

David, The Marie Muchmore film is not a better comparison to Hughes if I am remembering correctly. But, neither Hughes or Muchmore show much detail. The Altgens photo is superior. There may be a couple of things. The reflections on the sides of the limousine in Hughes and Muchmore may differ or a least they appear to differ from the reflections on the side of the limo in Altgens 5. Hughes and Muchmore match and Altgens doesn't. Another difference is the crowd down at the intersection of Elm and Houston on the east side near Officer Welcome Barrett. Jack White first noticed that the crowd there differs from the crowd in the Zapruder film. Jack said that not a one were the same. If you look at Hughes and Muchmore there are not as many people there near Welcome Barrett than what is seen in Altgens 5. In Muchmore and Hughes there doesn't seem to be anybody behind Barrett. But, that is difficult to see due to the vagueness of the imagery. and, When you compare a crop from Altgens 5 with a crop from Altgens 6 concerning Officer Barrett you will be hard pressed to find anyone that is the same. We have a young black boy in one, Altgens 5, who is not in the other. We have two young white boys that are in one, Altgens 6, and not in the other. Actually there are two young black boys in Altgens 5 and not in the other. Plenty of fellows in white shirts in one but, not in the other. Altgens 5 and Altgens 6 or just seconds apart and not even enough time for one crowd to vanish and another take its place. There is a lady in a dark outfit that may appear to be the same in both photos. But, the one in Altgens 6 is wearing a short jacket and the one in Altgens 5 is wearing a long coat. They are not the same woman. I have no evidence to say what went on just past the corner of Houston and Main after crossing the crosswalk. I could speculate but, most folk don't like what I say based on evidence. It will be interesting to see just how mad and deluded I am with this discussion.

Jim, I wasn't able to access January—Lee in the Philippines. Are these photos related to the photos of Alan Weberman? He published a book with very poor copies of photos of Oswald in the Philippines. He claims Oswald was out hunting Huks or communist rebels there or around Subic Bay. I remember seeing the photo of John Wayne and what looked like Harvey in the background. If you still have my email and the time and energy I would love to see those photos.

I really didn’t want to come back into this argument with a bunch of LN’s who are ignorant of various things such as word meaning or how photo alteration was done in the 1960’s and prior. Jeremy, af·ter (afÆtÃr, äfÆ-), prep. 1. behind in place or position; following behind: men lining up one after the other. 2. later in time than; in succession to; at the close of: Tell me after supper. Day after day he came to work late. You are as bad as trollboy Ray Mitcham. Even “immediately after” was not enough to satisfy him. After needs to specify when after to be understandable. If it doesn’t than you can assume it is directly after as in the definition above. After in your case means down by the Stemmons sign or the Grassy Knoll. These statements don’t say that. Your cherry picking a few statements of 50 witnesses and really not providing yourself any ammunition for your contention. I excluded those statements that say “after” and then specify where the vehicle was past the TSBD such as down by the Grassy Knoll. Ron and Tony, I was aware of the reflection on the limo’s trunk. What do you think of the reflections on the side of the vehicle? Does that show the vehicle was there, also? You fellows need to go back and review how photo editing was done in the 1960’s and prior. I suggest paying attention to what David Healey has said on the subject. The reflection on the back of the vehicle simply means that part of the vehicle was there. It really doesn’t nullify using images from other locations to build a composite image. Their mistake was the composite image they built was slight larger, hence the mismatch, than the original image when they did the final re-filming of the cut and paste image with the matte. It is good to see who are LN’s however much they claim not to be and however loudly they claim to be honest JFK researchers. When you can’t make your argument through false and misleading evidence it is always best to attack the other guy as mad or delusional. Are you boys forgetting the forum rule about commenting on another’s mental state? Where is Michael Clark on this?

Photo editing occurs when you change an image. There are no shadows involved with this tire on the left or west side of the tire. Look under the vehicle if you have good eyes and you will see the shadow of the tire. This is clear image alteration. The photo editor who did this didn't alter the tire. He altered the whole image of the presidential limousine by substituting an image of the presidential limousine from another circumstance. His mistake was the image over lay was larger than the original image. This size imbalance shows up in the mismatched aspect of the tire. This is my last comment on this. This is just a distraction from the real thread which is about shooting in the intersection of Elm and Houston Street and the 50 witnesses who said that. If you want to continue with this lone gunner distraction go right ahead.

Jim, That is really weird? I picked this up on the internet a couple of years ago. I just searched Lee Harvey Oswald in the Marines and the photo didn't come up. I've even written a piece about this somewhere. I'll have to look it up. I've always thought this looked more like Robert Oswald but, had to give that up when you look at the features of this Oswald and compare them against the traits I have listed based on his Dallas mug shot. It appears to be Harvey Oswald although my "art comparison sense" says otherwise. I don't see any obvious signs of a composite picture. This photo is often used when comparing the stance of Oswald in the BYP to the Oswald stance in this photo. On a second search I found this based on Lee Harvey Oswald stance and the BYP: It doesn't look like anything I have done in comparisons. I have never discussed stance in the BYPs.

Although hard to do, I have to agree with Ron Bulman. What's your point? I've been shown photo edited photos of the Altgens 5 tire. I've been shown photos of tires. I'll repeat, there is no way to get around the tire alteration seen in the Altgens 5 photo. Have you forgotten the main point of this thread in your fascination with tires? Once again what is your point without short or long winded distractions?

Hmmm? More photo editing. That tire looks like it is out of round. Looks kind of triangular in the rear part near the pavement. Would it roll correctly looking like that. Would it go wrrr thump wrrr thump wrrr thump wrrr thump or something like that? There is no way to get around the alteration of that tire by photo editors with intent to give a different version of reality. I still haven't found the evidence to show what that might be. I can guess but, most people don't like what I say even when I have strong evidence like the 50 witness statements show earlier.

I'm not a fan of Judith Baker. But, Ed Haslam makes a fair case in Dr. Mary's Monkey. Haslam believes aids originated in New Orleans. I have always believed aids spread early on in the 1960s from a port city. If you really think about it airlines work faster. in 1968 during military times in Korea we were warned not to go to Japan because there was a strange VD there which if you caught it you would die within just a few weeks. They called it the "black clap". There rumors as in the early 1980's that the CIA spread aids as a means to do something. I don't even remember the source for this. If you have ever been in the army you will known how wild and profligate rumors are being passed around all the time. Imagine that if it is true. 1963 New Orleans to 1968 world wide plague. I believe you have this photo. It is supposedly Harvey Oswald in the Marines. A lot of folks identify this as Harvey.

Really interesting things here that I haven't seen before. Thanks. Second police car at Tippit shooting? on Fri 10 Jan 2014, 3:44 am More from Into the Nightmare: "Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle. ... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account. ...Michael Brownlow in 1970 found the other witness to the second police car, Sam Guinyard, a porter at a used-car lot at 501 East Jefferson who worked with Ted Calloway. Guinyard told the Commission that at the time of the shooting, he was standing 'at the back (of the car lot), right at the alley back there' and about ten feet from Patton. Guinyard failed to mention the second police car when he gave that testimony... (No further details about what Guinyard may have seen) Frank Wright, who lived half a block east of the shooting, told reporter Earl Golz that he saw two men involved in the crime. But that was a belated addition to his earlier account of seeing one man drive off in a car. To Golz he mentioned another man fleeing on foot. ...independent researchers George and Patricia Nash ...in 1964... reported Wright telling them that after hearing the shots, he came out of his home at 501 East Tenth and saw Tippit hit the ground and roll over after being shot. Wright said he saw a man standing near Tippit, not holding a gun but wearing a long coat (contrary to most other witnesses' description of a fleeing man wearing a light jacket), run away and drive off, alone, in a 'grey, little old coupe. It was about a 1950-51, maybe a Plymouth'. Redfern Posts : 98 Join date : 2013-08-27 Re: Second police car at Tippit shooting? on Fri 10 Jan 2014, 7:00 am

That's part of the reasoning that suggests there is little evidence to support something happening on Houston Street. If you go back and read what I have said about this during, I believe, 4 years, is essentially the same as what I am saying now. Outside of Marie Muchmore, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Alan Smith there is no one saying anything about shooting on Main or Houston Street. If there are any others I don't know of them. The AMIPA film shows the motorcade on Main St. No who looks at that other than me sees anything wrong there. So, what's your point?

The Altgens 7 crop (excluding shadows since this is on Elm Street) tire is what the Altgens 5 tire should look like. The image overlay is larger than the original image contained in Altgens 5. The mismatch in tire size is what accounts for this strange appearance in Altgens 5. Altgens 5, 6, and 7 were hastily done on the afternoon of the assassination. That is why there are editing mistakes in all 3 photos. These photos were needed to tell the overall story of the assassination. Altgens 5 shows nothing happened on Houston Street and the intersection of Houston and Main. Altgens 6 tells you where the first shot occurred. Altgens 7 gives you the horror and the tragedy of the assassination as the brave Jackie recovers a piece of her husband on the trunk of the vehicle. Combine these 3 with the Zapruder Film (for the last shot) and Mary Moorman's Polaroid (for the moment before the last shot) and you have a visual account of the assassination that the public can understand and accept, which they initially did.

Jim, Here's something that has been rattling around in my mind as a speculation. Supposedly, Harvey Oswald was a confidant of David Ferrie and involved in the monkey virus business. Could Oswald have caught the SV 40 virus and aids. I base this on the following photos. It is a mere speculation. And, I would know how you would come up with any evidence. Blood from his clothing? There seems to be about 30-40 pounds difference in these photos. The weight difference can be explained other ways such as living a semi-married life existence.

My, My, My. You boys should have been on the original photo editing team. Then we wouldn't have this problem. Chris, Your argument is irrational. This is the photo Altgens 5. The Muchmore and Hughes film has nothing to do with Altgens 5. The vehicle was on Houston Street not Elm Street. Tony, Your artwork is simply artwork and no more. There is no shadow at the bottom of the tire. Look at the following crop where the brightness is increased. You can see the actual shape of the tire. No shadows! You can see where the tire treads go down to and meet the pavement. Jeremy, I think you live in a world of your own imagination. Try the truth sometimes. It is refreshing. As far as the trool Ray Meacham, he is not worth talking to.

I don't see how you can make comparisons here. But, that doesn't matter to the folk who post these lame rebuttals just as long as they have some sort of thing, rational or not, they can claim is different and therefore that fellow doesn't know what he is talking about through incompetency, paranoid delusion, or some such thing. Often their intent is simply to move the focus off the topic. As far as shadows go, the shadow of the tire is under the vehicle along with the shadow of the vehicle. This is because the sun is positioned in a westerly direction as the vehicle travels north on Houston Street. There is no shadow on the west (left) side of the tire or on the pavement on the left side. Any shadow would be on the right side of the tire under the vehicle. The real problem of this photo is why alter it? Everything else shows that there is no problems in this section of the intersection of Houston and Main. I have no evidence other than this alteration to suggest something happened here. No one believes the Muchmore or Williams statement of shooting there. The crowds along Houston and Main are about as heavy as anywhere else shown in photos. To have just two people of those groups of people reporting shooting there is suspect.

There are certain categories of people who will believe what is seen here is a shadow effect and not an image overlay. These are Lone Nuts, secret Lone Nuts, fools, the pent-x( can't use this word for a creature living under a bridge and later comes out to harass) and the quad-x (Can't use that word either. This is a person who distorts reality with their false statements.) This is a clear case of image alteration and anyone who says differently has an agenda to distort the truth.

So much for Altgens 5. Why would this photo be altered?

From a Jackie Kennedy Interview: JFK Murder Jackie Kennedy Reveals All Rich Torne Published May 10, 2017 Jackie says: “They were gunning the motorcycles, there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arms and saying “No No No,” with his fist beating---Then Jack turned and turned--- All I remember was a blue grey building up ahead; then turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out….” The reference for this is 11/29/63 The Making of the President 1960 People have a tendency to ignore or disbelieve what they don’t understand or what doesn’t make sense to them. Jackie Kennedy said something strange decades ago and it just kind of went over people’s heads. The problem with this statement by Mrs. Kennedy is there is no blue-grey building down by “X marks the spot” in front of the Grassy Knoll. Nowhere in the Zapruder film will you find a blue-grey building on Elm Street. Everyone believes President Kennedy was shot in front of the Grassy Knoll because of the all-pervasive influence of the Zapruder film and other media. Let me repeat that. There is no blue-grey building on Elm Street that can be seen driving toward the Triple Underpass. What was she talking about? In fact, there is no blue-grey building on Elm Street or Houston Street in Dealey Plaza. There was a blue-grey building on Main Street just south of the Old Court House on the corner of Main Street and South Record Street. This was the only blue-grey building in the area. This blue-grey building is no longer there. The area is now a park, the John F. Kennedy Memorial Plaza. It vanished shortly after the assassination. The building was gone by at least 1966. And, This is what the area looks like today. The design is a cenotaph. It represents the freedom of the President’s spirit. It was designed by a Kennedy family friend, Philip Johnson. It was approved by Jackie Kennedy. The citizens of Dallas totally funded its construction. Here is what we have instead of a blue-grey building. It is a little strange for a memorial. It is somewhat weird. Here is something weirder. Are they saying with this monument, “Here is where President Kennedy was put into a box. Here, his spirit was fenced in, trapped.” Someone said it was insulting Leggo construction? Jackie Kennedy’s information can be interpreted as the shooting of Jack Kennedy happened just after she noticed a blue grey building ahead. The phrase “last expression” means he was shot and killed there on Main Street just before reaching the area of the Old Court House. And, that sets off a fury of denial by those who have a different view, both Lone Nut and CTs.

Jeremy, Quite a hit piece! I’m crushed. With a wave of your pen in a dualistic argument you have turned white into black. Rational argument into paranoid delusion. I love it when someone on the forum takes what they consider a perceived weakness and turn it into major point of argument against what you are saying. Since you have done such a serious refutation of what I said about the visual record please go back and review what I have said about those parts of the visual record that have been altered. You will be doing the readers a great service. Photo editing and alteration of the visual record is the concern of the majority of the things I have posted. To start, I would love to hear your refutation of the alteration and falsehood of Altgens 5. I believe that’s the first piece I posted on the forum.

Don't know if this is helpful. Here are 4 images magnified. I believe these are Lee Oswald not, Harvey. The problem is that the TSBD window image is of such poor quality. Lee Oswald is characterized by features that are hard to see in any of these photos. The upper right is the best example. 1. Receding hairline 2. Sloping shoulders 3. Broad but, short chin 4. Slender neck, not wide like Harvey but, fairly normal in appearance 5. Broad nose 6. No earlobes 7. Broad and high forehead The only things I can see are: 1. Holds head in the same manner as Lee Oswald 2. Has what appears as a receding hairline 3. I don't see the characteristic wide neck of Harvey Oswald, hard to say about sloping shoulders 4. Has broad forehead 5. General shape of the head and appearance might suggest Lee Oswald I won't defend any of these points strongly. The image quality is just to poor.

???? Did this guy, Pat Speer, actually read what these witnesses were saying? Or, did he just say that to advance his own agenda? What he said doesn't match what the witnesses said. Surely, if he has a large collection of witness statements he should have picked up on this minority view long ago. He probably has a collection of what the majority witnesses that say what he said. No problem, mate. That is the majority opinion other wise there would not be an alternate reality I termed mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza. Other than that he might be a staunch defender of the Zapruder Film, the most corrupt film in history. Marie Muchmore: After telling the falsehood that she did not obtain any photographs (perjury) she would have said anything that the FBI wanted. She changed her story on the shooting. "Or how about even a photographer in one of the camera cars...who said the first shot was fired BEFORE the car in which he was riding was on Houston?" Who was that reporter? Jackie Kennedy also said there was shooting on Main Street.