Jump to content
The Education Forum

Marie Muchmore and the See Through Man

Recommended Posts

Marie Muchmore and the See Through Man

The Marie Muchmore film has been altered.  The question is why?  The assassination event is said to have happened on Elm Street in the area of the Pergola / monument area on the Grassy Knoll.  So, why alter something at Main and Houston?

I don’t have a good answer for that.  But, it does raise reasonable suspicion and create probable cause to look further into the situation in that area by looking at other visual material of that area.  What does the assassins and their henchmen, the photo editors, not want you to see.

The person in this scene from Muchmore is said to be Phillip Willis.  Phillip Willis is the Flat Headed See Through Man flitting briefly through the Muchmore film just as the presidential limousine begins to make the turn onto Houston Street.  Without computers and stop frame / single frame advancement you will never see the following scene.  During the 1960’s and 70’s it was not possible for the average guy to see this.


Willis is an artifact of alteration.  The flat top of his head says that.  The see through appearance also says this.

The following scene is from the Robert Hughes film.  And, suggests that the man blocking the same view of the presidential limousine at the same place and time is Willis or a Willis surrogate.

rh 2.JPG

Again, the question is what are we not supposed to see?  Why make this effort if there is not anything to hide?  Barring any stops, this is roughly a half minute to a minute before the assassination on Elm Street. 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for replying Michael,

These scenes are from Groden's assassination DVD.  The first is the Muchmore film.  The second is the Hughes film.  The first film shows that Muchmore has been edited.  There are other questionable scenes showing something strange when the limo begins its turn off Main onto Houston.  The Hughes film is just a guys shoulder.  I thought it a bit strange this was occurring in a second film blocking the view at about the same time as Muchmore is blocked by Willis.

There are other strange things in other photos and films of the NE corner of Main and Houston.  If I'm not kicked off this website I intend to post and show these things over time.  I've been kicked off of two websites for so called rule violations.  The complaint was actually what was in the posts rather than behavior. 

I am challenging the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the lone gunman theorists, and their supporters.  Not only that, I am challenging 52 years of research by the assassination research community.  I think things have been missed and now is the time to speak about what people are not seeing.

That's fairly bold.  But, bear with me.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy, John

Like others, I used to be a regular visitor to the original Lancer Forum (before Jerry Dealey recently told us here at Education Forum it was hacked twice & destroyed on the last online ambush).

As I recall, Marie Muchmore's film was included in discussions on why so many of the assassination attack footage are missing the turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street, the shooting sequence that began in close proximity to the [Robert] 'Croft ladies' photo #3, as well as the entire ambush or escape from Dealey Plaza (or both). Amateur films that fell into this category include Muchmore, Nix, Paschall, Bronson, Martin, Bell, Dorman, Zapruder, Hughes & Towner (I might be forgetting a film or 2).

The short film produced by Martin is particularly hard to understand when once actually visits Dealey Plaza & stands where the photographers stood & ask themselves why someone would go to all the trouble to fight traffic & crowds, find parking or walk to their film spots & position themselves where they could film the President & his entourage traversing the streets of Dealey Plaza & just take snippets of film instead of capturing the entire journey from Main Street to under the triple underpass & a bit beyond. 

If one follows & accepts the research of Doug Horne & David Lifton, exit debris of the horrific JFK fatal head wound(s) was taken out of the films that captured that scene (Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix, Bronson), as well as the parade car stop during the shooting & it's sharp turn from Houston to Elm streets (assuming the photographers didn't stop filming).

I vaguely recall in the Lancer discussions talk about what's visible in the brief headshot scene in Muchmore's film appears to some to be the result of enlargement alteration. Some people took video from Muchmore's 2nd filming location & (assuming Muchmore did not zoom her camera in the time she moved from Houston Street to the concrete structure behind the reflecting pools, the JFK parade cars appeared to be larger than it does when Muchmore was closer to the car in her first filming location on Houston Street (near or next to slide photographer Wilma Bond). Those folks were saying that the grassy knoll looks enormous compared to how it looks when one actually stands at the Muchmore filming spot & either looks at it or films it with a camera.

Unknowledgeable, biased or incompetent interviewers of assassination photographers plus other witnesses compounded the situation. I've lost track of the Newman family interviews posted online in which the interviewer fails to ask the family members the most basic of questions: 'since Abraham Zapruder was filming over your heads, directly behind you, is what is depicted in the Zapruder film an accurate portrayal of what you saw with your own eyes? Is anything missing or added?' The Sixth Floor Museum is notorious for omitting the hard questions when handling assassination witnesses as their weak online videos attest. Marilyn Sitzman wasn't even asked that question. Marilyn was standing behind Zapruder on the film pedestal, steadying the man. If anyone knew his film was monkey with, it was Marilyn.

The common denominator with online, book & documentary film analysts is that those that argue for authenticity & those that argue against it were not present when the crime was committed over 53 years ago, further confusing an already confused global public.

At the very least, the subject sends a global message about not trusting law enforcement agents with personal film footage & the equipment that captured it.


Brad Milch

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Brad,

How true.  I'm just trying to concentrate on the intersection of Main and Houston.  There is more to reveal. 

Your right about the 6th floor except when it comes to Mary Holly.  There I'm doing it myself.  I just want to keep focus on the intersection of Main and Houston for the present.

Here is something to consider.

Marie Muchmore’s Testimony

As far as I know Marie Muchmore made two statements to the FBI.  These statements were made on 12/4/63 and 2/14/64.  The statements are similar to many FBI witness statement and involve evolving testimony.  You can call it clarification if you will.  To me it suggests changing the story.  I have seen similar things in many other testimonies.


Here is the relevant statement.  “As the parade passed by there she heard the first shot but from where they were standing could not could not observe where the shot came from.”

Did she hear a shot when the 3 lead motorcycle policemen came by, or when the presidential limousine came by, or when the press bus came by?

That’s a pretty vague statement for a trained FBI agent to make.  What if she heard a shot as the President passed by?

This is corrected in the next document but still presents problems for researchers. 


The FBI vagueness is corrected to hearing a shot after the limo turn onto Elm St.  This is still vague but can be argued that the shot occurred way after the turn.  Or, can it?

The only other person I know of who claimed to hear a shot as the presidential limousine turned from Main onto Houston was Bonnie Ray Williams.  He said he heard two shots.  He later changed this location to when the presidential limousine turned from Houston to Elm Street.  He then changed that to just after the limousine passed his position.  You will find “just after” or “passed by” for a lot of witnesses who originally said they heard a shot when the limo turned the corner onto Elm.

How does this help with seeing strange things in the visual record when the President’s vehicle turns onto Elm Street?  It may indicate the FBI is hiding information regarding the intersection of Main and Houston when the President was there.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, the flat head and see through factor can easily be due to motion blur . The man is very close to the camera and so will move through the frame very quickly and cause blur. Notice the bald spot has straight lines that run at about a 17 degree angle upwards to the right. That is the direction of travel the head took in that 50th? of a second. It created a straight line out of a curved surface and appears flat. In that moment he moved in a straight line and so dragged the image through the frame causing a straight line of blurred image which appears as flat.
The see through effect happens because in that 50th of a second he moves forward a bit. In the first 100th of as second(half the total exposure time) his image lands on the film. In the next 100th sec he moves left and now an image of the limo falls on the film right were the back of his coat was. That means two images have fallen on that spot and we see a ghost of the 1st image(the coat) and also the second image of the limo layed over each other. This happens in reverse for the front image of his coat. We might be able to test this because the limo image overlaid within the ghost of his coat should be from different moments in the front compared to the back. The limo image in the back of his coat was made just after the front image. But until we have something to indicate it is not motion blur I have to assume that is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying Chris,

Maybe the following is motion blurring also.

Here is another scene from Muchmore that is highly suspicious.  There is nobody in the back of the presidential limousine.  There appears to be a Dallas policeman firing a gun or taking a picture.  The scene is fairly blurry.  But, it is sufficiently clear to see there is no one in the back seat.


 I don’t know what to make to this?  With the silver balls in Elsie Dorman are these scenes sufficient to take one over into alien research.  Is the science fiction rather than science fact?

Edited by John Butler
new space for photos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying Robin,

I really don't know what you are talking about when you say the man in the cap is not Willis.  I don't think I mentioned anyone in a cap.  Your images are nice sharp and clear.  However, Groden's is good enough to see there is no one in the back of the limo. 

I have another nickname for Phillip Willis.  It's Phillip "superleg" Willis.  He's named after what is shown in Z frame 157.  May be he hopped down to the SW corner with that leg faster than the presidential limo drove down there.  Here's Superleg.


Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/01/2017 at 10:10 PM, Robin Unger said:

If you want to do photo analysis you need to get better frames.



Greer must have found those flags out on the fenders awfully distracting when he was driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Robin for your decision.  Things are not going to get better, but worse in he kook theory field.  I'm just getting started.  No games, Mate.

I would like to take the time to apologize to the Willis family for the uncalled for crude humor.  However, Z frame 157 is what it is.  I didn't make it. I simply should have talked about that with a more professional manner.

I agree with the better frames notion.  But, Groden is sufficient.  It is not much of a photo analysis to note that the occupants of the back seat are missing.  You don't need a photogrammetrist to see that.   

There are other things to note at the beginning of Marie Muchmore but, they are a bit iffy.  To go over those one would be on thin ice.  So the next post is this series are about Patsy Paschall and Elsie Dorman.  I will continue when I have the time.  I have to replace a leaky commode.  Not being a plummer that might take some time. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...