Marie Muchmore and the See Through Man

[John Butler]

Robin,

Maybe one day we'll agree on something.

I don't do photo analysis.  What I do is image comparison.  And, I'm good at it.

There's about a 1000 views on this.  Isn't there anyone out there who would like to reply other than a half a dozen gateway thugs?  They seem to be the only ones using this blog.  There is interest otherwise the number of posts wouldn't be this high in just a few days.

If I hurt any feelings out there then I apologize.

Now, I understand something that has been bothering me for some time.  That is the lack of progress in assassination research over the last  couple of  decades.  Minds have shut down and no longer entertain new ideas.  Out of the box thinking is out the door. 

[John Butler]

Thanks Robin,

That is a wonderful photo.  You don't have any problem seeing what type of shoes she has on in that Polaroid taken by Jean Hill. 

There's some problems with her shoes.  In Zapruder she has flat black shoes similar to the Polaroid.  In some frames they don't show very well and you might suspect she has on white shoes.  Jack White did.  However, if you look close enough there is generally a shadow under what appears to be a white shoe indicating flat black shoes.

The problem comes from a Cancellare photo that show Jim Featherstone and Mary Moorman talking in the distance.  If you blow up that section of the photo Mary appears to be wearing high heels. 

She is holding a purse.  Neither She or Jean Hill have a purse in Zapruder or other films.

The length of her raincoat is variable.  In the Polaroid her coat comes down to her ankles.  In Zapruder and other films her raincoat is just below her knees.  In the Cancellare photo is raincoat is midcalf. 

Don't get me wrong.  I don't hold Mary Moorman responsible for anything she has done.  I believe she did the best she could in a vary difficult situation.  She has been consistent with her testimony from then until now.  On the other hand I laud and curse Jean Hill.  She was not consistent with her testimony.  Mary and Jean's testimonies diverged the following day.  Jean said one thing Mary said what she has consistently said.

[John Butler]

I like David Joseph's composite.  He should have included the other woman with the lady in blue.  He should have included the 3rd set of women further to the east on the SW corner. 

What he did present is a bit of a con. There is enough in the post to conclude that the Bull Goose Looney has escaped the clutches of the Combine. 

It doesn't include any of the reasoning on why I believe the images of Mary and Jean in the Zapruder film are false.  I use Z frame 298 for their general appearance.  Their appearance in Z frame 298 is basically correct.  But, their are things that are missing and things that are retouched.

The business of discussing the appearance of Mary and Jean is what the discussion of the SW corner of Elm and Houston is about.  We only have two views of what is there.  Zapruder and Dorman.  The two films don't match.  The women on the SW corner at the end of the pavement just before the grass are different in the two films.  The films portray them as being there at the same time.

There is a lot to say on this topic.  I might continue later.

 

[David Josephs]

deleted

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by David Josephs

[John Butler]

Ah, David.  Thinks for making one of my points for me.  Mary's raincoat is portrayed in your composite as being of different lengths.

Her arms are not significantly raised.  Her sleeves might raise but not the coat to account for the difference in these photos.

Maybe clutching her purse in the scene with Jim Featherstone is enough to raise her raincoat and account for the differences in the Polaroid and the Cancellare photo.

Maybe Mary's magic purse and shoes help  with coat raising?  Or maybe the wind or Texas gophers. 

I didn't post a con job as others have.

Folks, make your own decisions.  Don't allow someone to make it for you.  Fire up your computers and look at the visual material concerning Moorman and Hill in Dealey Plaza and decide for yourself.  So what if you make an error.  It's yours not some expert who is wrong nearly all the time.

I have one more post to make on the intersection of Main and Houston before I continue discussing The Dynamic Duo. 

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by John Butler

[John Butler]

I was going to post on Algens 5.  I don't think I will.  Being an old fellow my blood pressure is more important than arguing with the same people.

So, I going to leave them my thoughts on the Kennedy assassination.  I think they will find things here they can agree with.

The Kennedy Assassination over 50 years later:  Notes on an assessment

• The cover up of the Kennedy assassination is an ongoing affair.  It is still operating today blatantly and with some people and organizations one would not ordinarily suspect. 

• The assassination of President John F. Kennedy happened long ago, over 50 years ago.

• To modern, younger generations that event is ancient history along with WWII, the Korean War, the Cold War, and the fall of Communism Empire.  And, to them these events have little to do with what is happening today.

• On the contrary, events of long ago do effect the present and future.  WWII spawned a generation of men who were willing to do anything to accomplish their mission.  They were willing to do things more savage, more brutal, and more dehumanizing than the enemy to win. This was the problem then and this is the root problem of government today.  Government and society were changed forever.

• The people who planned the assassination of President Kennedy were thorough and meticulous in their planning.  Everything was arranged to perfection in their plan.  They had back up plans.  But, as with most large scale planning things don’t go as plan.  The assassination was botched requiring a greater effort at cover up.  

• In the end the assassins were successful and seized the power of the Presidency to do what they considered fit.  The course of history was changed by the assassination as the assassins assumed the power of government.  

• It will never be known exactly who they were.  Many have speculated as to who these people were and are probably correct in their assumptions.  As it stands nothing can be proved against them. 

• There are self-confessed assassins.  There is E. Howard Hunt’s death bed confession and everyone’s best guess or speculation based upon what this person or that person said.   

• The assassination and cover up were completed before the election of 1964 and the assassins were free and clear.  They profited and were reelected.  There were maintenance issues and several hiccups of assassination concerns during the following decades.  The assassination cover up is still being maintained.

• Next year is 2017 and there will probably be another round of Kennedy Assassination hurrah as more documents are released. Will they uncover anything?  The beat goes on, La de da de de, la de de da.     

• There was a conspiracy that will never be proven to or, accepted by, or admitted by certain elements in government, the media, and society.  These elements were in control of government and media then and their successors still are today.  This has nothing to do with political party lines.  This has to do with elite forces controlling government from behind the scenes.  The American Public has never really had a sound idea of how government really works. 

• Only one person, Clay Shaw, has been prosecuted, but not convicted for a crime in the assassination of John Kennedy.  No one else has successfully been charged and convicted for involvement in the assassination.  The trial of E. Howard Hunt was not a criminal trial.

• The evidence has been destroyed, altered, or new evidence manufactured to the point that no one can be convicted on a Kennedy Assassination crime or of being a co-conspirator to the murder of President Kennedy.

• No one will ever solve or break the case based on the current state of the evidence.

• Both sides, the WC supporters and the assassination research community have the story wrong.  Reasonable suspicion suggests there is something wrong with the assassination research community if in last 50 years they have not accomplished anything significantly different from the 1^st decade of researchers.

• The interests of the assassination research community maybe other than the truth.

• The Government, the Media, and the famous “400” Historians, or some such ilk, will continue to support the Lone Gunman Theory and charge Lee Oswald with being the single perpetrator of the crime.  It is that way in the majority of current history books.

• The majority of current Historians, especially writers of history books, support the Warren Commission as the best evidence citing all other ideas as speculative or unproven whether they are or not.

• As it does today, future history in the United States will show that Lee Harvey Oswald, a demented, lone assassin killed President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on the 22^nd of November, 1963 for reasons unknown.  50 years from now few will question the event.

• Lee Oswald had to die to support this conclusion.  There could not be a trial based on the evidence from Dealey Plaza.  Oswald would have walked.  Most of the evidence the public thinks convincingly convicts Lee Oswald would not be admissible in court.  Most of the really damning evidence to convict Lee Oswald comes from Marina Oswald, a suspected Soviet spy.  She would not be allowed to testify in a Texas Court.   

• The only place Lee Oswald could be convicted is in the Warren Commission, a Kangaroo Court at best, or some mock trial controlled by lone gunman supporters, or in some book that falsely represents the evidence.  With one obvious exception the same can be said of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

• Unless the notion of a Kangaroo Court has passed from the population’s memory here is a definition from of Wikipedia that is apt:  “A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.^[1] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.”  Does this sound like the actions of the WC and HSCA?

• In a later decade, The House Select Committee on Assassinations essentially vindicated the Warren Commission in most things, but in the end had to concede that there probably was a conspiracy with more than one shooter.  The Warren Commission and all of its work has been invalid since then.  Why isn’t this pointed out more often?

• After reading the rather depressing bullet points above one might ask what about the hundreds of books and thousands of articles written about a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy?

• Well, what about them?  Although they do a fine job explaining the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy in detail as their authors see it, they don’t tell the real story of what happened that day.  None of them tell the real story.  The real story is hidden in altered witness statements and an altered visual record of Dealey Plaza.   

• The real story is a different story then what the Assassins tell and also different from what the assassination research committee tells. 

• I think this is primarily due to the distortion and alteration of evidence and its outright destruction.  The assassination community does not want to travel beyond where the evidence takes them.  This is primarily due to fear that someone will call them out as an inadequate researcher basing their conclusions on thin or no evidence at all.

• And, then there are disinformation artists who are not what they seem.  Some have been active for decades.  Furthermore, these people have been given accolades for their exposure of things related to the Kennedy assassination.  

• No one can piece together the giant jigsaw puzzle with the individual pieces being altered by the assassins into something different, a different story.  The picture on the individual pieces has been changed to something else and when someone tries to correct that picture into a picture of reality than this gives rise to argument and contention.  The changed puzzle pieces are the Assassin’s story line, which is basically the Zapruder Paradigm for the visual record, and staged evidence, and altered witness testimony.

• The Zapruder Paradigm is evidence presented in Altgens photos, Mary Moorman’s Polaroid, the backyard photos, and the Zapruder film.  These were the major pieces of evidence presented to the American public within a week of the assassination and later in the case of the backyard photos.  They have controlled the story since then. 

• Nobody can definitively prove anything based on the current evidence available from Dealey Plaza without controversial argument and the raising of reasonable doubt.

• The assassination community’s reluctance to examine points beyond the evidence, which in most cases is false, is their problem.  They are not thinking outside the box.  What is being talked about here is not speculation, but notions based on reasonable suspicion.  An example of this might be recognizing something happened in front of the Court Records Building on Houston Street that is deleted from or skipped in all assassination films.

The Warren Commission made their argument and conclusions without anyone questioning their work while they were doing it.   

[Ray Mitcham]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

 

Her arms are not significantly raised.  Her sleeves might raise but not the coat to account for the difference in these photos.

 

Yes they are, John. The red arrow shows just how much higher her shoulders are in the two photos.

 

Try it yourself. Put on a long coat, pretend you are raising your hands to take a photo and note how the hem of your coat rises.

 

p.s. What is your theory of the two women being "different"?

Edited January 4, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

Ray,

Send me an email address and I will send you a pdf on Mary and Jean.  Josephs found it full of problems.  I think it is one step in displaying the "show stage" area of the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  Elsie Dorman shows twice as may people as Zapruder on the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  How about that?

David Josephs is making fun of me with that con.  I did something similar with showing the different heights of Russian Oswalds and he told that was a chump way of doing that and doesn't really show anything.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by John Butler

[John Butler]

This is will be my last post here.  If you have read my rather bleak and pessimistic assessment of the Kennedy assassination then you should understand I really don’t have a dog in this fight.

It is neither stimulating nor interesting to continue arguing with the usual crew.

In the matter of the validity of Altgens 5 I would like to leave you with a few thoughts which you can accept or reject. 

Jack White said the Altgens photos were valid.  He pointed out that the crowd in the crosswalk at the east Elm Street part of the intersection is totally different than the crowd seen there in the Zapruder film.  Not a single person there is the same.  His conclusion was that Zapruder is a fraud and Altgens is OK.

 

What if they are both frauds?

There are 3 things to look at initially.  Blow up Altgens 5 so that things can be seen better.  Crop out everything except the presidential limousine.  Be sure to leave enough pavement to see how the tires meet the road.

First , is the matter of Nellie Connolly’s window in the limo.  There appears to be a shade there.  If it is just Willliam Greer’s suit and the back of the front seat there is still a problem.  If there is no shade there then the shade in Altgens 6 presents a problem.  There is an on and off problem for the shade.  There is no shade in the Weaver photo.  There is one in Altgens 5 (maybe).  There is one in Altgens 6.  There is not one there in Altgens 7.  A frame from the Muchmore film in the same location at the crosswalk does not show a shade.

Secondly, the tires on the presidential limousine are composed of at least two images from different photos.  If the image of the front tire was real then there would be difficulty driving the limo forward, perhaps worse than a flat tire.  The front part of the tire is thin pass the whitewall and does not meet the pavement well.  There is a clear disconnect with the rear part. The rear part of the tire is more normal and meets the pavement fairly well but does not connect well with the front part.

I might be wrong here.  But, I think this composite image was composed to show a tire moving forward rather than a turning tir

The rear tire appears to be a turning tire turned inwards indicating a right turn.  In those days a rear tire didn’t turn.  A part of the vehicle’s wheel well is projecting into the tire.  That’s a bit arguable.

Third and last, the reflections in the side of the limousine are wrong for the location of the limousine. 

The Law of Reflection states that the angle of reflection (the angle pointing to the viewer) is equal to the angle of the incidence (the angle pointing to what is being reflected).

 What should be reflected in the side of the presidential limousine is the crowd on the east side of Houston Street about one half of the way to the TBSD.  Draw a line (representing the angle of reflection) from where Altgens is allegedly standing (The NW corner of Main and Houston) to the center of the presidential limousine.  Then an equally opposite line in the other direction (the angle of incidence) and you will have an idea of the correct reflections that should be there.

A Robert Hughes film frame about midway to the TBSD would be a good example of what should be reflected there.

What is shown there is what I believe is a view down south Houston Street.  And, a view that is in the direction of the Triple Underpass on Main Street.

This is a view that would be seen at the limousine turned from Main Street onto Houston Street.  The viewer or photographer would be at the SE corner of Main and Houston or in the middle of Houston Street at the south part of the intersection.

There are a couple of other things I think are peculiar. They violate my sense of perspective.

First, is the perspective on the Court House.  If you follow the angle of painted lines of the crosswalk, does that leave enough space to put the Court House in before Main Street?  In your imagination extend the photo out to the left (photo right).  Can you fit the Court House in if you use the angle of the crosswalk lines before you get to the Main Street corner.

Second is the issue of Altgens having a magic camera lens.  Note the size of Secret Service agents on the follow up car.  Then look at the size of the people directly across from them on the east side of Houston Street.  They are about one half the size of the Secret Service agents.  What can be seen is a black man (at least his arm) and perhaps a black woman.  These can be seen between the two Secret Service agents.  A third man can be seen just to the left (photo right) of the last Secret Service agent.

This is the same problem as the first perspective issue.  The limousine is at the crosswalk.  The people mentioned are at the north side of the Court House.  That should be about 100 feet and would be correct.

Is that possible?   The angles don’t seem right.  Shouldn’t we see more of the Court House?  Shouldn’t we we see the people in front of the vehicle?

Would camera lens distortions do this?  Images appear undistorted in the photo.

      

Edited January 10, 2017 by John Butler