Trying to Understand this Bronson Frame

[Ian Lloyd]

12 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ian,

I just lost a response typed here in the editor for your post.  If two of these show up don't worry.

Your comment is really interesting.  Can you provide which films / photos you looked at on west Main and Houston Sts. 

No. 4 through No. 8 are important people that have been ignored.  We don't know what their testimony would be since they weren't asked.  We don't even know who they are.  What could they tell us about what they saw.

Is this 6 & 7 from Bronson...if you look at the first 7 seconds of this clip, you'll see the backs of them on the bottom left of the frames, closest to the camera...

 

 

[Chris Scally]

John Butler wrote:

"Speer and Scally denigrate Alan Smith as “mysterious”, “he claimed”, “was not able to confirm”, “whether he attended the school he claimed to have attended”, “was only 14 at the time”, “made a tentative ID”, “honest mistake”, “how many 14 year-olds know from the suburbs know”, “a wide-eyed 14 year old”, etc.  They made a 14 year old student a bogey man.

I have spent nearly 3 decades around 14 years-old kids.  You can’t just say they are goofy because they are age 14 as Speer and Scally do.  Kids are always surprising and many are more mature and intelligent than most think.  Speer and Scally do a continuous ad hominem attack on Alan Smith to destroy his testimony.  They had an agenda."

John, I find your attack on me to be highly offensive, and would very much appreciate an apology from you on this Forum.

I never had any "agenda", nor do I have one now. If you had taken the time to read my published article (referenced elsewhere in this thread), you would realise that my entire search for the two schoolboys in many of the photographs taken on the north side of Elm at and after the shooting came about as an indirect result of something else I was researching at the time. I have never met Alan Smith, and never never spoken to him, so as far as I'm aware (and hope), he is a healthy and happy man in his late 60's.

In case you are interested, I concluded my research on Alan Smith in 2014 by writing: "We know that Alan Smith, a student at Stockard Middle School on Ravinia Drive in Dallas, was a witness to the assassination. We know he was in Dealey Plaza with some college friends, possibly from Stockard and the nearby Kimball High School. We know he was standing with a friend (who almost certainly was not Daniel Kendrick) on the north side of Elm Street when the shots were fired; that they both ran up to the shelter at the eastern end of the pergola after hearing the shots; and they then followed DPD Officer Clyde Haygood to the top of the grassy knoll, where it joins the railway embankment.

We have also established that Bob Goodman is not Alan Smith, and was not even at the same school as Smith. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Goodman may initially have seen the story in the New York Times sometime after the assassination, and embellished his story from there."

Furthermore, you would also know the relevance of Bob Goodman to the story if you had read my article. I wrote: "Ian Griggs [a UK-based author and researcher, and retired UK police officer] first met the man purporting to be Alan Smith in Dealey Plaza on Wednesday 25th November 1992. The man, who gave his name as Bob Goodman, said that as a 14 year-old who had skipped school without permission and was afraid of getting into trouble, he used the name ‘Alan Smith’ when he ‘phoned the local press and told them that the President had been struck in the forehead. Goodman said that at the time of the assassination, he had been in the north pergola with a friend."

As for the man named Daniel Kendrick (referenced above), he was interviewed "at the very spot where he stood 50 years ago" on camera in Dealey Plaza  on the 50th anniversary of the assassination by BBC North America Editor, Mark Mardell. Kendell said he was a 15-year old schoolboy who was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting. Viewing the interview footage, it took place at - or very close to - the spot where Alan Smith and his  friend stood at the time of the shooting.  Unfortunately, my extensive efforts to find Kendrick were unsuccessful, although I was as certain as I could be that he was not, in fact, Alan Smith's friend. 

In light of the foregoing, I would invite you to review and revise your information on this issue, as well as your highly erroneous and ill-informed opinion of me and my motives, before you insult me further, and I look forward to reading your apology here in due course.

Chris Scally   

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Chris Scally

[John Butler]

Thanks Ian,

I will take a closer look at that.

[John Butler]

Chris Scalley,

I sorry that you are highly offended.  It is nothing personal.  The truth of the matter according to Speer is that you convinced him that the boy's story was not true.  Your investigations refute what Alan Smith stated in his statement to the Chicago Tribune.

In doing so you and Speer painted the young man as an inept, immature, and confused young man.

As far as identifying young students in various films and photos, the imagery does not and can not do that due to image quality.  The Bronson frame in question will not scale up to a point where you can say this or that about who I labelled No. 2?.  It could be a man and a women rather than students.  It could be two men.

The same goes for Betzner and Willis.  The two individuals in question could be adult males.  Comparing their height to the surrounding women suggests adults rather than growing boys.  This is the 1960's where a person over 6 feet is much rarer than today.  And, that is particularly true for 14 year old boys in the 60's.

I have a better candidate for you.  A boy on north Elm Street demonstrates what a young man's height and appearance was in those days.  He is even standing in front of a building where a shot may have come from.

The images are insufficient to make a positive ID.  Betzner, Willis, and Zapruder are all edited media when it comes to the 19 people standing between the R L Foreman sign and the Stemmons sign.  Other media do not show 19 people there or some of the people there at all.  The best example of that is Mary Moorman's Polaroid of Glen McBride.

To me, this is the same situation when Jackie Kennedy said she first heard a shot she noticed a blue-grey building ahead and to the left.  There are no blue-grey buildings on Elm Street.  But, there was one on Main that was shortly thereafter replaced with a parking lot and later became the Kennedy Monument.

Bonnie Ray Williams said he heard two shots when the presidential limo turned onto Houston from Main.  He was convinced by the FBI that was incorrect and he changed his statement to Elm Street.  In fact, he had to change his statements several times.  Just as you have changed Alan Smith's statements from Main to Elm Street.

The statements of Alan Smith, Jackie Kennedy, and Bonnie Ray Williams are outside the official story paradigm.  Therefore, they are unbelievable and in need of change, refutation, or dismissal.

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by John Butler

[Lewis Reynolds]

This close up of the Altgens is great. Just makes is obvious where things are blacked out.  Also shows the SS opening the door (to get out?).

The blacked out faces of the SS in the drivers seat and behind is so obvious, as is the blacked out gun. Look at that hand sticking out of the car, sure looks like it should be holding a revolver/pistol/weapon.

[John Butler]

Thanks Lewis,

There is an elephant in the room there also.  Notice that the motorbike cop is an undistorted image.  Notice the folks on Elm Street behind the Vice-Presidential Security Vehicle.  They are undistorted also.  Now, notice how grossly distorted the VP security vehicle is.  How can you get a camera to be that selective?  Shouldn't the whole scene be distorted or not?  Ah... But, it was Ike Altgens, the camera master, who took this photo.

I believe Altgens was in on things or he willing agreed to go along and support the three altered photos that were very influencial in shaping the public's opinion in the first days of the assassination.  Altgens 5, Altgens 6  and Altgens 7 are all faked to conform and strength the official story. 

[Lewis Reynolds]

Lots wrong with this photo!

I can understand why SS faces would be blackened out - for secrecy (such as when you see photos of special forces or SAS).

But I think its pretty obvious theres alot more alterations to this photo.

[David Josephs]

Mr Reynolds....

What are you talking about?  Do you have a sense of how light and shadow work, especially in a 2d image?

Is it not possible that the roof of the car obscures the man's face by placing it in shadow... like the eyes of the motorcycle copy in the foreground...

Are you aware of the location of the sun which creates these shadows?

There is truly no reason to cover the driver's face.....  (I will show below what a real alteration to an image looks like)
What is worth the lime is determining whether that really is someone in the 3rd floor Dal Tex window who shoots and startles the black man sitting on the fire escape...

 

as for "blacked out magic marker alteration... I can find no better example than this  z323

[Lewis Reynolds]

Thanks for the reply Mr Josephs. Just my opinion.

 

[John Butler]

When David Josephs take you to task he is almost always right.  I have walked away from time to time chastised.  He is a fellow that doesn't mind telling you what he thinks.

Most people don't agree with the idea of a black patch covering President Kennedy's head wound.  Josephs has expressed this notion in a way that can not be denied in Z frame 323. 

He can speak for himself.  But, I think you can see a black patch on Kennedy far earlier than the 313 to say 330 frames.   I think you can see the black patch in frames after he comes out from the Stemmons sign shortly after Z frame 215 at about Z 250. 

I am not certain how well this Towner frame is going to come out posted.  In the frame President Kennedy's head in turned down and he has a black circle not properly pasted on this head.  It was probably done with an air gun and ink.

This frame is fairly close to the infamous, hit X, frame.

Edited January 30, 2019 by John Butler

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Lewis Reynolds said:

Thanks for the reply Mr Josephs. Just my opinion.

 

{sigh} 

Mr. Reynolds... even opinions - if they are to be taken seriously - have some basis in fact.

Mr. Butler - upon whose opinions you seem to rely... and the facts of the case have not yet been formally introduced...
and it sadly doesn't appear as if they ever will...

There is quite a lot of good work on this site... the last thing we need is another opinion based on fantasies and poor analytical skills

FWIW

 

 

[John Butler]

More Musings and Opinions:

There is a hidden history in Dealey Plaza of the assassination of President Kennedy layered over by lies, distortions, manufactured evidence, altered evidence, witness tampering, and a series of corrupt law enforcement investigations and coverups at all levels of government:  Federal, State, and Local.

This is illustrated by the Bronson frame under discussion and many other examples of a corrupted visual media taken on the day of the assassination.  An examination of this Bronson frame asks the question which is fraudulent, the Bronson Film or the Zapruder Film.  The Zapruder Film is the iconic visual evidence for the official story.  One film or the other has to be altered since they provide alternate versions of the scene shown in the Bronson frame. 

It is more or less the same kind of thing shown in Elsie Dorman vs. Zapruder.  Two different realities.  See http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23540-separate-realities-on-the-sw-corner-of-elm-and-houston/?page=5  

True, one film is taken from the north of Elm Street (Zapruder) and the other from the south side of Elm Street (Bronson).  That really has no relevance since they should show the same events and people.  They don’t.  An exception may be that Zapruder would not show someone behind the Stemmons sign.

Many of the people in the Bronson frame have been identified.  They for the most part are where they said they were.  I dispute the Newmans based on Bill’s 11-22-63 statement.  The Hesters are probably an unknown as shown in Bronson.  Tony Krome suggested that the couple is the ones seen at the beginning of the Zapruder film sitting in the arcade.  I think that is reasonable.

The Bronson frame shows the alleged Hesters before they crossed the street according to their testimony.  The Zapruder film does not show the Hesters on the south side of Elm Street where they said they were.  Nor, does the Bronson frame show anyone who could be the Hesters on the south side of Elm Street.

There are 19 people shown in the Zapruder Film standing between the R L Thornton Freeway Sign and the Stemmons Freeway Sign.  I call these people Mannequin Row after Jack White. 

The 19 people shown in Zapruder in Mannequin Row are mostly absent in the Bronson frame.  You can count about a dozen people there and some of them are not in the row of people shown in Zapruder.  There are other films and photos that show even less people there.

1. Mary Moorman’s Polaroid #3, the McBride Polaroid

2. Dick Bothun photo, that is if you accept this as directly after the assassination

3. The Malcom Couch film

4. The Mark Bell film

5. The Bronson film

There are other differences.  The Bronson frame shows the Babushka Lady and Zapruder does not.  What is shown in Zapruder is the Lady in Blue.

The Bronson frame shows the Newmans standing west to the Stemmons sign.  And, the Zapruder film does not show the Newmans.  And, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be shown.

John and Faye Chism are shown in this Bronson frame but, they are not in Mannequin Row as shown in Zapruder.  Fay Chism was taking photos.  What happened to her camera and film.  They would be as important as Mary Moorman’s photos.  Or, perhaps more important in that they would show something that had not been edited.

Cheryl McKinnon and Doris Mumford are identified as the ladies standing in front of the light pole just west of the Stemmons sign.  This comes from Ken Rheberg.

Robin Unger has done earlier work on Toni Foster’s husband posted on the forum.   Steve Thomas thinks one of the people labelled No. 4 through No. 7 might be a husband of Toni Foster.  Perhaps someone can track that down.

No. 9 has been identified by Robin Unger as Grandmother Willis.  Her husband is not shown here but, appears in an expanded version posted from Groden’s book.

There are many detractors of this kind of work that doesn’t fit into folk’s self-approved paradigms.  Josephs’ latest comments has improved.  At least I am not being cursed and accused of being a Cointelpro agent.  In general things have improved on this site with the new rules.   

Here is sample from the Dorman Link of past virulence.  It’s really minor compared to some others that were offered years ago.  It is always fantasies and imaginative stories for those who disagree.

Michael Walton   

• Super Member
•  
• 
• Two Posts Per day
•  
• 1,562 posts
• Gender:Male

• Report post
•  

Posted March 9, 2017

This entire thread is merely a figment of John Butler's overactive  imagination.

There is nothing  to see John. And I'm  not the only one as a respected researcher said he actually  thinks you're  just trolling  this forum.

• Quote

Edited January 30, 2019 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

The Bronson frame shows the Newmans standing west to the Stemmons sign.  And, the Zapruder film does not show the Newmans.  And, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be shown.

 

One reason might be the Z film was enlarged and then cropped.

Then again, another might be the Newmans weren't tall enough, just like my brother.

btw, he was 5'9" tall.

 

 

[Ken Rheberg]

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

. . . John and Faye Chism are shown in this Bronson frame but, they are not in Mannequin Row as shown in Zapruder.  Fay Chism was taking photos.  What happened to her camera and film.  They would be as important as Mary Moorman’s photos.  Or, perhaps more important in that they would show something that had not been edited. . .

 

 

 

I had the pleasure of interviewing Faye Chism nearly 15 years ago.  She had no camera with her in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.  Only her husband John and her son Ricky.  So she wasn't taking photographs or shooting film.  Not sure how or where  you came up with that erroneous idea.

Ken

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Ken Rheberg

[Michael Cross]

On 1/28/2019 at 10:41 AM, Lewis Reynolds said:

From what i can see its two parents with two children (both in red). In the first frame the right hand side child is visible with mum. The other is hidden by the car.

In he second frame the left hand side child is visible with dad, and the right hand side child is hidden by people.

Yes, you're right. My bad.