Mass Hysteria in Dealey Plaza

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

In the latest episode of this comedy series, John Butler has taken a crop of the Altgens 5 photograph which shows a policeman and some spectators somewhere in Dealey Plaza, and compared it to a crop of the Altgens 6 photograph which also shows a policeman and some spectators somewhere in Dealey Plaza.

Mr Butler notices that the spectators are very different in each image. He can't find a common-sense explanation for this strange anomaly. He writes that "Altgens 5 and Altgens 6 or [sic] just seconds apart and not even enough time for one crowd to vanish and another take its place." Clearly, one or both photographs were faked! Mr Butler has cracked the case!

Ray Mitcham, assisted by Tony Krome, pointed out something that's blindingly obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the Altgens photographs: the reason the spectators look different is that the two images show different spectators and different policemen at two different locations in Dealey Plaza. Oh dear. Back to the drawing board for Mr Butler in his effort to show that "almost all of the visual record in Dealey Plaza was seized and changed."

Here is a summary of the previous hilarious episodes:

1 - A half-open car window is a slightly different shade of grey in one reproduction of the Altgens 5 photograph than in other reproductions of other photographs. There is a perfectly innocent, common-sense explanation for this apparent anomaly, an explanation which is obvious to anyone with even a basic acquaintance with black-and-white photography. Mr Butler does not have even a basic acquaintance with black-and-white photography. Therefore the Altgens 5 photograph is a fake.

2 - The Altgens 5 photograph shows a shadow on the road surface next to the car. Because Mr Butler does not appear to know the first thing about black-and-white photography, he does not believe this shadow is a shadow. Therefore the photograph is a fake.

3 - The reflection in the side of the car in the Altgens 5 photograph shows some spectators, just as one would expect. The voices in Mr Butler's head tell him that these particular spectators are actually standing elsewhere on Houston Street, although the voices in his head have neglected to provide him with any evidence to support this fantasy. Therefore the photograph is a fake.

4 - The Altgens 5 photograph's depiction of the court house and spectators do not look right to Mr Butler. Unfortunately, Mr Butler's acquaintance with the English language is not much stronger than his acquaintance with black-and-white photography, and he is unable to explain exactly what is wrong about the depiction of the court house and the spectators. Therefore the photograph is a fake.

5 - The voices in Mr Butler's head tell him that the shooting started as the presidential car was turning from Houston Street onto Elm Street. On the other hand, the Altgens 5 photograph, the Croft 3 photograph, and any number of other photographs and films fail to show the presidential party reacting to gunshots until their car had travelled for several seconds down Elm Street. Not a single photograph or film contains any evidence that the shooting started when the voices in his head tell him it started. Therefore all of these photographs and films are fakes.

6 - Mr Butler cites many witnesses who recalled that the shooting began as the presidential car was turning from Houston Street onto Elm Street. This witness evidence contradicts the photographic evidence. Therefore the photographs and films are fakes. In fact, however, most of the witnesses recalled specifically that the shooting began after, not before, the car had joined Elm Street. For some reason, Mr Butler had managed to cite evidence which completely contradicted his own argument. The voices in Mr Butler's head tell him that when the witnesses used the word 'after' they actually meant 'before'.

7 - Dozens of people took photographs and home movies in Dealey Plaza, but the authorities paid little attention to them, and in some cases did not even contact them until months or years after the assassination. The voices in Mr Butler's head tell him that, despite all of this, unknown conspirators were able to seize almost all of the resulting photographs and home movies. Unfortunately, the voices in Mr Butler's head have not yet told him exactly how the conspirators managed to achieve this near-impossible feat.

8 - The history of several of the photographs and home movies is well known, and makes it virtually impossible that these items were seized and altered. At least one of James Altgens' photographs, for example, was broadcast all over the world only half an hour after the assassination. The voices in Mr Butler's head have not yet told him exactly how or when James Altgens' photographs could have been seized and altered.

9 - Anyone who points out that Mr Butler has zero ability to analyse photographs, that he is spectacularly wrong about almost everything, that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for all of Mr Butler's supposed anomalies, and that his witness statements actually show the precise opposite of what he claimed, is a Lone Nutter. To Mr Butler, the only alternative to the Lone Nut theory is Mr Butler's notion of an absolutely enormous conspiracy, involving hundreds or even thousands of people tracking down all of the hundreds of widely dispersed spectators who had been in Dealey Plaza, seizing their films and photographs, and carefully altering the images so that each faked image matched every other faked image.

10 - The few remaining genuine lone nutters are rubbing their hands, chuckling, and agreeing with Mr Butler that the only alternative to the ridiculous Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself theory is an even more ridiculous fantasy involving some sort of vast and outrageously impractical conspiracy, the details of which Mr Butler has not yet got round to describing. Look, there aren't any reasonable objections to the lone nut theory! All of those conspiracy theorists are crazy, paranoid fantasists!

[Cory Santos]

On 4/3/2019 at 9:26 PM, Tony Krome said:

An LNer's perspective;

But the height of the spectator provided even more conclusive evidence:

The only available height record of Milteer gives his stature as 64 inches. This corresponds to about the seventh statural percentile of American males. That is, about 93 out of 100 adult American men would be taller than Milteer. Also, about 35 percent of adult American females would exceed Milteer's reported height. In contrast, the spectator alleged to be Milteer is taller than 4 of the 7 other males and all of the 16 females in the line of spectators shown in the motorcade photograph. Based upon Milteer's reported height, the probability of randomly selecting a group of Americans where so many are shorter than Milteer's reported height is .0000007. Moreover, an analysis based upon actual measurements of certain physical features shown in the photograph yields a height estimate for the spectator of about 70 inches — 6 inches taller than Milteer's reported stature. (HSCA Volume 6, pp. 242-257)

In short: the spectator wasn't Milteer. He didn't even particularly look like Milteer.

Body shape is consistent, those type of glasses were sold only at Sears and Woolworths.  Considering,  the population of the south in 1963 vs the number of Sears and Woolworth stores, that means 3 out of five southerners had access to these glasses.  Now, if we limit those numbers to older white southerners, the number is 96 percent its him.  Makes no sense just like your above analysis, respectively.  

[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?    

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

33 minutes ago, John Butler said:

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?    

 

John, please stop. My stomach can only take so much laughing.

You have to be crackers.

[Ray Mitcham]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In the latest episode of this comedy series, John Butler has taken a crop of the Altgens 5 photograph which shows a policeman and some spectators somewhere in Dealey Plaza, and compared it to a crop of the Altgens 6 photograph which also shows a policeman and some spectators somewhere in Dealey Plaza.

Mr Butler notices that the spectators are very different in each image. He can't find a common-sense explanation for this strange anomaly. He writes that "Altgens 5 and Altgens 6 or [sic] just seconds apart and not even enough time for one crowd to vanish and another take its place." Clearly, one or both photographs were faked! Mr Butler has cracked the case!

Ray Mitcham, assisted by Tony Krome, pointed out something that's blindingly obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the Altgens photographs: the reason the spectators look different is that the two images show different spectators and different policemen at two different locations in Dealey Plaza. Oh dear. Back to the drawing board for Mr Butler in his effort to show that "almost all of the visual record in Dealey Plaza was seized and changed."

Here is a summary of the previous hilarious episodes:

1 - A half-open car window is a slightly different shade of grey in one reproduction of the Altgens 5 photograph than in other reproductions of other photographs. There is a perfectly innocent, common-sense explanation for this apparent anomaly, an explanation which is obvious to anyone with even a basic acquaintance with black-and-white photography. Mr Butler does not have even a basic acquaintance with black-and-white photography. Therefore the Altgens 5 photograph is a fake.

2 - The Altgens 5 photograph shows a shadow on the road surface next to the car. Because Mr Butler does not appear to know the first thing about black-and-white photography, he does not believe this shadow is a shadow. Therefore the photograph is a fake.

3 - The reflection in the side of the car in the Altgens 5 photograph shows some spectators, just as one would expect. The voices in Mr Butler's head tell him that these particular spectators are actually standing elsewhere on Houston Street, although the voices in his head have neglected to provide him with any evidence to support this fantasy. Therefore the photograph is a fake.

4 - The Altgens 5 photograph's depiction of the court house and spectators do not look right to Mr Butler. Unfortunately, Mr Butler's acquaintance with the English language is not much stronger than his acquaintance with black-and-white photography, and he is unable to explain exactly what is wrong about the depiction of the court house and the spectators. Therefore the photograph is a fake.

5 - The voices in Mr Butler's head tell him that the shooting started as the presidential car was turning from Houston Street onto Elm Street. On the other hand, the Altgens 5 photograph, the Croft 3 photograph, and any number of other photographs and films fail to show the presidential party reacting to gunshots until their car had travelled for several seconds down Elm Street. Not a single photograph or film contains any evidence that the shooting started when the voices in his head tell him it started. Therefore all of these photographs and films are fakes.

6 - Mr Butler cites many witnesses who recalled that the shooting began as the presidential car was turning from Houston Street onto Elm Street. This witness evidence contradicts the photographic evidence. Therefore the photographs and films are fakes. In fact, however, most of the witnesses recalled specifically that the shooting began after, not before, the car had joined Elm Street. For some reason, Mr Butler had managed to cite evidence which completely contradicted his own argument. The voices in Mr Butler's head tell him that when the witnesses used the word 'after' they actually meant 'before'.

7 - Dozens of people took photographs and home movies in Dealey Plaza, but the authorities paid little attention to them, and in some cases did not even contact them until months or years after the assassination. The voices in Mr Butler's head tell him that, despite all of this, unknown conspirators were able to seize almost all of the resulting photographs and home movies. Unfortunately, the voices in Mr Butler's head have not yet told him exactly how the conspirators managed to achieve this near-impossible feat.

8 - The history of several of the photographs and home movies is well known, and makes it virtually impossible that these items were seized and altered. At least one of James Altgens' photographs, for example, was broadcast all over the world only half an hour after the assassination. The voices in Mr Butler's head have not yet told him exactly how or when James Altgens' photographs could have been seized and altered.

9 - Anyone who points out that Mr Butler has zero ability to analyse photographs, that he is spectacularly wrong about almost everything, that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for all of Mr Butler's supposed anomalies, and that his witness statements actually show the precise opposite of what he claimed, is a Lone Nutter. To Mr Butler, the only alternative to the Lone Nut theory is Mr Butler's notion of an absolutely enormous conspiracy, involving hundreds or even thousands of people tracking down all of the hundreds of widely dispersed spectators who had been in Dealey Plaza, seizing their films and photographs, and carefully altering the images so that each faked image matched every other faked image.

10 - The few remaining genuine lone nutters are rubbing their hands, chuckling, and agreeing with Mr Butler that the only alternative to the ridiculous Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself theory is an even more ridiculous fantasy involving some sort of vast and outrageously impractical conspiracy, the details of which Mr Butler has not yet got round to describing. Look, there aren't any reasonable objections to the lone nut theory! All of those conspiracy theorists are crazy, paranoid fantasists!

Got it in one, Jeremy

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

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?    

 

Sourced:

https://www.canstockphoto.com/1950-black-coupe-4919799.html

 

[Chris Bristow]

5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Different angles, same idea.

Best example yet.

[Michael Cross]

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Got it in one, Jeremy

Exactly.  We're really getting into disinformation territory.

[Chris Bristow]

5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Body shape is consistent, those type of glasses were sold only at Sears and Woolworths.  Considering,  the population of the south in 1963 vs the number of Sears and Woolworth stores, that means 3 out of five southerners had access to these glasses.  Now, if we limit those numbers to older white southerners, the number is 96 percent its him.  Makes no sense just like your above analysis, respectively.  

You peaked my interest about the Eyeglass frames. I was an Optician for many years. What I see is Milteer's glasses are larger especially in the vertical dimension. the style on the JFK observer is close to a Dobbs 2 (you can see it here http://optometristattic.com/7775_Optometrist_Attic.htm ) or the B&L 'Clubmaster'. Milteer's glasses look like the plastic/metal combination but are more squared than the Dobbs 2 and the JFK guy's frames.
In those days frame selection was one millionth of what it is today. That metal/plastic combo was everywhere although maybe Woolworth and Sears advertised like they had an exclusive.

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Davidson]

On 4/5/2019 at 2:06 PM, Chris Bristow said:

Best example yet.

Please John, tell us why this gif is fake.

Of course you're not interested. Admitting to the truth is tough.

Sourced:

https://www.canstockphoto.com/1950-black-coupe-4919799.html

Edited April 18, 2019 by Chris Davidson

[John Butler]

Tina Towner- in a YouTube video, Witnesses to the JFK assassination:  Three Dallas Stories- LA Times by Brian van der Brug, she said things that indicate shooting occurred as the presidential vehicle turned into the intersection and in front of the TSBD.  The article said she stopped filming after the presidential limousine turned into the intersection.  If that’s true then who filmed her film?

**

JFK Assassination – Tina Towner Film Splice

Edward Bauer

Loading...

Published on Jul 18, 2015

The 8 frames spliced out of the Tina Towner film recorded a major camera jiggle, her reaction to the first shot. The jiggle analysis in The Final Truth proves that she would have reacted exactly at the first missing frame. The FBI removed this jiggle to cover up an early first shot.

Note the sharp upward movement during the missing frames, a radical aberration from her otherwise smooth-as-glass pan. Added yellow lines help show this sharp rapid movement within 0.307 of a second (the Towners' camera filmed at 22.8 frames per second). The splice is between T084 and T085. This video uses retouched versions of these frames not obscured by splicing cement.

Detailed description in The Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_N3QoiJE_E

**

Jack McFile list anomalies in the Towner film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKQr9GIdmHc

**

Tina Towner- in a YouTube video, Witnesses to the JFK assassination:  Three Dallas Stories- LA Times by Brian van der Brug, she said things that indicate shooting occurred as the presidential vehicle turned into the intersection and in front of the TSBD.  The article said she stopped filming after the presidential limousine turned into the intersection.  If that’s true then who filmed her film?

 

**

Los Angeles Times:  Witnesses to the JFK assassination: Three Dallas stories

By By Molly Hennessy-Fiske

Nov 17, 2013 | 6:00 AM

 

“Pender (Tina Towner) and her mother staked out a spot on the corner and took turns sitting on a campstool they had brought. When her father suggested they move south, toward a grassy knoll, they protested. Shortly before 12:30 p.m., they realized the president's limousine was entering the plaza.

"You could hear the crowds as the motorcade was approaching," she said.

Pender watched her father get permission from a police officer for the family to stand in the street, near the curb, so he and his daughter could take pictures. The limousine, with the Kennedys sitting behind Texas Gov. John Connally and his wife, turned off Houston onto Elm. Pender gazed through the viewfinder, and her hands trembled with excitement as she tried to keep the first couple in the frame. She was struck by Jackie Kennedy's beauty.

"She seemed to be looking right at us," Pender said.

She stopped filming seconds later as the limousine rounded the corner.

Then came what sounded to her like firecrackers, and someone yanked her to the ground. She got up moments later but couldn't see her parents, who had been swallowed up by the panicked crowd.”

The question to ask here is who filmed the rest of Tina Towner’s film?

In the Elsie Dorman film there is a stool there on the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  If anyone ever wondered what that was or, who the stool belonged to is answered by Tina Towner.

**

And, there is this indicating shooting in the intersection and in front of the TSBD, the hit x frame:

Contrast adjusted to see hit x clearer.

[Ray Mitcham]

Strange that subsequent frames show the President seemingly uninjured, from any "gunshot " as the limo turned the corner.

[John Butler]

Linda Willis- Warren Commission- July 22, 1964- that she was standing in front of the TSBD when he motorcade came by.  She initially said she heard shots there or more shots.  Then, later she said she was standing across Elm Street from the Stemmons Freeway sign.  There is where she heard shots and saw the head shot.  She said she was directly across the street from the Stemmons sign when the first shot hit him.

**

Linda Willis in a 1991 film on the assassination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO9PoeOndhU

At 3:58 minutes into the film she describes her family’s relationship to the major Democratic Party players in Texas at that time.

At 4:47 there is a discussion of the shots and shooting.

AT 8:50 there is a lengthy discussion of the shots and shooting.

AT 13:25 Linda says she and her family stood close to each other and saw the same thing.  Maybe at this point she forgot she was supposed to be standing in front of the Stemmons Sign or maybe she hadn’t read her WC transcript.

**

Below is the unedited transcript from interviews with witnesses to the Kennedy assassination: Rosemary Willis Roach, her sister Linda Willis Pool, and mother Marilyn Willis; Bill and Gayle Newman; Pierce Allman; Bobby Hargis and James Leavelle. Interviewed by Joe Nick Patoski

“Linda Willis Pool: I was fourteen years old.

TM: Linda, you were following your dad?

Linda: I followed my dad the whole time he photographed the presidential motorcade. The cars came toward the old red courthouse proceeding down Main Street, made a right onto Houston then left on Elm. So my dad began to run along the side of the limousine when the car made the turn onto Houston. As he ran along the side of the car, snapping pictures, I was on his shoulders the whole time. We were running at a pretty good clip to keep up with the motorcade.

And so when they turned the corner in front of the School book depository they were moving along slowly so the crowd could wave. And when the shots rang out, my impression was firecrackers at first. But the report was loud and came again and again, I began to realize that trouble was brewing. And I saw the president's hands come up to his throat and then I saw the head shot and I never took my eyes away from the president during those shots,”

**

Linda’s Warren Commission testimony is contradictory.

 

The testimony of Linda Kay Willis was taken at 3:15 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in

the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets,

Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President’s

Commission. 

 

(This part of Linda’s statements is in agreement with what she said above.)

 

”Mr. Liebeler. Your father has told us that you were out in front of the School

Book Depository Building along with your sister on the day of the assassination,

and your mother and father were also there, is that correct?

 

Miss Willis. Yes, sir.

 

Mr. Liebeler. Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots,

as the motorcade came past you there?

 

Miss Willis. Yes ; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then

there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the

President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he

kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went.

 

Mr. Liebeler. Now, you were standing right along the curb on Elm Street, is

that right, when the motorcade came by across the street from the School

Book Depository Building?

 

Miss Willis. Yes, sir.”

 

(But, she then contradicts herself.)

 

“Mr. Liebeler. Did you follow the motorcade down Elm Street at all, or did

you stand on the corner up toward Houston Street and watch from there?

 

Miss Willis. I was right across from the sign that points to where Stem-

mons Expressway is. I was directly across when the first shot hit him.

 

Mr. Liebeler. Directly across from the sign that says, “Stemmons Freeway”?

 

Miss Willis. I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I wasn’t very

far away from him, but I couldn’t tell from where the shot came.

 

Mr. Liebeler. Did you just stay right there, or did you go on down Elm

Street? “

 

Is this changed testimony?  Or, did Linda realize she was off script and had to get this part about the Stemmons Freeway sign in?  It sounds more like added testimony at a later date.

 

 

[Tony Krome]

I believe she meant the car was between her and the sign

Edited April 23, 2019 by Tony Krome

[John Butler]

In front of or across from?  I know the difference.