Ron Bulman Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 On 6/6/2019 at 10:44 AM, David Josephs said: The Z film was ALTERED????? Hey Joe - say it ain't so.... ya mean cause it's in 9 pieces at the archives and doesn't even have "0183" stamped on it.... Mind blowing Still, the devil's in the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 (edited) Members 2,131 posts Report post Posted 8 hours ago On 5/28/2019 at 12:01 AM, Ron Bulman said: https://www.bing.com/search?q=song+twilight+zone&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=480f8566483440f49b0f49616632a0d1&sp=-1&pq=song+twilight+zone&sc=9-18&qs=n&sk=&cvid=480f8566483440f49b0f49616632a0d1 As prompted by you tube, if you like Golden Earring... A real blast from the past. Just 10 year's after the JFK assassination, before Watergate broke. Note the outfits and the setting. https://www.bing.com/search?q=golden+earring+radar+love&filters=ufn%3a"golden+earring+radar+love"+sid%3a"a5248ad1-b558-673d-2511-b46c9caf20e6"&autoplay=1&FORM=SNAPST Full screen, full volume for best results. This is simply more harassment. I am not in the Twilight Zone and I don't think you are referring to my most recent post. You can't refute what is there so you devolve into insults and harassment. Let me remind you of the Forum rules: "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.". I will be reporting this post as continuing harassment. Edited June 12, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said: Still, the devil's in the details. This is simply more insult and harassment. "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.". Post reported. Edited June 12, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Michael Cross writes: Quote Butler has some of the best researchers on the site POLITELY trying to show him the error of what appears - to me - to be purposeful misinformation. I could be wrong of course. But the consistent attempt to show EVERYTHING as fakery does NOT further meaningful research. Good point. Paranoid speculations have never made a serious contribution to research. To the extent that they oblige genuine researchers to spend time debunking them, these speculations actively harm research. Who knows how many genuine researchers have walked away because of the contamination of the subject by people claiming that every piece of evidence is a fake and similar nonsense? The paranoid stuff is certainly liable to harm the public image of those who question the lone-nut theory. Is this parade of apparent stupidity purposeful misinformation, or a humourous wind-up, or simple craziness? It's tempting to think that some of these paranoid speculations are so far out that Mr Butler and those like him can't possibly be sincere, and that they are calmly sitting at home in front of their computers, chuckling to themselves and wondering how many suckers are taking the latest piece of nonsense seriously. But perhaps these people are sincere, after all. Who knows? The root of the problem is that because the slightest breeze of critical analysis causes the lone-nut theory to topple over, and because there's no widely agreed alternative explanation, there's nothing to stop the JFK assassination attracting cranks, idiots, charlatans, frauds, jokers, and the downright insane. You see that poor-quality reproduction of a photograph? It's got a strange blob in it that I can't explain because I don't know the first thing about photography. That means it's a fake! In fact, every photograph and film is a fake! Especially that photograph that shows someone who looks like Oswald peering out from the book depository steps! The Bad Guys wanted to prevent people thinking that it was Oswald in the photograph, so they pasted in a picture of someone who looked so much like Oswald that it caused people to think it was Oswald in the photograph! It's true, I tell you! And there were teenage mafia hitmen hiding in fake papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll! And there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds! And the real one and the fake one looked identical, except when they didn't! And the lizard people kidnapped JFK's corpse from Air Force One without anyone noticing! And for many years afterwards, top-secret Bilderberg Group hit squads under the command of George Bush of the CIA went around bumping off dozens of witnesses, especially the elderly ones and those in bad health! And I was involved - please send me lots of money - in a top-secret cancer research project - please send me lots of money - in 1963 with Lee Oswald in - please send me lots of money - New Orleans! And there were two Marguerite Oswalds, one of whom vanished into thin air immediately after the assassination! And unknown surgeons at an unknown hospital faked JFK's wounds to disguise the fact that all the shots came from the front, even the shot that hit Connally in the back! And the driver shot JFK in the right side of his head despite sitting to his left! Oh, and don't forget the little green men. They must have had a hand in it too. The majority of this tin-foil-hat stuff is surely the result of delusions and irrationality. But does that account for all of it? How much, do you think, is the result of what Mr Cross calls purposeful misinformation? Are there so many genuinely deluded people around that it isn't necessary for rational criticism of the lone-nut theory to be deliberately undermined? There's a superb dissection of the paranoid wing of JFK assassination 'research' here: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2012-what-are-we-doing-that-s-wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just to make clear the complaints by one member against another member - in this thread - appear to have validity Since this matter has voluntarily cleared itself up nothing more is needed from the admin team. That said, in the EF all members have the right to expect that criticism will be leveled only at the arguments and not aimed elsewhere. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) Bojczuk He says: The paranoid stuff is certainly liable to harm the public image of those who question the lone-nut theory. Is this parade of apparent stupidity purposeful misinformation, or a humourous wind-up, or simple craziness?" "The majority of this tin-foil-hat stuff is surely the result of delusions and irrationality. But does that account for all of it? How much, do you think, is the result of what Mr Cross calls purposeful misinformation? Are there so many genuinely deluded people around that it isn't necessary for rational criticism of the lone-nut theory to be deliberately undermined? " "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.". This is simply more insult and harassment. Unfortunately, there is a group of people on the Forum when they can't refute what you are saying they result to this kind of rule breaking behavior. I suppose this kind of behavior has some beneficial effect to them. Generally, I don't pay much attention to these insults and ridicule. It's water of a duck's back. When Michael Clark reported me for lapsing through frustration and doing a similar thing, I thought the rules should not be enforced in a one sided manner. I corrected my lapse in judgement. I have been reporting this and will continue to do so when a member, such as Bojczuk, makes such a post as the one above. Bojczuk, You have clearly broken Forum policy. I am not deluded, paranoid, irrational, stupid, disinformative, or any of your insulting remarks. Can you refute what I said about the SW corner of Elm and Houston? Post reported. Edited June 13, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Thank you Mr. Gordon for looking into my complaints. I expect criticism due to the subject matter, but not personal attacks, because my work is harmful to both LN theory and CT theory based on the Zapruder film and other things. If one part or many parts are fake, then it really can't be used reasonably in a theory or essay due to reasonable doubt being established. I am not the first to prove that the Zapruder film is a fraud. This was done long ago, decades ago. My work shows you in more detail, what most people miss, just how fraudulent the film is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 The Ladies in Black This photo montage asks the question “Where are the Ladies in Black in the Elsie Dorman Film?”. They are shown in the Zapruder frame, but not in Dorman. In the photo at the top of the montage we see two women. One is shorter and dressed in a tan coat with a white collar. She has a companion dressed in a black coat. Both of these women are shown in the Zapruder film and the Elsie Dorman film. In the Zapruder film you generally don’t get to see the woman in the tan coat’s companion because she is blocked from view. At times the most you can see of her is her legs. Dorman shows the two women at the end of the pavement where the grass begins going west toward the Triple Underpass. Zapruder shows them a little forward to the east of that which is perhaps just the camera angle of Zapruder. The problem here is in Zapruder we see two women in black who I have termed the Ladies in Black. They are first seen in Z 57-58 and continue to be there until about Z 210. This is before the Zapruder Gap and then afterward. They are not seen at all at the location of the woman in the tan coat and her companion in Dorman. The Dorman frame and Dorman mosaic do not show the Ladies in Black at all. And, that is the problem. Which film is correct? This can also be added to the content problems of Z frame 157. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Butler said: The Ladies in Black This photo montage asks the question “Where are the Ladies in Black in the Elsie Dorman Film?”. They are shown in the Zapruder frame, but not in Dorman. In the photo at the top of the montage we see two women. One is shorter and dressed in a tan coat with a white collar. She has a companion dressed in a black coat. Both of these women are shown in the Zapruder film and the Elsie Dorman film. In the Zapruder film you generally don’t get to see the woman in the tan coat’s companion because she is blocked from view. At times the most you can see of her is her legs. Dorman shows the two women at the end of the pavement where the grass begins going west toward the Triple Underpass. Zapruder shows them a little forward to the east of that which is perhaps just the camera angle of Zapruder. The problem here is in Zapruder we see two women in black who I have termed the Ladies in Black. They are first seen in Z 57-58 and continue to be there until about Z 210. This is before the Zapruder Gap and then afterward. They are not seen at all at the location of the woman in the tan coat and her companion in Dorman. The Dorman frame and Dorman mosaic do not show the Ladies in Black at all. And, that is the problem. Which film is correct? This can also be added to the content problems of Z frame 157. Could these be the two ladies (in the Yellow rectangle) you are looking for in Dorman, Mr Butler? One appears to have a white collar. Edited June 13, 2019 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Could these be the two ladies (in the Yellow rectangle) you are looking for in Dorman, Mr Butler? One appears to have a white collar. Mitcham, No. Those two ladies there are not the ones I am talking about. The two Ladies in Black are shown only in the Zapruder Frame 101 in the montage. They are not shown in Elsie Dorman. The lady with the tan coat / white collar and her companion in black are shown in both films. That is the problem. Which film should I believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, John Butler said: Could these be the two ladies (in the Yellow rectangle) you are looking for in Dorman, Mr Butler? One appears to have a white collar. Mitcham, No. Those two ladies there are not the ones I am talking about. The two Ladies in Black are shown only in the Zapruder Frame 101 in the montage. They are not shown in Elsie Dorman. The lady with the tan coat / white collar and her companion in black are shown in both films. That is the problem. Which film should I believe? You are making no sense. Please post a photo indicating with an arrow, the two ladies you mean, Mr Butler. Edited June 13, 2019 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) Mitcham, I think I gave clear explanations for what I was saying. Sorry, you didn't understand. I'll see if I can't point you in the right direction. This is Zapruder frame 101. It is in the montage in the lower left section. These two women who I have named the Ladies in Black are not in the Elsie Dorman film. They should be at or near the location of the two women, the one with the tan coat / white collar and her companion in the black coat. These two women are shown in the Elsie Dorman frame and the Elsie Dorman mosaic. They are also shown in the Zapruder film. Let me repeat. The two women above who I have named the Ladies in Black (both are in black coats) are not in the Elsie Dorman film. Edited June 13, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Butler said: Mitcham, I think I gave clear explanations for what I was saying. Sorry, you didn't understand. I'll see if I can't point you in the right direction. This is Zapruder frame 101. It is in the montage in the lower left section. These two women who I have named the Ladies in Black are not in the Elsie Dorman film. They should be at or near the location of the two women, the one with the tan coat / white collar and her companion in the black coat. These two women are shown in the Elsie Dorman frame and the Elsie Dorman mosaic. They are also shown in the Zapruder film. Let me repeat. The two women above who I have named the Ladies in Black (both are in black coats) are not in the Elsie Dorman film. As I said, they are shown in the Dorman mosaic inside the yellow rectangle. Here is another frame from the Dorman film the two women (again inside the yellow box) Edited June 13, 2019 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) Mitcham, That is a poor visual presentation. In the yellow rectangle you have cut off the part of the woman in the tan coat with the white collar that would identify her. Why did you do that? This visual will identify the correct women in that spot in Elsie Dorman and they are not the two women as seen in Z 101. And, you can see the two women with their heads in a lightened version of that frame in the Dorman Mosaic. This should be sufficient for you to see the truth. I don't intend to answer your tactic of a series of endless questions. If this doesn't satisfy you then I can offer you no further help. Edited June 13, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, John Butler said: Mitcham, That is a poor visual presentation. In the yellow rectangle you have cut off the part of the woman in the tan coat with the white collar that would identify her. Why did you do that? This visual will identify the correct women in that spot in Elsie Dorman and they are not the two women as seen in Z 101. And, you can see the two women with their heads in a lightened version of that frame in the Dorman Mosaic. This should be sufficient for you to see the truth. I don't intend to answer your tactic of a series of endless questions. If this doesn't satisfy you then I can offer you no further help. They are not a series of endless questions. They are an endless set of corrections of your mistakes. Edited June 14, 2019 by Ray Mitcham Edited to remove possible misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now