The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Ray posted the very same frame that John Butler used to show that the woman's clothing is dark blue! Only difference is that he turned down the color level setting.

Yes, that's what makes Ray's frame a different version from John's.

Quote

So you can prove that your theory explaining this mystery is correct.

It's up to John to prove that the woman was wearing a blue dress. It isn't up to anyone to prove that she wasn't. All I did was to point out that what he thought was a real colour was a product of Costella's digital manipulation of the image. We know that this is the case because, in the Costella frame, the limousine has the same blue cast, but in other images it does not have this cast. Either all of those other images are distorted or the Costalla image is distorted. Personally, I'd go for the latter.

Does Sandy seriously doubt that the woman in the Zapruder frame is the woman who is in the Muchmore, Bronson and Bond frames? In all three, she appears (to me, at least) to be the same shape and the same size as in the Zapruder frame. In the Moorman and Bronson films, taken at exactly the same time as the Zapruder film, she is standing in the same place, and in the same posture. Of course she's the same woman!

The only two differences are that the Zapruder frame John is using is of poorer quality than the other images, and it shows the woman from the front, in shadow, whereas the others show her from behind, in light. Those two factors are more than enough to account for any apparent differences in colour or tone. As I've explained, images are never exact representations of reality.

Can Sandy think of any other explanation that doesn't involve Butlerian levels of implausibility?

Edited April 5, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

There is no answer you can give that will satisfy his need to need to deny that the Zapruder film and others have been altered.

All John needs to do is provide proof that any of these images were altered. If all we have to go on is the evidence John has provided up to now, the default setting still applies: none of them were altered.

Just look at John's latest bunch of far-fetched claims. He hasn't provided proof for any of them:

• The Zapruder film is a fake because it shows the white car back to front. Really? Prove it!
• The Altgens 6 photo is a fake because the white car was "badly distorted". Really? Prove it!
• The famous Moorman photo is a fake because it had its background replaced. Really? Prove it!
• The Muchmore, Bronson and Bond photos are fakes because they show a woman who wasn't there. Really? Prove it!

What might constitute proof for these claims? To take as an example John's pièce de résistance, the Moorman photo claim, he could start by demonstrating that it was possible, in theory, for a Polaroid photo to be substantially altered without leaving incriminating traces. He could do this by citing expert opinion, or by altering a Polaroid photo himself and providing documentation to show that it was possible.

Once he has done that, he could demonstrate that the editing he proposes could have been achieved during the two and a half hours before the photo was shown on TV. Again, expert opinion or a properly documented experiment would suffice to show that such a feat was possible. At that point, his claim might be taken seriously.

Then he would need to provide a plausible source for the grassy knoll background which he claims is a fake, and some plausible evidence to back up his claim that Moorman didn't take her photo from where numerous other images show she was standing at the time (good luck with that last part).

That sort of thing might be enough to satisfy a reasonable person that the Moorman photo was faked. But John hasn't done any of that. He hasn't even tried to do any of that. He gives the impression that he doesn't understand what proof is in this context, or even why it really is up to him to provide it.

[John Butler]

11 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Sorry, John must have missed your post. A chaser is someone who chases after another poster who won't admit he(or she) is wrong. For example, remember the case of the post shadows?(I'm still waiting for an apology by the way.) You seemed to think I was picking on you, particularly, but I can't let incorrect posts go by without saying something.

Thanks Ray,

I was sure you had something in mind other than a chaser of whiskey after a beer.  Those things are in the past Ray.  I don't hold grudges.  Let's let those things lie in the past and start a new, more civil beginning.

[John Butler]

10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Re the Johnson Press car in frame 157, there is nothing wrong with the direction, it is travelling, i.e. North on Houston. Perhaps John can point out why the "triangular" shape of the rear roof support back has disappeared.

Same with 158/160.

 

All we can see is the backward slope of the windscreen. 

 

Ray,

True, the vehicle is traveling north on Houston Street.  That's not the problem.  The top of the vehicle is orientated in the wrong direction.  The top is going south while the lower body is going north.  Here is the correct orientation of top to bottom of the Johnson ss vehicle.

Frame Z 145 show the correct orientation. 

And, then the wrong orientation in Z 158.

  

[Jonathan Cohen]

7 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

True, the vehicle is traveling north on Houston Street.  That's not the problem.  The top of the vehicle is orientated in the wrong direction.  The top is going south while the lower body is going north.  Here is the correct orientation of top to bottom of the Johnson ss vehicle.

Frame Z 145 show the correct orientation. 

And, then the wrong orientation in Z 158.

  

Are you actually suggesting that the forgers REVERSED THE ORIENTATION of one half of Lyndon Johnson's vehicle? WHY on God's green earth would they do this? HOW on God's green earth could this be accomplished? Have you ever, for one second, considered the possibility that what you think you are seeing is profoundly incorrect?

[John Butler]

20 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Are you actually suggesting that the forgers REVERSED THE ORIENTATION of one half of Lyndon Johnson's vehicle? WHY on God's green earth would they do this? HOW on God's green earth could this be accomplished? Have you ever, for one second, considered the possibility that what you think you are seeing is profoundly incorrect?

Jonathan, 

I have no idea.  It is clearly what happened.  If what I showed is denied then I have nothing else to say to that person.

I speculated sometime recently that it is possible that the Johnson ss vehicle was stopped in the intersection in front of the Mayor's Car.  Maybe, just for a few seconds. This would throw off the location of the Mayor's Car in the intersection and the statements of the witnesses which were positive for the Official Story. 

This I believe a Couch frame or photo.

What we see in the foreground is the National Press Pool Car.  Ahead in the distance is the Johnson ss vehicle.  What should be inbetween is the Mayor's Car.  I don't see it.  Hence the speculation. 

But, even that doesn't make sense.  If the Mayor's Car was released before the Johnson ss vehicle since it seems to be absent in the photo, then that doesn't make sense.  But, the Mayor's Car not being between the two vehicles doesn't make sense either. 

There is many, many things in Dealey Plaza that doesn't make sense.  In this photo where are Officer Foster and the 10 or so railroad men?  

Edited April 5, 2022 by John Butler

[Pat Speer]

40 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

True, the vehicle is traveling north on Houston Street.  That's not the problem.  The top of the vehicle is orientated in the wrong direction.  The top is going south while the lower body is going north.  Here is the correct orientation of top to bottom of the Johnson ss vehicle.

Frame Z 145 show the correct orientation. 

And, then the wrong orientation in Z 158.

  

Someone pointed this out years ago, John. I don't remember who. It might have been you. But I do remember coming to the conclusion it was just an illusion..

Here is a clearer frame from this same sequence. (It's Z-161.)

P.S. I also suspect the car you are using for comparison is not the same car. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Pat Speer

[John Butler]

9 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Someone pointed this out years ago, John. I don't remember who. It might have been you. But I do remember coming to the conclusion it was just an illusion..

Here is a clearer frame from this same sequence. (It's Z-161.)

P.S. I also suspect the car you are using for comparison is not the same car. 

Illusions, copying errors, and misunderstood proof.  Those are poor excuses for what is shown.

As far as the Johnson ss vehicle check with Todd Wayne Vaughn in his Presidential Motorcade Schematic Listing version 9.00, November 22, 1963  

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

There is many, many things in Dealey Plaza that doesn't make sense.  In this photo where are Officer Foster and the 10 or so railroad men?

The frame in question would have been taken maybe half a minute after the shooting. I can see a few roughly human-sized shapes on the right-hand segment of the bridge. Has John considered the possibility that the men might have followed the crowd who were converging on the area behind the fence on the grassy knoll?

If there's a choice between that sort of explanation and John's everything-is-a-fake explanation, isn't the nothing-to-see-here explanation much more likely to be true?

Why does John insist on explaining every trivial discrepancy as part of a monster plot in which all the photographic evidence was faked?

Quote

Illusions, copying errors, and misunderstood proof.  Those are poor excuses for what is shown.

They are excellent explanations for what is shown. Compare John's version of frame 158 and Pat's version of frame 161. Look at the difference in quality:

• John's version has over-saturated colours, it's blurred, and much of the detail is missing.
• Pat's version has a more realistic range of colours, is less blurred, and contains more detail.

The differences are due to two main factors: the workings of Zapruder's camera (which renders some frames more blurred than others), and the manipulation of digital copies by image-editing software.

Now look again at the white car, which John still seems to think is back to front. Can John explain, using Pat's frame, which features of the car show that it is back to front?

When you look at a good-quality copy, the car isn't back to front at all, is it? Whatever feature it was that caused John to think that the car was back to front must have been an illusion, caused by the poor quality of the copy he was using.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/5/2022 at 2:57 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Ray posted the very same frame that John Butler used to show that the woman's clothing is dark blue! Only difference is that he turned down the color level setting.

On 4/5/2022 at 2:57 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Yes, that's what makes Ray's frame a different version from John's.

 

And that is why you haven't proven your claim that Costella's color adjustments are responsible for the lady is Zapruder having a dark-blue rather than the expected tan color.

 

On 4/5/2022 at 2:57 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's up to John to prove that the woman was wearing a blue dress.

 

John has proven that the lady in Zapruder was wearing a dark-blue dress. He proved so by showing us the frame from Zapruder where it is evident that she is wearing dark blue, or what some might say is black. In either case, not tan.

Now if someone disagrees with John's evidence, it is up to them to prove it's wrong.

 

On 4/5/2022 at 2:57 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Does Sandy seriously doubt that the woman in the Zapruder frame is the woman who is in the Muchmore, Bronson and Bond frames?

 

It appears that the darkly-clothed woman in Zapruder is standing in roughly the same place as the beige-clothed woman in Muchmore. I don't know about the tan-wearing women seen in the other films.

 

On 4/5/2022 at 2:57 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Can Sandy think of any other explanation that doesn't involve Butlerian levels of implausibility?

 

I can't think of any way to explain the apparent change in the woman's clothing color. And for that reason I call it a mystery.

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The frame in question would have been taken maybe half a minute after the shooting. I can see a few roughly human-sized shapes on the right-hand segment of the bridge. Has John considered the possibility that the men might have followed the crowd who were converging on the area behind the fence on the grassy knoll?

Butlerian?  Indicating a theory?  No, just the facts of what is seen.  What you see confirms what about 4 other photos and film frames also indicate.  There is no one on the bridge and the folks who are supposed to be there, Officer Foster and the railroad men, are off to the north side and not on the bridge as shown in Altgens 7.  There are several photo/frames that show as the p. limo moves toward the underpass to see the same thing as Couch.  Bell is unusual as it does both.

If you look down by the underpass I believe you can see the p. limo going under the underpass.  It's blurry there and may be another vehicle before the National Press Pool Car and the Johnson ss vehicle. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

John has proven that the lady in Zapruder was wearing a dark-blue dress. He proved so by showing us the frame from Zapruder where it is evident that she is wearing dark blue, or what some might say is black. In either case, not tan.

Jeremy doesn't accept simple sight things as proof.  Don't know why, but he is continually saying I need to provide proof when I have.  The Lady in Blue is in Zapruder and in the Willis 7 slide.  She was a real person who has been edited out of most films and photos during and after the assassination.  I think this is because of the association with Jack Ruby.  I hold Jack Ruby to be a conspirator and speculate that he wanted to have his own film of the event.

I further speculate that he sent Betty Oliver or Tammi True to do that filming.  My candidate for the Lady in Blue is Tammi True, Jack Ruby's No. 1 stripper.  Her real name is Nancy Myers.  She was involved in other Jack Ruby situations such as the Cuban exiles.  She may have run a safe house for intelligence operations.

Edited April 6, 2022 by John Butler

[Pat Speer]

20 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jonathan, 

I have no idea.  It is clearly what happened.  If what I showed is denied then I have nothing else to say to that person.

I speculated sometime recently that it is possible that the Johnson ss vehicle was stopped in the intersection in front of the Mayor's Car.  Maybe, just for a few seconds. This would throw off the location of the Mayor's Car in the intersection and the statements of the witnesses which were positive for the Official Story. 

This I believe a Couch frame or photo.

What we see in the foreground is the National Press Pool Car.  Ahead in the distance is the Johnson ss vehicle.  What should be inbetween is the Mayor's Car.  I don't see it.  Hence the speculation. 

But, even that doesn't make sense.  If the Mayor's Car was released before the Johnson ss vehicle since it seems to be absent in the photo, then that doesn't make sense.  But, the Mayor's Car not being between the two vehicles doesn't make sense either. 

There is many, many things in Dealey Plaza that doesn't make sense.  In this photo where are Officer Foster and the 10 or so railroad men?  

Since you persist, I will as well. Look at the President's limo. It is at an angle to the press pool car. Why? Because the road curves. Now look where the limo is heading. A tunnel. Above that tunnel are some shapes. Those are the railroad men, standing right over the roadway. 

[Ray Mitcham]

Compare this cropped photo of the rear roof support of the Johnson Press car, to the windscreen  upright and the wheel arch  shown in Pat Speer's photo Z161.  Both slope the wrong  way. Just don't match.

[John Butler]

17 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Compare this cropped photo of the rear roof support of the Johnson Press car, to the windscreen  upright and the wheel arch  shown in Pat Speer's photo Z161.  Both slope the wrong  way. Just don't match.

From your illustrations that would appear to be so.  But, not.  It is simply a matter of perspective.  You are showing the vehicles from two different perspectives.  And, even if they were two different vehicles (not so) then that still would not explain why the Monterey Mercury is heading north while its top is heading south.

As far as Pat seeing men above Elm Street, those are just light and dark places not resembling men.  Officer Foster and the railroad men were standing to the right of the bridge or north of the bridge one could say.  Just ask Jeremy.

Z 160 is a better frame for comparison on perspective.  That's why I used Z 160.

It is a matter of perspective.

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by John Butler