The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[John Butler]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

All the films are correct, and John is wrong. He is spectactularly wrong, and not for the first time.

I can't believe what I am reading.  Setting aside the insults.  Jeremy just has to be kidding.  This is the .....

I don't even think he is color blind.  So, a question or two to find out.  What color clothing was the BB Lady wearing?  She had a tan raincoat and a head scarf.  What color clothing did the woman in the Zapruder film have?  She had on a short sleeve, dark blue dress.  Her hair was blond and held by a black head band.  She did not have a head scarf.  Here is a Bond photo showing the BB Lady and a Zapruder frame showing the Lady in Blue.  They are different people.

I wonder if Jeremy believes if he just throws up something in opposition that people will take that seriously.

I will say it once more.  The Zapruder film does not contain an image of the Babushka Lady.  It has an image of a woman in a blue dress who I believe is Tammi True and an associate of Jack Ruby. 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Here is a Bond photo showing the BB Lady and a Zapruder frame showing the Lady in Blue.  They are different people.

They are the same woman, seen from opposite directions. She is also shown in the Muchmore and Bronson films, and probably in the Nix film too, and maybe in some other photos.

Quote

What color clothing did the woman in the Zapruder film have?  She had on a short sleeve, dark blue dress.  Her hair was blond[e] and held by a black head band.  She did not have a head scarf.

I think I've worked it out now. What John was claiming was that the Zapruder film frame he is using shows the woman's clothing with a blue tinge to it, therefore she was wearing a blue dress, therefore she can't be the woman in the light brown coat that all the other films and photos depict. Is that right?

As usual, it boils down to the fact that John is using a poor-quality copy. Look at the car in John's copy of that frame. It too has the same purple or blue tinge, as does young Joe Brehm's coat. But we know from numerous other colour images that the car was black (or at best, a very dark blue that was indistinguishable from black in most lighting conditions). It certainly wasn't the colour that we see in John's copy.

The same goes for what John thinks are the woman's other distinguishing features: short sleeves, blonde hair, black band, no head scarf. It looks that way to him because he's looking at a poor-quality copy, and because he has a natural inclination to interpret these trivial differences as examples of deliberate alteration.

We've seen over and over again that John doesn't grasp the fundamental and uncontroversial fact that the copying of images often introduces visual elements that weren't there in the original image. Contrast can increase, lightness or darkness can increase, blobs and lines can appear (prime example: Phil Willis's extra-long leg), and colours can change.

Colour anomalies can also be due to the use of different types of film, differences in processing those films, and differences in the digital manipulation of images. The two images John has posted illustrate this:

• Look at the grass around the woman and the Brehms. Each image shows the grass as different shades of green. But it's the same grass.
• Look at Jean Hill's red coat. Each image shows it as different shades of red. But it's the same coat. This isn't evidence that the lizard people somehow swapped Jean Hill's coat in the few seconds between each image, or that she had a doppelganger, or whatever other crazy idea John's imagination comes up with.

It's all down to the way the photographic process works. Unfortunately, John doesn't seem to understand any of this.

[Paul Bacon]

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

I can't believe what I am reading.  Setting aside the insults.  Jeremy just has to be kidding.  This is the .....

I don't even think he is color blind.  So, a question or two to find out.  What color clothing was the BB Lady wearing?  She had a tan raincoat and a head scarf.  What color clothing did the woman in the Zapruder film have?  She had on a short sleeve, dark blue dress.  Her hair was blond and held by a black head band.  She did not have a head scarf.  Here is a Bond photo showing the BB Lady and a Zapruder frame showing the Lady in Blue.  They are different people.

I wonder if Jeremy believes if he just throws up something in opposition that people will take that seriously.

I will say it once more.  The Zapruder film does not contain an image of the Babushka Lady.  It has an image of a woman in a blue dress who I believe is Tammi True and an associate of Jack Ruby. 

 

Charles and Joe Brehm and the "babushka lady" are uphill of Jean and Mary in the Z film.  They are downhill of Jean and Mary in the Bond photo.  What's the likelyhood that total strangers would move together to a downhill position in a few seconds?

Unless I'm missing something, the photos show two different groups of people.  Ergo, the lady in blue is not the lady in tan.

Someone correct me, please.

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Charles and Joe Brehm and the "babushka lady" are uphill of Jean and Mary in the Z film.  They are downhill of Jean and Mary in the Bond photo.  What's the likelyhood that total strangers would move together to a downhill position in a few seconds?

Unless I'm missing something, the photos show two different groups of people.  Ergo, the lady in blue is not the lady in tan.

Someone correct me, please.

The Bond photos are taken after the assassination by about a minute more or less.  There is time to move around.  I have never made that connection about total strangers.  I believe you are corrrect.  It is not likely at all. 

Here's a photo that has the BB Lady and the Lady in Blue at the same time.  It is Willis Slide No. 7.  It's at about the same time as the Bond photos.  If you magnify this blurry image you will see that the BB Lady may be spliced into the scene.

 

Crop and mag of the above scene:

It is all blurry and difficult to determine.  But, I do believe we have the BB Lady and the Lady in Blue in the same scene.  The Government had Phil's slides for some time.

The story of the Babushka Lady is a complicated one.  I don't believe she arrived in the Dealey Plaza area until after the assassination and not before.  Here is a Cancellare photo crop showing she was late to the scene of the assassination.

I believe I can track her progress into the assassination scene area with the Muchmore film, Hughes films, and this photo.

Edited March 31, 2022 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

21 minutes ago, John Butler said:

If you magnify this blurry image you will see that the BB Lady may be spliced into the scene.

Good heavens. "Spliced into the scene" ?? Why on earth would any conspirator or forger do this? It boggles the mind that people believe this stuff.

23 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The Bond photos are taken after the assassination by about a minute more or less.  There is time to move around.  I have never made that connection about total strangers.  I believe you are corrrect.  It is not likely at all.

It's not likely that a group of people who were standing near each other would then all move in the same direction after just having witnessed the President of the United States murdered before their very eyes?

[Chris Davidson]

On 3/29/2022 at 11:25 AM, Chris Davidson said:

In fact, if you look at Myer's start time for Wiegman at extant Z246 compared to Mark Tyler's at extant Z280, which is an approx 34 frame difference, then add that frame difference starting where Nix gets cut at extant Z411, you would wind up near extant Z447(Wiegman/Z sync) where it appears Jackie is still laid out in Wiegman(John Butler frame) which follows suit with what we see in early Bell at extant Z435, using the underpass shadow sync point(counting backwards gif) between Bell/Z.

If you are so inclined to count backwards from the underpass shadow sync point, take note of how many frames that span is.

Or, you can bypass all that by realizing that Myer's camera frame rate for Towner's film at 22.8 was pure BS and using a more credible 18.3fps rate for Towners camera and an extant Z sync, the difference for the Towner filming span would equate to 1.8 seconds = 33 zframes at 18.3fps

It's like following bouncing frames.

Rest assured, knowing that once you have common events occurring within different films and include the plotting of such events, the alterations (in numbers form) will rise to the surface.

For instance:

Tyler's distance from extant z313.3-447.5 = 134.2zframes

The distance is 1190ft - 989.6ft = 200.4ft

200.4ft/134.2frames = 1.493ft per frame/1.47(1mph) = 18.58mph

Add back those 34 missing frames from above to the same span/equation:

200.4ft/168.2frames = 1.191ft per frame/1.47 = 14.83mph

18.58 - 14.83 = 3.75mph limo speed increase in the extant zfilm by eliminating 34 extant zframes.

Now, how many frames did Myers state the Towner film consists of, syncing with that 22.8fps rate? (167)

So, in this particular instance, it took approx 200ft for the film sync's to reveal approx 34 missing frames.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

18 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Rest assured, knowing that once you have common events occurring within different films and include the plotting of such events, the alterations (in numbers form) will rise to the surface.

For instance:

Tyler's distance from extant z313.3-447.5 = 134.2zframes

The distance is 1190ft - 989.6ft = 200.4ft

200.4ft/134.2frames = 1.493ft per frame/1.47(1mph) = 18.58mph

Add back those 34 missing frames from above to the same span/equation:

200.4ft/168.2frames = 1.191ft per frame/1.47 = 14.83mph

18.58 - 14.83 = 3.75mph limo speed increase in the extant zfilm by eliminating 34 extant zframes.

Now, how many frames did Myers state the Towner film consists of, syncing with that 22.8fps rate? (167)

So, in this particular instance, it took approx 200ft for the film sync's to reveal approx 34 missing frames.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no difference between the previous posting and what the WC was doing with their other documentation.

.9ft traveled in three frames = .3ft per frame.

.3ft per frame x 18.3fps = 5.49ft per sec/1.47 = 3.734mph.  CE884, trying to adjust(slow down) the limo speed in accordance with a film where frames were removed.

.3ft per frame x 34 frames = 10.2ft

Unless, you were under the impression that the limo was traveling at 3.734mph circa extant z168.

 

 

 

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Good heavens. "Spliced into the scene" ?? Why on earth would any conspirator or forger do this? It boggles the mind that people believe this stuff.

It is to legitimize the BB Lady being in Dealey Plaza as shown in other films.  Phil's slide is important since it shows both the BB Lady and the Lady in Blue.  It is a recognition that they were two different people.  I believe different crews worked on the media of Dealey Plaza.  This crew didn't have the story of the replacement of the Lady in Blue by the BB Lady.

Another idea popped into my mind.  If you look at the Lady in Blue in Phil's Slide you will see that she has a very wide figure.  I would propose that the BB Lady is much slenderer and would not be an easy overlay.  There would be additional work on the grass so easier to put her in there and cover most of her with another figure. 

I contend that she wasn't there and this was simply another opportunity to place her there.  

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

There is no difference between the previous posting and what the WC was doing with their other documentation.

.9ft traveled in three frames = .3ft per frame.

.3ft per frame x 18.3fps = 5.49ft per sec/1.47 = 3.734mph.  CE884, trying to adjust(slow down) the limo speed in accordance with a film where frames were removed.

.3ft per frame x 34 frames = 10.2ft

Unless, you were under the impression that the limo was traveling at 3.734mph circa extant z168.

 

 

 

And, if you would like to see how the elevation(put in the form of "lead" height) was adjusted for those approx 34 frames/10.2ft in conjunction with a shot reaction circa extant z207, look no further than CE560.

It just takes some simple converting to realize the connection:

10.2ft/18.3ft horizontal(1ft vert change on a 3.13° slope) = .557ft vertical

.557x 12" = 6.68"

It looks like some entity was trying to remove and then combine two shots into one, on film, the approx 10.2ft farther down Elm.

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Now, imagine the surveyor(Robert West) provided you(Tom Purvis) with some pertinent documentation that fully supports the 10.2ft difference, which is comprised of 34 zframes and transformed into 6.7 vertical inches.

I'll call it the bouncing transformation.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Paul Bacon writes:

Quote

Unless I'm missing something, the photos show two different groups of people.  Ergo, the lady in blue is not the lady in tan.

Someone correct me, please.

The images show the same three people: Charles Brehm, his son Joe, and the woman in the headscarf and light brown coat who is sometimes known as the 'Babushka Lady'.

There was no 'Lady in Blue'. She is a figment of John Butler's imagination, and a consequence of his limited understanding of photography.

In the poor-quality copy of the Zapruder frame that John is using, the woman in the head scarf and light brown coat is shown with a purple-blue tinge. That colour is nothing more than an artefact of the copying process.

John's copy contains a blue cast. You can see this clearly in its depiction of the presidential limo, which is shown with the same purple-blue tinge. But we know that the car was black, not the shade of purple-blue that we see in John's copy.

We can tell that the purple-blue tinge is solely due to John's copy because other copies of the Zapruder film show the car as it actually was: black, and without the blue cast that we see in John's copy.

The woman we see standing near the Brehms in the Zapruder film is the same woman we see standing near the Brehms in the Muchmore film, the Bronson film, and the Bond photos.

Jonathan Cohen writes:

Quote

It boggles the mind that people believe this stuff.

This is turning into one of the zaniest threads I've seen for a long time. Out of nothing but his inability to spot a simple copying error, John has conjured up a fantasy world in which one of Jack Ruby's strippers is impersonating another of Jack Ruby's strippers in Dealey Plaza for no apparent reason, and two teams of imaginary photo-alteration experts are running around correcting each other's mistakes. It's bizarre.

To be honest, I really hope that John Butler himself doesn't believe this stuff. It must be a wind-up, mustn't it?

John Butler writes:

Quote

The story of the Babushka Lady is a complicated one.  I don't believe she arrived in the Dealey Plaza area until after the assassination and not before.

Back on page 15, John posted a frame from the Muchmore film which shows the very same 'Babushka Lady' standing close to JFK's car a fraction of a second before the head shot. She is wearing the light brown coat which, according to John, differentiates her from his mythical 'Lady in Blue'. John has debunked his own theory: the 'Babushka Lady' was there during the assassination, and cannot have arrived afterwards.

It's the same woman, standing near the same Charles and Joe Brehm.

[Sean Coleman]

Not sure where John’s blue lady is, and would definitely not pay to see this lady strip. 

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Not sure where John’s blue lady is, and would definitely not pay to see this lady strip. 

Seeing is believing? Jeremy B. puts it all down to film copying errors, faded films, and twisted imagination.  You can not deny the Lady in Blue see in Zapruder frames Z 275 to Z 296.

According to Jeremy B., this is a consistent copying error that lasts for 21 frames.  You don't see a short sleeve, dark blue dress.  You don't see a back head band.  You don't see blond hair.  And, you don't see a white belt.  She always faces the camera.

According to Jeremy B., you see a woman in a tan raincoat with long sleeves.  She has a head scarf.  And, she is always turned away from the camera once she is seen in Dealey Plaza.

I would guess Jeremy B. thinks the copying errors created the short sleeve blue dress out of a long sleeve tan raincoat.  Any color difference are from just faded copies of the film.

Sean, I might ask where is the BB Lady in the middle photo?  

Edited April 1, 2022 by John Butler

[Joe Bauer]

Never got into this area very much but just now I noticed a few things in the pics Sean Coleman posted that seems quite noticeable to me.

Just my 2 cents worth.

The top pic shows an older aged lady in a bulky tan colored coat running up the grassy knoll along with other rushing people.

Some say this is the same lady shown in the lower pic with a tan coat and head covering of some sort ( scarf?)  This lower photo scarf wearing woman is first shown standing about 10 feet to the right of Jean Hill on the grass on the other side of Elm and is shown taking a picture of the Presidential limo a micro-second before JFK's head explodes.

Number 1:

The older grassy knoll running woman shown in the upper photo is not the same woman shown standing behind Brehm and then seconds later actually in front of a sitting Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. 

So easy to compare each woman's coats and see how different they are.

The older grassy knoll running woman's coat has much more bulky upper and lower sleeves than the one worn by the woman shown standing near Hill, Moorman and Brehm. Very noticeably different.

Also, the upper shoulder and torso part of the Hill, Moorman, Brehm woman's coat is clearly tailored much tighter around her versus the Knoll woman's coat.

Also, the older grassy knoll running women's hair is clearly dark brown versus blond and she has no head adorned scarf as the lower photo woman does.

2:

The so-called blue lady running up behind Brehm is difficult to see clearly enough to say this is surely the tan coat/scarf/ photo taking woman but it must be. The sequence of the appearance of this woman is so short in seconds, who else could it be?

Has the woman "right there" with Brehm, Hill and Moorman when JFK got hit ever been identified?

You'd think that since she was so visible and had taken a picture of JFK at the same time as Moorman, she would have been stopped and questioned as Moorman, Hill and Brehm were.

I never gave much thought to Beverly Oliver's life long claim that the woman in the tan coat and scarf taking a picture with Hill and Brehm just as JFK's head explodes was her, but I now have a much more open mind to this being the case.

Oliver was a fairly big boned women. The tan coat picture taking woman's exposed lower legs depict a woman similarly built imo. And I don't think Oliver was short. The tan coat woman looks to be at least 5 ft. 7 in. to 5 ft. 8 in. And the posture of the tan coat picture taking lady seems very youthfully healthy and upright straight.

Maybe Beverly Oliver was telling the truth about her being right there when JFK was shot. 

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents here as uninformed as they are. The thread is compelling.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Ray Mitcham]

At the risk of being called a "chaser" by John , maybe he might look at this photo which has had the chrome hue reduced. and see if he thinks he may be wrong. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Ray Mitcham
spelling error.