In that symposium, which was in 2003, I thought Costella seemed utterly lost. Then yesterday, I watched a 2009 video of his that seemed dead-on reasonable, saying the same things I believed about the faked film, regarding removing frames as needed to speed up the kill scene and hide actions. He didn't make the specific claims I have, but I thought he understood it very well. But in 2003, they were practically saying the whole thing was a studio creation, and not backing it up with anything persuasive. Those are my impressions, anyway. I certainly will look into Costella's more recent stuff when the urge strikes.
> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
>>> quite a bit of great work.
>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
>>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
>>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
>>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
> talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
> motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
> through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
> testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
> looking:
Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published on November 29, 1963, proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy of the Zapruder film, which they call the "camera original," and for which the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that copy, anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original. I've never heard a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide Connally's hand going into his pocket. That makes sense. If you didn't know he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
> > On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
> >> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
> >> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
> >> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
> >>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
> >>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
> >>> quite a bit of great work.
> >>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
> >>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
> >>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
> >>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
> >>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
> >>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
> >>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
> >>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
> >>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
> >>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
> > One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
> > topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
> > talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
> > glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
> > at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
> > you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
> > motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
> > through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
> > the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.
> > testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
> > vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
> > remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
> > lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
> > have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
> > looking:
I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
period of time. If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
is barely discernable at all. it would have had to be much more
dramatic.
> Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published
on November 29, 1963, proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy of the Zapruder film, which they call the "camera original," and for which the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that copy, anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original. I've never heard a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide Connally's hand going into his pocket. That makes sense. If you didn't know he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
There is still stuff going around and being discussed about 'camera
original'.
On 10/7/2012 11:12 AM, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published on November 29, 1963, proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy of the Zapruder film, which they call the "camera original," and for which the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that copy, anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original. I've never heard a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide Connally's hand going into his pocket. That makes sense. If you didn't know he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
Why couldn't LIFE/CIA have faked frame 222 BEFORE it was published on November 29, 1963. I assume from your writing style that you've never actually seen that issue. And why does Connally have to pull a gun out of his pocket? Why couldn't he have it in his 10-gallon hat? How about a theory that Jackie's pillbox hat was invented to conceal a derringer? Who was that TV Western hero who kept a derringer in his hat?
> Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published
on November 29, 1963, proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy of the Zapruder film, which they call the "camera original," and for which the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that copy,
anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original. I've never heard a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide Connally's hand going into his pocket. That makes sense. If you didn't know he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
> On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
>>>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
>>>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
>>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
>>>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
>>>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
>>>>> quite a bit of great work.
>>>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
>>>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
>>>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
>>>>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
>>>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
>>>>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
>>>>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
>>>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
>>>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
>>>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
>>> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
>>> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
>>> talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
>>> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
>>> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
>>> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
>>> motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
>>> through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
>>> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
>> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.
>>> testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
>>> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
>>> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
>>> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
>>> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
>>> looking:
> I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
> brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
> period of time. If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
> described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
> is barely discernable at all. it would have had to be much more
> dramatic.
> CJ
FYI, there are not nine frames of brake lights. You are being fooled by the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life every day.
If one analyzes the witness testimony? What are you mumbling about? That's exactly what I did in my article and proved that some researchers misrepresented witness statements.
Well, ain't Bee, at least I assume you ain't, sometimes folks *can* do this thing or another, but they jess don't, and they get all flustered later on and then they come back and try to make things right. You know, like that time that Floyd cut a penis into the back of my head without even askin', and then snuck on in in the middle the night to glue some hair on my head off Otis's old mule? Well, this is the same kinda thing, 'cept it weren't a schlong in Connally's hand, but a gun. You know how these things can happen.
> > On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
> >>>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
> >>>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
> >>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
> >>>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
> >>>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
> >>>>> quite a bit of great work.
> >>>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
> >>>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
> >>>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
> >>>>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
> >>>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
> >>>>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
> >>>>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
> >>>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
> >>>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
> >>>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
> >>> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
> >>> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
> >>> talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
> >>> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
> >>> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
> >>> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
> >>> motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
> >>> through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
> >>> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
> >> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.
> >>> testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
> >>> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
> >>> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
> >>> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
> >>> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
> >>> looking:
> > I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
> > brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
> > period of time. If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
> > described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
> > is barely discernable at all. it would have had to be much more
> > dramatic.
> > CJ
> FYI, there are not nine frames of brake lights. You are being fooled by
> the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life
> every day.
Films taken during the assassination show that the limousine's brake
lights were on and remained on until after President Kennedy had been
fatally injured. Source: J. Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed
Kennedy, pp. 12-15; 35; 244-45 (1989); R. Groden and H. Livingstone,
High Treason, pp. 13-19; 127-28 (2nd ed. 1989).
> If one analyzes the witness testimony? What are you mumbling about?
> That's exactly what I did in my article and proved that some researchers
> misrepresented witness statements.
> > On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
> >>>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
> >>>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
> >>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
> >>>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
> >>>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
> >>>>> quite a bit of great work.
> >>>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
> >>>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
> >>>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
> >>>>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
> >>>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
> >>>>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
> >>>>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
> >>>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
> >>>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
> >>>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
> >>> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
> >>> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
> >>> talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
> >>> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
> >>> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
> >>> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
> >>> motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
> >>> through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
> >>> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
> >> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.
> >>> testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
> >>> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
> >>> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
> >>> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
> >>> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
> >>> looking:
> > I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
> > brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
> > period of time. If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
> > described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
> > is barely discernable at all. it would have had to be much more
> > dramatic.
> > CJ
> FYI, there are not nine frames of brake lights. You are being fooled by
> the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life
> every day.
> If one analyzes the witness testimony? What are you mumbling about?
> That's exactly what I did in my article and proved that some researchers
> misrepresented witness statements.
* Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the
rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down
markedly for at least a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the
limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second)
during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the
Zapruder film (or Z311-319). However, this event is not seen in the
Zapruder film. In fact, the limousine never comes close to performing
this action in the current film.
Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief
slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs
from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8
mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle
that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have
noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez detected it through careful
study and analysis of the film. It seems highly unlikely that this
subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when
they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down markedly.
Here is a small sample of the eyewitness testimony:
-- NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus): "The
President's driver slammed on the brakes - after the third shot.
-- Dallas Police Department (DPD) policeman Earle Brown: "The first I
noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn
and when the shots were fired, it stopped."
-- DPD patrolman Bobby Hargis (one of the four motorcyclists escorting
JFKs limousine): "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the
Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt
blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost
immediately after that."
-- DPD D.V. Harkness: "I saw the first shot and the President's car
slow down to almost a stop I heard the first shot and saw the
President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling on
the car."
-- DPD patrolman Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four motorcyclists
escorting JFKs limousine): ". . . the car just all but stopped, just
a moment.
-- DPD J.W. Foster: "immediately after President Kennedy was
struck . . . the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb."
-- Special Agent John Ready (riding in the follow-up car): "I heard
what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right
front running board. The President's car slowed.
-- Ochus V. Campbell: ". . . observed the car bearing President
Kennedy to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed
up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the
scene."
-- Peggy Joyce Hawkins (on the steps of the Book Depository building):
". . . estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away
from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a
full stop."
Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the
current Zapruder film. Nothing. Throughout the current film the
limousine seems to move at a steady speed. No stop or marked slowdown
can be seen by viewing the film at normal speed, which of course is
the speed at which the witnesses would have observed the motorcade.
* The split-second slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph in
Z295-304 actually presents another problem for the film's
authenticity. Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film,
it represents a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder
notes that such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things
around, and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g.
When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration, one
sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic slowing.
The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration is particularly
interesting because he no longer had voluntary muscular control and
should have been thrown forward. Yet for many frames before and after
this event, he appears to be quite immobile. Nobody in the limousine
shows any signs of being moved by the split-second deceleration. So,
assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the sudden reduction in
speed that he detected would seem to constitute further evidence of
alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it be that this half-second
slowing is a remnant of what was originally a much longer, more
noticeable deceleration?
* Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine is
actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even though the
limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform speed in the film
during this time (Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, Rancho Santa Fe, CA:
Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165). Notes Noel Twyman,
Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from
11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (Bloody Treason,
p. 165)
Dr. Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background
images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also works in
motion picture film technology, studied the film and confirmed his
father's discovery (Bloody Treason, p. 159).
In case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he is a
retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in
cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent
his entire career in motion picture film technology. He is a recipient
of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences. He has authored numerous books on motion
picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In
addition, he is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and
Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films
> > On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
> >>>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
> >>>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
> >>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
> >>>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
> >>>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
> >>>>> quite a bit of great work.
> >>>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
> >>>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
> >>>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
> >>>>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
> >>>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
> >>>>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
> >>>>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
> >>>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
> >>>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
> >>>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
> >>> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
> >>> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
> >>> talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
> >>> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
> >>> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
> >>> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
> >>> motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
> >>> through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
> >>> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
> >> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.
> >>> testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
> >>> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
> >>> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
> >>> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
> >>> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
> >>> looking:
> > I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
> > brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
> > period of time. If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
> > described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
> > is barely discernable at all. it would have had to be much more
> > dramatic.
> > CJ
> FYI, there are not nine frames of brake lights. You are being fooled by
> the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life
> every day.
> If one analyzes the witness testimony? What are you mumbling about?
> That's exactly what I did in my article and proved that some researchers
> misrepresented witness statements.
* Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the
rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down
markedly for at least a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the
limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second)
during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the
Zapruder film (or Z311-319). However, this event is not seen in the
Zapruder film. In fact, the limousine never comes close to performing
this action in the current film.
Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief
slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs
from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8
mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle
that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have
noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez detected it through careful
study and analysis of the film. It seems highly unlikely that this
subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when
they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down markedly.
Here is a small sample of the eyewitness testimony:
-- NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus): "The
President's driver slammed on the brakes - after the third shot.
-- Dallas Police Department (DPD) policeman Earle Brown: "The first I
noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn
and when the shots were fired, it stopped."
-- DPD patrolman Bobby Hargis (one of the four motorcyclists escorting
JFKs limousine): "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the
Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt
blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost
immediately after that."
-- DPD D.V. Harkness: "I saw the first shot and the President's car
slow down to almost a stop I heard the first shot and saw the
President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling on
the car."
-- DPD patrolman Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four motorcyclists
escorting JFKs limousine): ". . . the car just all but stopped, just
a moment.
-- DPD J.W. Foster: "immediately after President Kennedy was
struck . . . the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb."
-- Special Agent John Ready (riding in the follow-up car): "I heard
what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right
front running board. The President's car slowed.
-- Ochus V. Campbell: ". . . observed the car bearing President
Kennedy to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed
up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the
scene."
-- Peggy Joyce Hawkins (on the steps of the Book Depository building):
". . . estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away
from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a
full stop."
Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the
current Zapruder film. Nothing. Throughout the current film the
limousine seems to move at a steady speed. No stop or marked slowdown
can be seen by viewing the film at normal speed, which of course is
the speed at which the witnesses would have observed the motorcade.
* The split-second slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph in
Z295-304 actually presents another problem for the film's
authenticity. Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film,
it represents a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder
notes that such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things
around, and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g.
When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration, one
sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic slowing.
The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration is particularly
interesting because he no longer had voluntary muscular control and
should have been thrown forward. Yet for many frames before and after
this event, he appears to be quite immobile. Nobody in the limousine
shows any signs of being moved by the split-second deceleration. So,
assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the sudden reduction in
speed that he detected would seem to constitute further evidence of
alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it be that this half-second
slowing is a remnant of what was originally a much longer, more
noticeable deceleration?
* Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine is
actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even though the
limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform speed in the film
during this time (Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, Rancho Santa Fe, CA:
Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165). Notes Noel Twyman,
Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from
11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (Bloody Treason,
p. 165)
Dr. Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background
images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also works in
motion picture film technology, studied the film and confirmed his
father's discovery (Bloody Treason, p. 159).
In case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he is a
retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in
cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 y
years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology.
He is a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the
Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He has authored numerous
books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion
picture science. In addition, he is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection
of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films
We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:53:30 AM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
Also, since there is no evidence whatsoever from the films or from sworn witness testimony, that Greer had the door open and was dragging a foot on the street, I think it is safe to assume that he used the brakes to slow the car to a crawl, causing the brake lights to illuminate. Just one man's opinion.
> We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo > slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full > stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a > full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
No, they did not. Stop spreading false information. The 4 cycles behind the limo were traveling to the sides to keep the public from running up to the limo. They actually started to overtake the limo when it slowed down. Hargis decided on his own to stop and park his cycle on Elm to look for the shooter. Funny how he looked towards the grassy knoll and did not immediately run to the TSBD as Baker did.
> On Oct 8, 7:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 6:03 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
>>>>>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
>>>>>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
>>>>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
>>>>>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
>>>>>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
>>>>>>> quite a bit of great work.
>>>>>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
>>>>>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
>>>>>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
>>>>>>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
>>>>>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
>>>>>>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
>>>>>>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
>>>>>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
>>>>>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
>>>>>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
>>>>> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
>>>>> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
>>>>> talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
>>>>> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
>>>>> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
>>>>> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
>>>>> motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
>>>>> through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
>>>>> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
>>>> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.
>>>>> testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
>>>>> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
>>>>> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
>>>>> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
>>>>> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
>>>>> looking:
>>> I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
>>> brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
>>> period of time. If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
>>> described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
>>> is barely discernable at all. it would have had to be much more
>>> dramatic.
>>> CJ
>> FYI, there are not nine frames of brake lights. You are being fooled by
>> the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life
>> every day.
>> If one analyzes the witness testimony? What are you mumbling about?
>> That's exactly what I did in my article and proved that some researchers
>> misrepresented witness statements.
> * Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the
> rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down
> markedly for at least a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the
> limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second)
> during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the
> Zapruder film (or Z311-319). However, this event is not seen in the
> Zapruder film. In fact, the limousine never comes close to performing
> this action in the current film.
Nonsense. Obviously you did not bother to read my article. You just read some kook book and repeat the same nonsense.
> Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief
> slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs
> from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8
> mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle
Show me in his article where he says Z295-304. That's not what he said. You are just making up crap again.
> that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have
So what if stupid viewers do not notice it?
> noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez detected it through careful
> study and analysis of the film. It seems highly unlikely that this
> subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when
> they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down markedly.
> Here is a small sample of the eyewitness testimony:
> -- NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus): "The
> President's driver slammed on the brakes - after the third shot.ļæ½
You mean AFTER the head shot? THat makes no sense.
> -- Dallas Police Department (DPD) policeman Earle Brown: "The first I
> noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn
> and when the shots were fired, it stopped."
> -- DPD patrolman Bobby Hargis (one of the four motorcyclists escorting
> JFKļæ½s limousine): "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the
> Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt
> blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost
> immediately after that."
> -- DPD D.V. Harkness: "I saw the first shot and the President's car
> slow down to almost a stopļæ½I heard the first shot and saw the
> President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling on
> the car."
"Some of the agents piling on the car"? Show me in any film where that happened. You shouldn't even listen to any witness who says something so obviously stupid.
> -- DPD patrolman Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four motorcyclists
> escorting JFKļæ½s limousine): ". . . the car just all but stopped, just
> a moment.ļæ½
Again the kooks see the words "all but" and think that means "absolutely."
> -- DPD J.W. Foster: "immediately after President Kennedy was
> struck . . . the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb."
No film or photo shows the limo pulled to the curb. Keep spouting nonsense like that to show everyone what you are.
> -- Special Agent John Ready (riding in the follow-up car): "I heard
> what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right
> front running board. The President's car slowed.ļæ½
Yeah, it did slow. Or else Clint Hill would not be able to catch it.
> -- Ochus V. Campbell: ". . . observed the car bearing President
> Kennedy to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed
> up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the
> scene."
"Near."
> -- Peggy Joyce Hawkins (on the steps of the Book Depository building):
> ". . . estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away
> from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a
> full stop."
"Almost."
> Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the
> current Zapruder film. Nothing. Throughout the current film the
Pure crap.
> limousine seems to move at a steady speed. No stop or marked slowdown
> can be seen by viewing the film at normal speed, which of course is
> the speed at which the witnesses would have observed the motorcade.
> * The split-second slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph in
> Z295-304 actually presents another problem for the film's
No one said Z295-304. You made that up from your imagination.
> authenticity. Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film,
> it represents a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder
> notes that such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things
> around, and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g.
GIGO. Start with false assumptions and you reach false conclusions.
> When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration, one
> sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic slowing.
I do. I see them all nodding forward. Does that mean that they were all shot in the head at the same time?
> The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration is particularly
> interesting because he no longer had voluntary muscular control and
> should have been thrown forward. Yet for many frames before and after
WHEN? Exactly when do you claim he no longer had voluntary muscular control?
Have you ever heard of reflexes? Has the doctor ever tested your reflexes?
> this event, he appears to be quite immobile. Nobody in the limousine
> shows any signs of being moved by the split-second deceleration. So,
> assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the sudden reduction in
> speed that he detected would seem to constitute further evidence of
> alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it be that this half-second
> slowing is a remnant of what was originally a much longer, more
> noticeable deceleration?
Explain EXACTLY how you think alteration would produce this effect.
I once
...
> On Oct 8, 7:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 6:03 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
>>>>>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
>>>>>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
>>>>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
>>>>>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
>>>>>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
>>>>>>> quite a bit of great work.
>>>>>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
>>>>>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
>>>>>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
>>>>>>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
>>>>>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
>>>>>>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
>>>>>>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
>>>>>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
>>>>>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
>>>>>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
>>>>> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
>>>>> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
>>>>> talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
>>>>> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
>>>>> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
>>>>> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
>>>>> motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
>>>>> through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
>>>>> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
>>>> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.
>>>>> testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
>>>>> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
>>>>> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
>>>>> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
>>>>> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
>>>>> looking:
>>> I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
>>> brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
>>> period of time. If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
>>> described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
>>> is barely discernable at all. it would have had to be much more
>>> dramatic.
>>> CJ
>> FYI, there are not nine frames of brake lights. You are being fooled by
>> the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life
>> every day.
>> If one analyzes the witness testimony? What are you mumbling about?
>> That's exactly what I did in my article and proved that some researchers
>> misrepresented witness statements.
> * Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the
> rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down
> markedly for at least a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the
No one said "a second or two." You keep adding your own ideas to official testimony to produce new claims.
> limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second)
> during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the
> Zapruder film (or Z311-319). However, this event is not seen in the
No, it doesn't. That is just the sunlight shining through the lens.
> Zapruder film. In fact, the limousine never comes close to performing
> this action in the current film.
> Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief
> slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs
> from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8
> mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle
> that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have
> noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez detected it through careful
> study and analysis of the film. It seems highly unlikely that this
> subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when
> they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down markedly.
> Here is a small sample of the eyewitness testimony:
> -- NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus): "The
> President's driver slammed on the brakes - after the third shot.ļæ½
> -- Dallas Police Department (DPD) policeman Earle Brown: "The first I
> noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn
> and when the shots were fired, it stopped."
> -- DPD patrolman Bobby Hargis (one of the four motorcyclists escorting
> JFKļæ½s limousine): "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the
> Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt
> blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost
> immediately after that."
> -- DPD D.V. Harkness: "I saw the first shot and the President's car
> slow down to almost a stopļæ½I heard the first shot and saw the
> President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling on
> the car."
> -- DPD patrolman Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four motorcyclists
> escorting JFKļæ½s limousine): ". . . the car just all but stopped, just
> a moment.ļæ½
> -- DPD J.W. Foster: "immediately after President Kennedy was
> struck . . . the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb."
> -- Special Agent John Ready (riding in the follow-up car): "I heard
> what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right
> front running board. The President's car slowed.ļæ½
> -- Ochus V. Campbell: ". . . observed the car bearing President
> Kennedy to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed
> up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the
> scene."
> -- Peggy Joyce Hawkins (on the steps of the Book Depository building):
> ". . . estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away
> from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a
> full stop."
> Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the
> current Zapruder film. Nothing. Throughout the current film the
> limousine seems to move at a steady speed. No stop or marked slowdown
> can be seen by viewing the film at normal speed, which of course is
> the speed at which the witnesses would have observed the motorcade.
> * The split-second slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph in
> Z295-304 actually presents another problem for the film's
> authenticity. Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film,
> it represents a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder
> notes that such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things
> around, and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g.
> When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration, one
> sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic slowing.
> The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration is particularly
> interesting because he no longer had voluntary muscular control and
> should have been thrown forward. Yet for many frames before and after
> this event, he appears to be quite immobile. Nobody in the limousine
> shows any signs of being moved by the split-second deceleration. So,
> assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the sudden reduction in
> speed that he detected would seem to constitute further evidence of
> alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it be that this half-second
> slowing is a remnant of what was originally a much longer, more
> noticeable deceleration?
> * Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine is
> actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even though the
> limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform speed in the film
> during this time (Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, Rancho Santa Fe, CA:
> Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165). Notes Noel Twyman,
> Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from
> 11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (Bloody Treason,
> p. 165)
> Dr. Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background
> images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also works in
> motion picture film technology, studied the film and confirmed his
> father's discovery (Bloody Treason, p. 159).
> In case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he is a
> retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in
> cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent
> his entire career in motion picture film technology. He is a recipient
> of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of
> On Oct 8, 7:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 6:03 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
>>>>>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
>>>>>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
>>>>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
>>>>>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
>>>>>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
>>>>>>> quite a bit of great work.
>>>>>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
>>>>>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
>>>>>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
>>>>>>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
>>>>>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
>>>>>>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
>>>>>>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
>>>>>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
>>>>>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
>>>>>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
>>>>> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
>>>>> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
>>>>> talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
>>>>> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
>>>>> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
>>>>> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
>>>>> motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
>>>>> through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
>>>>> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
>>>> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.
>>>>> testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
>>>>> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
>>>>> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
>>>>> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
>>>>> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
>>>>> looking:
>>> I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
>>> brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
>>> period of time. If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
>>> described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
>>> is barely discernable at all. it would have had to be much more
>>> dramatic.
>>> CJ
>> FYI, there are not nine frames of brake lights. You are being fooled by
>> the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life
>> every day.
> Films taken during the assassination show that the limousine's brake
> lights were on and remained on until after President Kennedy had been
> fatally injured. Source: J. Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed
> Kennedy, pp. 12-15; 35; 244-45 (1989); R. Groden and H. Livingstone,
> High Treason, pp. 13-19; 127-28 (2nd ed. 1989).
That is simply not true.
Stop spreading false information.
>> If one analyzes the witness testimony? What are you mumbling about?
>> That's exactly what I did in my article and proved that some researchers
>> misrepresented witness statements.
> We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:03:35 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
> > > >> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
> > > >> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
> > > >> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > >>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
> > > >>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
> > > >>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
> > > >>> quite a bit of great work.
> > > >>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
> > > >>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
> > > >>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
> > > >>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
> > > >>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
> > > >>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
> > > >>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
> > > >>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
> > > >>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
> > > >>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
> > I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
> > brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
> > period of time. If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
> > described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
> > is barely discernable at all. it would have had to be much more
> > dramatic.
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
True, and well, the film doesn't quite have the 'ability' to show that.
OR the possibility that they didn't meet up with each other afterwards or with Curry's vehicle. And of course the account of Clint Hill seems to be missing.
In article <5d70f5ff-7ff0-4765-98f8-5155677ad50d@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, ain't Bee, at least I assume you ain't, sometimes folks *can* do > this thing or another, but they jess don't, and they get all flustered > later on and then they come back and try to make things right. You know, > like that time that Floyd cut a penis into the back of my head without > even askin', and then snuck on in in the middle the night to glue some > hair on my head off Otis's old mule? Well, this is the same kinda thing, > 'cept it weren't a schlong in Connally's hand, but a gun. You know how > these things can happen.
How any of that serves any constructive purpose whatsoever in discussing the JFK assassination is beyond reasonable understanding.
Btw, what's taking you so long to acknowledge that S.M. Holland would have been standing almost right beside your alleged shooter on the bridge, and was furthermore standing right there *during* the shooting, and yet never once said anything about anyone firing a rifle from anywhere even remotely that close to him?
Or have you jumped to yet another scenario now? Let's see, first it was Greer shooting in the limo, then added to that is this bridge shooter whom no witness on the bridge (Holland was hardly the only one) seems to have recalled, and now Connally has a gun too? What, did Connally shoot JFK, then himself, and then shoot JFK again?
In article <8b111cf7-138e-4e77-8d67-8b270b6cd2de@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published on > November 29, 1963,
No, it is merely your *opinion* that it was faked, not a proven fact as you erroneously claim. You're the one who, yet again, made what some might consider to be a somewhat immature reply to me the day before yesterday on Youtube about this film, when you told me to "go rub my lone nut" or some such thing, even though I have never come even remotely close to stooping to such a level with you, not even on Youtube where the comments are unmoderated. You're also the one who claims John Connally is holding a soda bottle (!) based on a single very poor copy of just one frame of the film. If you go by such incredibly flimsy evidence to support your claims, it would be naive of you not to expect others to challenge you. Replying with an ad hominem insult instead of rational argument serves no constructive purpose whatsoever in understanding the JFK assassination. You claim to be truly interested in who really killed him, yet you stoop to the level of ad hominem insults towards people who haven't stooped to such a level with you, and are merely pointing out to you, correctly, the incredibly tenuous nature of your so-called evidence, which is a contradiction. I do not believe for a moment that anyone truly interested in who really killed JFK would stoop to this level of insults INSTEAD of addressing the arguments in a more rational, and substantive manner.
> proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy > of the Zapruder film,
To prove that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy you have to first prove that your claims of alteration are true. You have still failed to come anywhere close to proving that, and I am correctly pointing out the inherent fallacy in your theory, *without* stooping to the level of ad hominem insults as you do.
> which they call the "camera original," and for which > the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government > already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that > copy, anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original.
You have to first prove it is fake. You have so far utterly failed to do so. Just because you honestly *believe* it's fake doesn't automatically mean you are correct. You seem to be confusing honest belief with proof.
> I've never heard > a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide > Connally's hand going into his pocket.
I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for you to *prove*, for the first time ever, that his hand actually *did* go into his pocket. Merely claiming that he did this falls far short of *proving* it.
> That makes sense.
No, it does *not*. It makes sense to you only.
> If you didn't know > he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out > a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought > that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
Oh good gawd. He pulled out a gun and stuck it in his pocket? Now it isn't a soda bottle anymore? Where on earth do you get this crazy stuff from? I'm not saying you're about to argue this, but just in case, is this leading to a claim that Connally shot JFK as well? Or that he shot himself? Or both?
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:53:30 AM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>> We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
> Also, since there is no evidence whatsoever from the films or from sworn
> witness testimony, that Greer had the door open and was dragging a foot on
> the street, I think it is safe to assume that he used the brakes to slow
> the car to a crawl, causing the brake lights to illuminate. Just one man's
> opinion.
Do you know what happens when you ASSuME? Forget the unreliable witnesses. Look at the photographic evidence.
These are the fuzzy frames of which I spoke. They are not adequate. I have them all on my computer. There are higher quality versions available, but no complete set that I can find. I would like frame 222 from that version, and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328. There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like to examine more closely. And some have made claims about Jackie, using higher resolution images, and I would like to compare those to this very clear version. It's a crazy idea, but in murders the spouse usually is the most likely suspect, and sources do attest to a sexual debauchery on the part of JFK which most husbands would say, I think, that their wives would kill them over, so I think I should look into that.
> In article <5d70f5ff-7ff0-4765-98f8-5155677ad50d@googlegroups.com>,
> fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Well, ain't Bee, at least I assume you ain't, sometimes folks *can* do
>> this thing or another, but they jess don't, and they get all flustered
>> later on and then they come back and try to make things right. You know,
>> like that time that Floyd cut a penis into the back of my head without
>> even askin', and then snuck on in in the middle the night to glue some
>> hair on my head off Otis's old mule? Well, this is the same kinda thing,
>> 'cept it weren't a schlong in Connally's hand, but a gun. You know how
>> these things can happen.
> How any of that serves any constructive purpose whatsoever in discussing
> the JFK assassination is beyond reasonable understanding.
> Btw, what's taking you so long to acknowledge that S.M. Holland would have
> been standing almost right beside your alleged shooter on the bridge, and
> was furthermore standing right there *during* the shooting, and yet never
> once said anything about anyone firing a rifle from anywhere even remotely
> that close to him?
Yet you think the three black employees were only 10 feet away from the rifle on the floor above them, but did nothing about it.
> Or have you jumped to yet another scenario now? Let's see, first it was
> Greer shooting in the limo, then added to that is this bridge shooter whom
> no witness on the bridge (Holland was hardly the only one) seems to have
> recalled, and now Connally has a gun too? What, did Connally shoot JFK,
> then himself, and then shoot JFK again?
Silly. How did Charles Stuart shoot his wife and then shoot himself?
> > On Oct 8, 7:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/7/2012 6:03 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >> FYI, there are not nine frames of brake lights. You are being fooled by
> >> the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life
> >> every day.
> >> If one analyzes the witness testimony? What are you mumbling about?
> >> That's exactly what I did in my article and proved that some researchers
> >> misrepresented witness statements.
> > * Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the
> > rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down
> > markedly for at least a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the
> No one said "a second or two." You keep adding your own ideas to
> official testimony to produce new claims.
This is something I copied for you from a site. And yes, there are
people who said that or very close to it.
> > limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second)
> > during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the
> > Zapruder film (or Z311-319). However, this event is not seen in the
> No, it doesn't. That is just the sunlight shining through the lens.> Zapruder film. In fact, the limousine never comes close to performing
> > this action in the current film.
It doesn't in the Z film, but it does in the Muchmore film. There is an EF thread on the motorcycle cops and the slowdown etc., and they will actually show you a video of the limo, with the light coming on. There is no way it can be construed as a light reflection as it goes off and on right away, so I don't know why you even have come up with that silly idea anyway. Maybe because you need it to hang to some erroneous theory is all I can think of. It's really a ridiculous theory anyway, when you think about it. You still need brake lights to come on even if it were a simple braking from 12 to 8 MPH, as you seem to think is golden.
