> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
I think the wind whispered me a question, so I'll answer. At present, and since the information must be gleaned and my mind is not calcified, this may change, I think the following sequence is a fair guess:
1. The first hit is from DC Man on JFK (behind the sign).
2. Next, somebody from behind, I'll call him "Oswald," gets JFK in the back Z224).
3. John Connally shoots JFK (Z287). I now think he was not startled by the shot so much as beginning his planned routine at the hearing of the shot.
4. Greer shoots Connally (Z289).
5. Greer shoots JFK (Z304).
6. Jackie fiddles with JFK's back brace. Hey, that's what it looks like (Z299-319).
7. I still don't understand the big head shot, but I'll say that comes from "Oswald." There may be 2 shots involved there. (Z313).
8. Greer shoots at JFK again (Z318)
9. Bridge Man shoots Connally's wrist and JFK (Z322).
10. I think Bridge Man puts another shot through the windshield, but I don't know what happens to it (Z330).
> On Oct 9, 8:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/9/2012 9:51 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>> 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.- Hide quoted text -
In article <7e77057b-743e-4a53-a574-73b8a8891dd4@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the wind whispered me a question, so I'll answer. At present, and > since the information must be gleaned and my mind is not calcified, this > may change, I think the following sequence is a fair guess:
> 1. The first hit is from DC Man on JFK (behind the sign).
Ah yes, your bridge shooter, who fires a shot from his rifle from only about thirty feet away from Skinny and at least six of his co-workers, but none of them hear a shot from anywhere near that close to them. And Skinny said the first shot came from way up Elm Street. He said it several times in several different years. Immediately after the last shot is fired, Skinny and at least three others run right past DC as he is walking onto the bridge with his rifle and his walkie-talkie, because, as continues to be entertaining to me to continue pointing out, it is impossible in an absolute sense for DC to reach the point at which he is photographed by Cabluck with his walkie-talkie, and his rifle *already* resting against the railing, unless he is already walking out onto the bridge as Skinny et al are passing him going the opposite direction. Yet although the rifle is in full view as DC is carrying it, Skinny et al never notice anyone with a rifle on the bridge.
I, uh, "wonder" why this could be?
Perhaps because there was no rifle to see?
Just a thought.
> 2. Next, somebody from behind, I'll call him "Oswald," gets JFK in the > back Z224).
That might work. Of course, it is plain as the sun in the sky on a cloudless day that both Connally and JFK jerk violently starting at Z226.
Also Connally said he heard the first shot, turned to his right, then was in the process of turning around to his left to look at JFK, but only got far enough in the turn to be facing more or less straight forward, and that it was exactly then that he felt himself to be hit in the back. He said this year after year after year, and decade after decade after decade. And quite interestingly, the film does indeed show him turning his head to the right at around Z165, shows his head continuously turned to the right all the way to where he disappears behind the sign, and still shows his head turned to the right in the first frames after he emerges from behind the sign. And not once does he drink from his soda bottle.
Almost exactly at Z226 his head suddenly turns to facing almost straight forward, and that's exactly where he jerks violently.
Wow.
His statements match what is seen in the film to absolute perfection.
How did he do that? Did he watch the film first and then decide what to say?
Inquiring minds want to know.
> 3. John Connally shoots JFK (Z287). I now think he was not startled by the > shot so much as beginning his planned routine at the hearing of the shot.
[Explosive sounds of extreme mirth.]
Yep, I thought we would be going there as soon as I first saw you a few days ago claim that you can, uh, "see" him holding a gun. But I thought you said you "see" him putting it *in* his pocket, not withdrawing it *from* his pocket. Shall I quote you verbatim saying exactly that from one of your previous articles? And how is he shooting JFK, may I ask, when he has his hat in one hand and his soda bottle in the other? My, your scenario just keeps changing and changing and changing. Also why do we not see JFK exhibit anything that looks even remotely like a reaction to being shot again at this point?
> 4. Greer shoots Connally (Z289).
With both of his hands on the steering wheel? That's a neat trick. Also how are you figuring that trajectory? The entrance in Connally's back was almost exactly at the bottom of his right armpit. The exit was about two inches to the left of his right nipple. In other words, the bullet exited farther to the left in his body than the entrance. If Greer is shooting Connally at Z289, in the position Connally is in at that moment the bullet would exit farther to the *right* in his body. You then have to have the bullet make a sharp turn downward to hit his right wrist, and then make another sharp turn downward and to the left (i.e. somewhat back toward Greer) to go into Connally's left thigh. This bullet must have been at least a thousand times more magical than the wildest claim ever made by any CT worldwide, in any language or any other form of communication, about the LNers' single bullet, since that one never changes direction significantly at all.
> 5. Greer shoots JFK (Z304).
With both of his hands still on the steering wheel? Amazing. How did he do it? And why do we still see nothing that looks even remotely like a reaction from JFK to being shot a third time?
> 6. Jackie fiddles with JFK's back brace. Hey, that's what it looks like > (Z299-319).
> 7. I still don't understand the big head shot,
When that's the easiest shot of all to understand? Perish the thought.
> but I'll say that comes > from "Oswald." There may be 2 shots involved there. (Z313).
Oh? Where does the other shot come from? Skinny's grassy knoll shooter who is nowhere even remotely close to DC?
> 8. Greer shoots at JFK again (Z318)
Oh lordy, and with both his hands *still* on the steering wheel?
Amazing.
> 9. Bridge Man shoots Connally's wrist and JFK (Z322).
Oh, that's the wrist shot. Hmm. At that point Nellie is already pulling her husband down. His right wrist at this point is quite low in the car.
How are you getting the bullet to his wrist without it going through Greer and the driver's seat? Or maybe Greer was shot, and he just kept driving and driving and driving. And those bad people at Parkland didn't even treat him. For shame.
> 10. I think Bridge Man puts another shot through the windshield, but I > don't know what happens to it (Z330).
In article <50e7f745-3e7f-4210-bfc2-1f0aa126a114@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Psst...get the MPI dvd...
> I would like frame 222 from that version, > and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328.
Oh yes, quite fascinating.
> There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like > to examine more closely.
Skinny's fourth shot, maybe?
> 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.
Oh yes, on the MPI dvd doubtless you will find that she's holding a gun too. Or a soda bottle. Maybe she bashes her husband over the head with that? "And *that's* for Judith Campbell!"
But I'm curious as to why you're leaving out poor Roy Kellerman and Nellie Connally? I mean, you've got almost everyone else in the limousine with a gun by now. Shouldn't they each be packing heat too? And what about JFK?
I think he should have one too. Yes, the revelation has just come to me.
He had gotten wind that his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Connally, William Greer, and Roy Kellerman, had all plotted with the CIA to shoot him, and just the perfect spot would be the approach to the Triple Underpass, shortly before getting onto the freeway. He was just about to reach for his gun to get them before they got him when the first shot hit him. At the point you see his elbows splayed, the gun is in his lap.
I am somewhat mystified that I must explain this. I don't think it is unreasonable that I wish to look at the clearest version of the Zapruder film available. I suppose that it must be difficult for the blind to understand the importance of clear pictures. This is understandable, of course, since the blind cannot see anything, no matter how clear it may be. So, it does not matter to them that some pictures are clear or that some pictures are fuzzy. To them, they are just a theory. But, those of us who can see do find it easier to see what is happening in pictures that are less fuzzy than in pictures that are more fuzzy. And, some of us actually do want to see what happened. That anybody would force me to argue this point is very revealing of that person's motives.
> In article <50e7f745-3e7f-4210-bfc2-1f0aa126a114@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Psst...get the MPI dvd...
>> I would like frame 222 from that version,
>> and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328.
> Oh yes, quite fascinating.
>> There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like
>> to examine more closely.
> Skinny's fourth shot, maybe?
>> 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.
> Oh yes, on the MPI dvd doubtless you will find that she's holding a gun
> too. Or a soda bottle. Maybe she bashes her husband over the head with
> that? "And *that's* for Judith Campbell!"
> But I'm curious as to why you're leaving out poor Roy Kellerman and Nellie
> Connally? I mean, you've got almost everyone else in the limousine with a
> gun by now. Shouldn't they each be packing heat too? And what about JFK?
> I think he should have one too. Yes, the revelation has just come to me.
> He had gotten wind that his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Connally, William Greer,
> and Roy Kellerman, had all plotted with the CIA to shoot him, and just the
> perfect spot would be the approach to the Triple Underpass, shortly before
> getting onto the freeway. He was just about to reach for his gun to get
> them before they got him when the first shot hit him. At the point you
> see his elbows splayed, the gun is in his lap.
Aw, now you're just giving it all away. Of *course* that's what happened. Didn't you get the CIA notice to keep all this quiet?
> In article <50e7f745-3e7f-4210-bfc2-1f0aa126a114@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Psst...get the MPI dvd...
>> I would like frame 222 from that version,
>> and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328.
> Oh yes, quite fascinating.
>> There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like
>> to examine more closely.
> Skinny's fourth shot, maybe?
Now wait a minute. I'm getting confused here. Is he talking about TWO shots through the windshield?
Both through the same hole? I've heard some pretty remarkable claims about snipers, like the shot through the enemy's scope, but I have never seen a sniper be able to shoot through a hole in a windshield. Maybe the first shot was from a .50 caliber and the second was from a .17?
>> 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.
> Oh yes, on the MPI dvd doubtless you will find that she's holding a gun
> too. Or a soda bottle. Maybe she bashes her husband over the head with
> that? "And *that's* for Judith Campbell!"
> But I'm curious as to why you're leaving out poor Roy Kellerman and Nellie
> Connally? I mean, you've got almost everyone else in the limousine with a
> gun by now. Shouldn't they each be packing heat too? And what about JFK?
> I think he should have one too. Yes, the revelation has just come to me.
> He had gotten wind that his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Connally, William Greer,
> and Roy Kellerman, had all plotted with the CIA to shoot him, and just the
> perfect spot would be the approach to the Triple Underpass, shortly before
> getting onto the freeway. He was just about to reach for his gun to get
> them before they got him when the first shot hit him. At the point you
> see his elbows splayed, the gun is in his lap.
> I am somewhat mystified that I must explain this. I don't think it is
> unreasonable that I wish to look at the clearest version of the Zapruder
> film available. I suppose that it must be difficult for the blind to
> understand the importance of clear pictures. This is understandable, of
> course, since the blind cannot see anything, no matter how clear it may
> be. So, it does not matter to them that some pictures are clear or that
> some pictures are fuzzy. To them, they are just a theory. But, those of us
> who can see do find it easier to see what is happening in pictures that
> are less fuzzy than in pictures that are more fuzzy. And, some of us
> actually do want to see what happened. That anybody would force me to
> argue this point is very revealing of that person's motives.
Good luck when you go to College Park and ask to see the original. Call first.
> > On Oct 9, 8:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/9/2012 9:51 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>> 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.- Hide quoted text -
> > 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:
> 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:
> > 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:
> > If it was shown, then why didn't the brake lights come on for
> > Alvarez's slowdown?
> > CJ
> Because it wasn't caused by the brakes.
Why would you say that? Are you trying to say that the brake lights
were faulty for not working that day? Anyone would know that if they
were that they should have come on numerous times throughout the day
and especially during the shooting.
Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
were working, TOO.
The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
authentic.
> On Oct 14, 7:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2012 10:52 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:
>>> If it was shown, then why didn't the brake lights come on for
>>> Alvarez's slowdown?
>>> CJ
>> Because it wasn't caused by the brakes.
> Why would you say that? Are you trying to say that the brake lights
> were faulty for not working that day? Anyone would know that if they
> were that they should have come on numerous times throughout the day
> and especially during the shooting.
We can see in other films from earlier in the motorcade that the brake lights worked fine. When we don't see them come on that means that the driver did not apply the brakes.
Why should Greer brake during the shooting? Is that what they teach the SS to do when they hear gunshots? Stop the car and ask for directions?
Is that what de Gaulle's chauffeur did?
> Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
Don't even bother quoting the Education Forum. Hangout for loonies.
> on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
> frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
> NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
> off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
> were working, TOO.
No, and I didn't say reflection. Learn English. I said refraction. Learn the difference before you start mouthing off.
Oh, you think they have brake lights on the front too?
> The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
> authentic.
Ridiculous.
Maybe I could come up with a kook argument that they faked all the films to make it look like the brake lights came on.
In article <bdcad889-9e80-486f-b6d2-3107e8ae11ba@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am somewhat mystified that I must explain this. I don't think it is > unreasonable that I wish to look at the clearest version of the Zapruder > film available.
Of course it isn't. Who has said otherwise? Not one person who has replied to you, that I have yet seen.
> I suppose that it must be difficult for the blind to > understand the importance of clear pictures. This is understandable, of > course, since the blind cannot see anything, no matter how clear it may > be. So, it does not matter to them that some pictures are clear or that > some pictures are fuzzy. To them, they are just a theory. But, those of us > who can see do find it easier to see what is happening in pictures that > are less fuzzy than in pictures that are more fuzzy. And, some of us > actually do want to see what happened.
Yes, including me.
> That anybody would force me to > argue this point is very revealing of that person's motives.
Who on earth is "forcing" you to argue this point? Certainly not me.
> On 10/11/2012 7:42 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <50e7f745-3e7f-4210-bfc2-1f0aa126a114@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> > Oh yes, on the MPI dvd doubtless you will find that she's holding a gun
> > too. Or a soda bottle. Maybe she bashes her husband over the head with
> > that? "And *that's* for Judith Campbell!"
> > But I'm curious as to why you're leaving out poor Roy Kellerman and Nellie
> > Connally? I mean, you've got almost everyone else in the limousine with a
> > gun by now. Shouldn't they each be packing heat too? And what about JFK?
> > I think he should have one too. Yes, the revelation has just come to me.
> > He had gotten wind that his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Connally, William Greer,
> > and Roy Kellerman, had all plotted with the CIA to shoot him, and just the
> > perfect spot would be the approach to the Triple Underpass, shortly before
> > getting onto the freeway. He was just about to reach for his gun to get
> > them before they got him when the first shot hit him. At the point you
> > see his elbows splayed, the gun is in his lap.
> Aw, now you're just giving it all away. Of *course* that's what > happened. Didn't you get the CIA notice to keep all this quiet?
> > On Oct 14, 7:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2012 10:52 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:
> >>> If it was shown, then why didn't the brake lights come on for
> >>> Alvarez's slowdown?
> >>> CJ
> >> Because it wasn't caused by the brakes.
> > Why would you say that? Are you trying to say that the brake lights
> > were faulty for not working that day? Anyone would know that if they
> > were that they should have come on numerous times throughout the day
> > and especially during the shooting.
> We can see in other films from earlier in the motorcade that the brake
> lights worked fine. When we don't see them come on that means that the
> driver did not apply the brakes.
So, your saying they worked fine, good. Now when people say the limo
stopped and some say slowed down, as distinct testimonies in spades,
you contend that the brake lights didn't come on THEN???
> Why should Greer brake during the shooting? Is that what they teach the
it doesn't matter why. He might have thought he was going into fire
if he continued. BTAIM, everyone and their brother said he stopped.
> SS to do when they hear gunshots? Stop the car and ask for directions?
> Is that what de Gaulle's chauffeur did?
> > Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
> Don't even bother quoting the Education Forum. Hangout for loonies.
> > on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
> > frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
> > NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
> > off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
> > were working, TOO.
> No, and I didn't say reflection. Learn English. I said refraction. Learn
> the difference before you start mouthing off.
With your tossing of terms, are you going to say it wasn't coming
on?
> > On Oct 14, 7:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2012 10:52 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:
> >>> If it was shown, then why didn't the brake lights come on for
> >>> Alvarez's slowdown?
> >>> CJ
> >> Because it wasn't caused by the brakes.
> > Why would you say that? Are you trying to say that the brake lights
> > were faulty for not working that day? Anyone would know that if they
> > were that they should have come on numerous times throughout the day
> > and especially during the shooting.
> We can see in other films from earlier in the motorcade that the brake
> lights worked fine. When we don't see them come on that means that the
> driver did not apply the brakes.
> Why should Greer brake during the shooting? Is that what they teach the
> SS to do when they hear gunshots? Stop the car and ask for directions?
> Is that what de Gaulle's chauffeur did?
> > Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
> Don't even bother quoting the Education Forum. Hangout for loonies.
> > on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
> > frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
> > NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
> > off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
> > were working, TOO.
> No, and I didn't say reflection. Learn English. I said refraction. Learn
> the difference before you start mouthing off.
> On Oct 14, 7:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 10/13/2012 10:52 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:
> > > If it was shown, then why didn't the brake lights come on for
> > > Alvarez's slowdown?
> > > CJ
> > Because it wasn't caused by the brakes.
> Why would you say that? Are you trying to say that the brake lights
> were faulty for not working that day? Anyone would know that if they
> were that they should have come on numerous times throughout the day
> and especially during the shooting.
> Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
> on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
> frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
> NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
> off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
> were working, TOO.
> The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
> authentic.
> CJ
is this the way the Zapruder Film would have looked if the witness
testimony was correct?
> On Oct 14, 10:47 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 7:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2012 10:52 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:
>>>> If it was shown, then why didn't the brake lights come on for
>>>> Alvarez's slowdown?
>>>> CJ
>>> Because it wasn't caused by the brakes.
>> Why would you say that? Are you trying to say that the brake lights
>> were faulty for not working that day? Anyone would know that if they
>> were that they should have come on numerous times throughout the day
>> and especially during the shooting.
>> Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
>> on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
>> frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
>> NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
>> off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
>> were working, TOO.
>> The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
>> authentic.
>> CJ
> is this the way the Zapruder Film would have looked if the witness
> testimony was correct?
> On Oct 15, 1:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2012 10:47 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 14, 7:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2012 10:52 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:
>>>>> If it was shown, then why didn't the brake lights come on for
>>>>> Alvarez's slowdown?
>>>>> CJ
>>>> Because it wasn't caused by the brakes.
>>> Why would you say that? Are you trying to say that the brake lights
>>> were faulty for not working that day? Anyone would know that if they
>>> were that they should have come on numerous times throughout the day
>>> and especially during the shooting.
>> We can see in other films from earlier in the motorcade that the brake
>> lights worked fine. When we don't see them come on that means that the
>> driver did not apply the brakes.
> So, your saying they worked fine, good. Now when people say the limo
> stopped and some say slowed down, as distinct testimonies in spades,
> you contend that the brake lights didn't come on THEN???
Yes. Some people are just idiots.
>> Why should Greer brake during the shooting? Is that what they teach the
> it doesn't matter why. He might have thought he was going into fire
> if he continued. BTAIM, everyone and their brother said he stopped.
I does matter. It mattered to de Gaulle who barely escaped an assassination attempt because his driver did the right thing and immediately accelerated into the fire.
Your "facts" are wrong. Only a handful of idiots said the limo stopped. And you are still afraid to read my article.
>> SS to do when they hear gunshots? Stop the car and ask for directions?
>> Is that what de Gaulle's chauffeur did?
Dead silence as usual. Afraid to answer my questions.
>>> Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
>> Don't even bother quoting the Education Forum. Hangout for loonies.
>>> on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
>>> frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
>>> NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
>>> off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
>>> were working, TOO.
>> No, and I didn't say reflection. Learn English. I said refraction. Learn
>> the difference before you start mouthing off.
> With your tossing of terms, are you going to say it wasn't coming
> on?
English. The light bulb did not come on.
Since you've never been out in the real world you don't know that every day people are fooled into thinking that a car's lights are on when it is just light refracting through the lens.
On Oct 16, 10:59 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 3:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 1:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
Snip all the crazy weirdness....
.
> > With your tossing of terms, are you going to say it wasn't coming
> > on?
> English. The light bulb did not come on.
> Since you've never been out in the real world you don't know that every
> day people are fooled into thinking that a car's lights are on when it
> is just light refracting through the lens.
> >> Oh, you think they have brake lights on the front too?
> > They showed lights on the front working and blinking.
> Yeah, in America they're called flashers. On the limo they were called
> wiggle-waggle and used in motorcades just like the motorcycles
> wiggle-waggles.
> >>> The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
> >>> authentic.
> >> Ridiculous.
> >> Maybe I could come up with a kook argument that they faked all the films
> >> to make it look like the brake lights came on.
> > OR the brake lights came on and people are in denial that they did.
> On Oct 16, 10:59 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 3:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 1:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Snip all the crazy weirdness....
> .
>>> With your tossing of terms, are you going to say it wasn't coming
>>> on?
>> English. The light bulb did not come on.
>> Since you've never been out in the real world you don't know that every
>> day people are fooled into thinking that a car's lights are on when it
>> is just light refracting through the lens.
>>>> Oh, you think they have brake lights on the front too?
>>> They showed lights on the front working and blinking.
>> Yeah, in America they're called flashers. On the limo they were called
>> wiggle-waggle and used in motorcades just like the motorcycles
>> wiggle-waggles.
>>>>> The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
>>>>> authentic.
>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>> Maybe I could come up with a kook argument that they faked all the films
>>>> to make it look like the brake lights came on.
>>> OR the brake lights came on and people are in denial that they did.
