I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame 224 and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory was a relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the conspiracy would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224 *after* Life Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a Googling, and the nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life publication was frame 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high resolution Zapruder frames, and there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and 223, but no 222. That's strange, think I, so I go to the website from which I downloaded the pictures, and they don't have it either. Most peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an MPI version, but it's very fuzzy, certainly not up to Regal King John's requirements, and I'm here to convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed, now. I look at my nice crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple rectangle right over Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's odd, think I. And in the next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and completely covers that purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have we here? I go to look at the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a *purple* rectangle, of course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all! Yikes! This is enough to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where I'm at! Then I look at my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 shows that purple rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that middle window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat. Then in 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's lapel comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers the entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
One trouble with my idea that the film was altered after the Life publication is that in frame 225 Connally's necktie in both the Life and my high resolution versions has the same distorted line, presumably caused by the shot hitting him. If that was faked, then it had to be done early on, before, probably, the need for a SBT would have been known. Perhaps the purple rectangle in the color versions is caused by differences of contrast in the the different versions. When I play with the contrast of the Life version, I can't get the rectangle, but I can get the same line against his shirt of which the rectangle is a part. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that frame 222 is missing from the nice clear version? On the other hand, if it had been known that Greer had shot Connally, and the editor would have known because he had to re-frame the limousine to hide that shot, then the faking might have been intended to account for his wounds rather than for the SBT, and would have been done with the original editing. Actually, that would be the creation of the SBT right there by the editor. Yes. I like that. I hope you all do, too. But I wouldn't bet on a post-Life publication faking as I proposed when I opened this topic.
One trouble with my idea that the film was altered after the Life publication is that in frame 225 Connally's necktie in both the Life and my high resolution versions has the same distorted line, presumably caused by the shot hitting him. If that was faked, then it had to be done early on, before, probably, the need for a SBT would have been known. Perhaps the purple rectangle in the color versions is caused by differences of contrast in the the different versions. When I play with the contrast of the Life version, I can't get the rectangle, but I can get the same line against his shirt of which the rectangle is a part. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that frame 222 is missing from the nice clear version? On the other hand, if it had been known that Greer had shot Connally, and the editor would have known because he had to re-frame the limousine to hide that shot, then the faking might have been intended to account for his wounds rather than for the SBT, and would have been done with the original editing. Actually, that would be the creation of the SBT right there by the editor. Yes. I like that. I hope you all do, too. But I wouldn't bet on a post-Life publication faking as I proposed when I opened this topic.
Well, well, well. Here is somebody who's prescription has been corrected. He can actually see the "rectangle or triangle" shape. In another thread I tried to discuess this issue with another poster who claimed I invented it and that it didn't exist. But what can we expect from LNers. I called the "rectangle or triangle" shape an ink smear. Because it is. It's not a lapel flip. It is a faulty alteration where the forger's hand slipped. Maybe you think I'm crazy. Well o.k. Then ask yourself how did Z314 and Z315 get switched. PLEASE don't rely on the Zavada report. That was one of those government projects to make lame excuses seem probable. And it in reality says nothing. It is part of the conspiracy to cover-up the murder conspiracy. One of those fake excuses. Watch out cause the LNers have no case without it.
In article <e34732d2-edb4-4bd2-876e-d9b12a429c08@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame 224 > and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory was a > relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the conspiracy > would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224 *after* Life > Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a Googling, and the > nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life publication was frame > 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high resolution Zapruder frames, and > there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and 223, but no 222. That's strange, think > I, so I go to the website from which I downloaded the pictures, and they > don't have it either. Most peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an MPI > version, but it's very fuzzy,
You must not have it on the original dvd then, because it has some of the clearest versions I've ever seen of the film. Are you looking at the posting of that MPI video on Youtube instead? If so, that is not nearly of the clarity of the MPI dvd, and in fact I have not yet seen any online posting of the Zapruder film that is nearly as clear. It seems that some degree of resolution is always lost when posting a video on Youtube, probably because of the conversion to a type of file that Youtube will post.
> certainly not up to Regal King John's > requirements,
Again, what's with the making fun of my real name, when I've never made fun of any name you've ever gone by? ;-)
> and I'm here to convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed, > now.
Why on earth do you care about converting me?
> I look at my nice crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple > rectangle right over Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's odd, > think I. And in the next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and > completely covers that purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have we > here? I go to look at the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a > *purple* rectangle, of course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all! > Yikes! This is enough to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where I'm > at! Then I look at my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 shows > that purple rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that > middle window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat. > Then in 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's > lapel comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers the > entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
You do that. After you eat, I would suggest you try to acquire a much better copy of the film. It is obvious to me that this "purple rectangle" you refer to is nothing more than an ordinary shadow from the rollbar immediately in front of Connally. One doesn't see the shadow on him earlier in the film simply because the limo is turning gradually toward the sun because of the slight southward curve of Elm from the intersection with Houston.
> One trouble with my idea that the film was altered after the Life > publication is that in frame 225 Connally's necktie in both the Life and > my high resolution versions has the same distorted line, presumably caused > by the shot hitting him. If that was faked, then it had to be done early > on, before, probably, the need for a SBT would have been known. Perhaps > the purple rectangle in the color versions is caused by differences of > contrast in the the different versions. When I play with the contrast of > the Life version, I can't get the rectangle, but I can get the same line > against his shirt of which the rectangle is a part. Perhaps it is just a > coincidence that frame 222 is missing from the nice clear version? On the > other hand, if it had been known that Greer had shot Connally, and the > editor would have known because he had to re-frame the limousine to hide > that shot, then the faking might have been intended to account for his > wounds rather than for the SBT, and would have been done with the original > editing. Actually, that would be the creation of the SBT right there by > the editor. Yes. I like that. I hope you all do, too. But I wouldn't bet > on a post-Life publication faking as I proposed when I opened this topic.
I have a great deal of trouble following your logic on this. Seriously.
You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop, the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version of 222.
> In article <e34732d2-edb4-4bd2-876e-d9b12a429c08@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame 224
>> and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory was a
>> relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the conspiracy
>> would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224 *after* Life
>> Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a Googling, and the
>> nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life publication was frame
>> 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high resolution Zapruder frames, and
>> there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and 223, but no 222. That's strange, think
>> I, so I go to the website from which I downloaded the pictures, and they
>> don't have it either. Most peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an MPI
>> version, but it's very fuzzy,
> You must not have it on the original dvd then, because it has some of the
> clearest versions I've ever seen of the film. Are you looking at the
> posting of that MPI video on Youtube instead? If so, that is not nearly
> of the clarity of the MPI dvd, and in fact I have not yet seen any online
> posting of the Zapruder film that is nearly as clear. It seems that some
> degree of resolution is always lost when posting a video on Youtube,
> probably because of the conversion to a type of file that Youtube will
> post.
>> certainly not up to Regal King John's
>> requirements,
> Again, what's with the making fun of my real name, when I've never made
> fun of any name you've ever gone by? ;-)
>> and I'm here to convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed,
>> now.
> Why on earth do you care about converting me?
>> I look at my nice crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple
>> rectangle right over Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's odd,
>> think I. And in the next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and
>> completely covers that purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have we
>> here? I go to look at the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a
>> *purple* rectangle, of course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all!
>> Yikes! This is enough to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where I'm
>> at! Then I look at my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 shows
>> that purple rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that
>> middle window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat.
>> Then in 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's
>> lapel comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers the
>> entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
> You do that. After you eat, I would suggest you try to acquire a much
> better copy of the film. It is obvious to me that this "purple rectangle"
> you refer to is nothing more than an ordinary shadow from the rollbar
> immediately in front of Connally. One doesn't see the shadow on him
> earlier in the film simply because the limo is turning gradually toward
> the sun because of the slight southward curve of Elm from the intersection
> with Houston.
Have you ever seen the Max Holland show The Lost Bullet?
Do you think the MPI video is the ONLY copy of the Zapruder film?
If you look at the original Life picture, and your prescription is up to date, you will see that Connally's right jacket lapel looks like it probably comes together with the left under the Dr Pepper bottle. The only dark spot in there is Connally's tie. The editor expanded this dark spot, Connally' s tie, to cover the entire area of the jacket he (the editor) opened up, not realizing, or caring, that the dark spot was Connally's tie, not his shirt color, or a vest or a shadow. Perhaps he originally had made it white there, and that looked funny. Or, perhaps he found it too difficult to deal with the pop bottle, or whatever Connally is holding there, and thought it better to just cover it up. This is a small piece of film and nobody would notice this adulteration, and the editor would certainly want the lapel pop noticed. He's got to save the Single Bullet Theory, here. The desperate argument that this is a shadow ignores reality on so many levels that it warrants no more than a chuckle. Hah hah hah.
> In article <e34732d2-edb4-4bd2-876e-d9b12a429c08@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame >> 224
>> and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory was >> a
>> relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the >> conspiracy
>> would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224 *after* >> Life
>> Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a Googling, and the
>> nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life publication was >> frame
>> 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high resolution Zapruder frames, >> and
>> there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and 223, but no 222. That's strange, >> think
>> I, so I go to the website from which I downloaded the pictures, and they
>> don't have it either. Most peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an >> MPI
>> version, but it's very fuzzy,
> You must not have it on the original dvd then, because it has some of the
> clearest versions I've ever seen of the film. Are you looking at the
> posting of that MPI video on Youtube instead? If so, that is not nearly
> of the clarity of the MPI dvd, and in fact I have not yet seen any online
> posting of the Zapruder film that is nearly as clear. It seems that some
> degree of resolution is always lost when posting a video on Youtube,
> probably because of the conversion to a type of file that Youtube will
> post.
>> certainly not up to Regal King John's
>> requirements,
> Again, what's with the making fun of my real name, when I've never made
> fun of any name you've ever gone by? ;-)
>> and I'm here to convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed,
>> now.
> Why on earth do you care about converting me?
>> I look at my nice crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple
>> rectangle right over Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's >> odd,
>> think I. And in the next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and
>> completely covers that purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have >> we
>> here? I go to look at the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a
>> *purple* rectangle, of course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all!
>> Yikes! This is enough to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where >> I'm
>> at! Then I look at my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 >> shows
>> that purple rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that
>> middle window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat.
>> Then in 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's
>> lapel comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers >> the
>> entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
> You do that. After you eat, I would suggest you try to acquire a much
> better copy of the film. It is obvious to me that this "purple rectangle"
> you refer to is nothing more than an ordinary shadow from the rollbar
> immediately in front of Connally. One doesn't see the shadow on him
> earlier in the film simply because the limo is turning gradually toward
> the sun because of the slight southward curve of Elm from the intersection
> with Houston.
That's the problem. Another lame excuse. The shadow of the rollbar. Really? The sun would have to be setting in order to throw a shadow you are describing. But being just afternoon, the sun was above the limo not setting in under the triple underpass. Why does it appear and disappear in 1/18th of a second? Shouldn't it take a little more time? It is only in one frame.
> You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
> AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
> brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
> in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
> too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
> original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
> the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
> artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
> cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
> my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
> of 222.
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches. I'll keep trying, but I'm beginning to think that this might be from an image Life possessed but did not publish. It's from a Christie's Auction page, http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5132982. There are four frames there. They may be of value to some who like the picture study. It seems it's been there for four years, so it's probably not going anywhere, but I'd download them now, anyway. You never know.
> I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame
224 and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory was a relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the conspiracy would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224 *after* Life Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a Googling, and the nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life publication was frame 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high resolution Zapruder frames, and there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and 223, but no 222. That's strange, think I, so I go to the website from which I downloaded the pictures, and they don't have it either. Most peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an MPI version, but it's very fuzzy, certainly not up to Regal King John's requirements, and I'm here to convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed, now. I look at my nice crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple rectangle right over Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's odd, think I. And in the next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and completely covers that purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have we here? I go to look at the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a *purple* rectangle, of course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all! Yikes! This is enough to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where I'm at! Then I look at my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 shows that purple rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that middle window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat. Then in 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's lapel comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers the entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
> You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
> AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
> brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
> in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
> too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
> original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
> the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
> artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
> cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
> my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
> of 222.
In article <506d0f4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Have you ever seen the Max Holland show The Lost Bullet?
I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have also refused to admit.
In article <0418a38f-8c69-4620-93bf-62f215753d4e@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked > AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and > brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is > in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is > too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the > original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop, > the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the > artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it > cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with > my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version > of 222.
John Connally is not holding a coke in this picture. He is reaching into his jacket pocket. That's what they covered up. Why would they care if we saw that he was reaching into his jacket pocket? Why would they take the trouble to hide that?
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
> a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches. I'll keep
> trying, but I'm beginning to think that this might be from an image Life
> possessed but did not publish. It's from a Christie's Auction page,http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5132982.
> There are four frames there. They may be of value to some who like the
> picture study. It seems it's been there for four years, so it's probably
> not going anywhere, but I'd download them now, anyway. You never know.
> > I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame
> 224 and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory
> was a relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the
> conspiracy would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224
> *after* Life Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a
> Googling, and the nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life
> publication was frame 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high
> resolution Zapruder frames, and there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and
> 223, but no 222. That's strange, think I, so I go to the website from
> which I downloaded the pictures, and they don't have it either. Most
> peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an MPI version, but it's very
> fuzzy, certainly not up to Regal King John's requirements, and I'm here to
> convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed, now. I look at my nice
> crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple rectangle right over
> Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's odd, think I. And in the
> next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and completely covers that
> purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have we here? I go to look at
> the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a *purple* rectangle, of
> course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all! Yikes! This is enough
> to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where I'm at! Then I look at
> my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 shows that purple
> rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that middle
> window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat. Then in
> 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's lapel
> comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers the
> entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
All you need to do is look at the Costella collection I posted a few up, as it has frame 222 and you will see that Jackie's coat color is what is on both sides of JBC. If you look too, JBC is looking back and is in a sideway's position (like he said he did when he heard a shot), returning to look straight ahead. JFK is already hit and besides the Stemmons sign and the frames they spliced and one can tell more by Jackie looking intently at him during that time. JBC returns to his straight ahead position by 226 and shows no sign of sudden movement or distress until 242. If there was a lapel flip at all, it was just due to JBC moving and turning around, causing the coat to move.
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.'
In article <b826247b-b27a-4fd0-89e8-6d30e104ef09@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding > a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches.
I keep telling you that that is the shadow of the rollbar in front of Connally. You can plainly see it falling on him in many other frames besides Z222. It continues to be there, for example, later when he changes position and it is by that time falling across his wrist.
> John Connally is not holding a coke in this picture. He is reaching into his jacket pocket. That's what they covered up. Why would they care if we saw that he was reaching into his jacket pocket? Why would they take the trouble to hide that?
Why is it that when you make up a bizarre conspiracy theory you stop short? Why not go all the way and claim that Connally was erased and then draw in from scratch to hide the fact that he ran behind the limo to shoot the President from street level? There is time enough when they are hidden by the sign. You need to up your game.
In article <91491547-d9b6-4108-87d4-c2803bae0722@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Connally is not holding a coke in this picture. He is reaching into his > jacket pocket. That's what they covered up. Why would they care if we saw > that he was reaching into his jacket pocket? Why would they take the trouble > to hide that?
Where on earth are you getting this stuff from? You must be looking at a lot of very poor-quality scans of this film. Connally's left hand is never in view in the entire film, and his right hand is holding his hat.
> If you look at the original Life picture, and your prescription is up to > date, you will see that Connally's right jacket lapel looks like it > probably comes together with the left under the Dr Pepper bottle.
There is no bottle of any type there. You are looking at light and shadow caused by the shadow of the rollbar on part of his shirt. The part of his shirt that is not in shadow apparently is what you are thinking is a soda bottle. If you'll just look at more frames following that, you'll see that the shadow continues to fall on him even as he turns to his right.
> The only > dark spot in there is Connally's tie. The editor expanded this dark spot, > Connally' s tie, to cover the entire area of the jacket he (the editor) > opened up, not realizing, or caring, that the dark spot was Connally's > tie, not his shirt color, or a vest or a shadow.
There is no "editor." The patterns of light and shadow are perfectly natural throughout the entire film.
> Perhaps he originally had > made it white there, and that looked funny. Or, perhaps he found it too > difficult to deal with the pop bottle, or whatever Connally is holding > there, and thought it better to just cover it up. This is a small piece of > film and nobody would notice this adulteration, and the editor would > certainly want the lapel pop noticed. He's got to save the Single Bullet > Theory, here. The desperate argument that this is a shadow ignores > reality on so many levels that it warrants no more than a chuckle. Hah hah > hah.
Or an alternate explanation: the desperate argument that this is a bottle ignores reality on so many levels that it warrants no more than a chuckle.
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 Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
> a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches. I'll keep
And who said Connally is holding a bottle of Coke? You? You are only here for laughs.
> trying, but I'm beginning to think that this might be from an image Life
> possessed but did not publish. It's from a Christie's Auction page,
> http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5132982.
> There are four frames there. They may be of value to some who like the
> picture study. It seems it's been there for four years, so it's probably
> not going anywhere, but I'd download them now, anyway. You never know.
>> I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame
> 224 and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory
> was a relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the
> conspiracy would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224
> *after* Life Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a
> Googling, and the nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life
> publication was frame 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high
> resolution Zapruder frames, and there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and
> 223, but no 222. That's strange, think I, so I go to the website from
> which I downloaded the pictures, and they don't have it either. Most
> peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an MPI version, but it's very
> fuzzy, certainly not up to Regal King John's requirements, and I'm here to
> convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed, now. I look at my nice
> crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple rectangle right over
> Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's odd, think I. And in the
> next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and completely covers that
> purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have we here? I go to look at
> the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a *purple* rectangle, of
> course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all! Yikes! This is enough
> to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where I'm at! Then I look at
> my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 shows that purple
> rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that middle
> window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat. Then in
> 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's lapel
> comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers the
> entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
> 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:
