Film restoration experts say Zapruder film altered
Peter Fokes
The wound in back of JFK's head blacked out and the explosive head
wound is crude art work.
The Warren Commission house of cards has fallen.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
wrote:
>Listen to Douglas Horne's interview on Black Op.
>
>The wound in back of JFK's head blacked out and the explosive head
>wound is crude art work.
>
>The Warren Commission house of cards has fallen.
>
>
LOL!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:34:40 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Listen to Douglas Horne's interview on Black Op.
>>
>>The wound in back of JFK's head blacked out and the explosive head
>>wound is crude art work.
>>
>>The Warren Commission house of cards has fallen.
>>
>>
>
>LOL!
He who laughs last laughs loudest.
Gig's up, John. You can laugh all you want if it makes you feel
better!
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
PF
Sandy McCroskey
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:00:59 -0600, John McAdams
>
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_jig_is_up
Not "gig."
Oh, and by the way, that's no reason to believe something, because
Douglas Horne(!) says it on Black Op radio(!).
/sm
David Von Pein
http://www.blackopradio.com/black452a.ram
http://www.blackopradio.com/black452b.ram
>>> "Listen to Douglas Horne's [12/10/09] interview on Black Op [linked
above]. The wound in back of JFK's head blacked out and the explosive head
wound is crude art work. The Warren Commission house of cards has fallen."
<<<
Oh, good Lord, Peter. You've got to be joking. Surely you haven't fallen
for the nonsense spouted by Doug "Two Brains" Horne, have you?
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" EXCERPTS OF INTEREST (RE: DOUGLAS P. HORNE):
"Unbelievably, [Doug] Horne said that the depositions taken by the
ARRB caused him to conclude that there were two (not one) supplemental
brain examinations following the autopsy, and the second one--are you
ready?--wasn't on the president's brain, but on another brain from some
anonymous third party.
"Horne, accusing Drs . Humes and Boswell of criminal conduct to
cover up the true facts of the assassination, said that what happened was
a "carefully controlled, compartmented operation in regard to
orchestrating who was present, and what procedures were performed, at the
two separate brain examinations." ....
"It was critical to Horne's mad theory that the "first" exam be NO
LATER than the morning of November 25 because he concludes the brain was
buried with the president's body, and the funeral was that afternoon.
Hence, per Horne, the president's brain wasn't even available to be
examined on November 29, when Horne says the "second" supplementary exam
took place.
"But to arrive at the twenty-fifth as the date of the "first"
supplementary brain exam, Horne had to engage in what appears to be
deliberate distortion. The only other option is serious incompetence. ....
"Horne conveniently omits from his report the reference to the brain
being turned over to [Dr. George] Burkley after December 6, 1963. If he
had, this would have proved that his theory that the president's brain was
buried with his body on November 25, 1963, was wrong.
"Instead, he focuses only on the desire of the Kennedy family to
inter the brain with the body, and since the president's funeral was on
the afternoon of November 25, 1963, he concludes that "the supplementary
brain examination [took place] prior to the November 25, 1963 state
funeral of President Kennedy." ....
"Exactly like his congenitally suspicious predecessors, who
apparently have different experiences in life than normal humans, whenever
Horne spots a discrepancy in the recollection of two or more people trying
to remember a long-ago event that supports his theory of what happened, he
immediately smells the sweet (to him) aroma of a conspiracy. .... But when
a discrepancy can't be used to support Horne's theory, he suddenly becomes
normal and doesn't think anything of it. ....
"Now why would Humes and Boswell, who testified that there was only
one supplementary brain exam, have conducted a second one of a different
brain? Of course, Horne has an answer, in effect accusing Humes and
Boswell of being a part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the true facts of
the assassination. ....
"Horne also goes on to say he believes "that President Kennedy's
body was altered--tampered with--prior to the commencement of
the...autopsy, presumably to remove evidence (i.e., bullets or bullet
fragments) inconsistent with the lone-assassin-from-behind cover story."
....
"Since Horne and his fellow conspiracy theorists passionately
believe that the conspirators shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll to the
president's right front, then tried to frame Oswald by making it look like
the shots came from the president's rear, where Oswald was, did the
thought ever enter their mind that rather than get surgeons beforehand to
alter the wounds on Kennedy's body and remove bullets or fragments, and
then have the autopsy surgeons engage in a monumental charade of having
two separate brain exams, why wouldn't the conspirators avoid the
necessity for all of this by simply shooting Kennedy from the rear instead
of the front? That way they wouldn't have to pull off an operation of
staggering difficulty and complexity and wouldn't have to bring into the
conspiracy all these surgeons and doctors, each one of whom could expose
it and put all the conspirators on death row. ....
"Before Doug Horne, the main beef that most conspiracy theorists had
with the autopsy surgeons was their alleged incompetence. But thirty-five
years after the assassination, Horne showed all these naive,
whippersnapper conspiracy theorists a thing or two. Humes and Boswell
weren't incompetent. They were criminals and co-conspirators.
"One would think that Horne would be ashamed of himself for writing
the memorandum he did. But to the contrary, he is very proud. In an
introduction to his memo that he wrote for 'Probe', a small, informative
conspiracy publication that has since folded, he said his view of his memo
as being "extremely significant, even seminal" was confirmed by the
reaction of others of its importance, and that while he was writing it he
"felt electrified" because of his "unique and revelatory interpretation"
of the evidence "that was critical to proving that there was a massive
government cover-up of the medical evidence in the JFK murder."
"Horne goes on to say in his introduction that he was "still
surprised" that no one else previously saw what he did and published the
hypothesis before he did. But he has no reason to be surprised. Most
people don't have thoughts this irrational. And if, perchance, such a
vagrant thought enters their mind, they recognize it as such. When you
have such a virtually insane thought and you don't realize it, that's
when, you know, there's a problem.
"There is one delightful gem that I must add to this section to
lighten it up. Dr. David Mantik, a Loma Linda, California, cancer
specialist, is, like Dr. Gary Aguilar, a part of the new wave of
conspiracy theorists. Taking Horne's theory to vertiginous heights, listen
to what he has to say about Horne's substitute brain.
[Quoting Mantik:]
"If there was a surrogate brain, it ALSO has disappeared...It is not
likely that RFK would have wanted even a surrogate brain placed on public
display as if it were his brother's. Most likely, RFK placed the authentic
brain into the coffin for initial burial on Monday, November 25, and was
therefore fully aware that a surrogate brain had later surreptitiously
appeared...If RFK understood the role that the surrogate brain had played,
as he probably did, he could have used any convenient waste disposal site
[to dispose of it]."
[End Mantik quote.]
"My God. RFK somehow finds out that Humes and Boswell, as part of an
apparent conspiracy to cover up the assassination of his brother, used a
brain other than his brother's to conduct their examination. So he [RFK]
goes out and finds, seizes, and then gets rid of his brother's substitute
brain [DVP: instead of taking the proper action to prosecute these
criminal autopsists to the fullest extent of the law]. Is there any end to
this silliness? ....
"A great number of nuts have kept pumping out conspiracy theories
for years. But these are private nuts, on the outside as it were. But when
someone like Horne, working for an official review board of the federal
government, someone we expect to be responsible, can author a document
that couldn't possibly be any sillier or transparently irresponsible, then
unfortunately we know that the notion of a conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination will be alive and well until the crack of doom.
"I suppose it is a given that there will be other Doug Hornes who
will breast-feed the conspiracy loonies for generations to come with their
special lactations of bilge, blather, and bunk.
"One wants to take earnest, well-intentioned, and intelligent people
like Drs. David Mantik and Gary Aguilar seriously, even though neither of
them are pathologists. But when they take someone like Doug Horne
seriously, and accept his outrageous and patently false theory as
completely valid, it becomes much more difficult to take them seriously."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 435-437, 439-440, and 443-444 of "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)
http://www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reclaiming-history.html
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0002a.htm
==============================
ADDENDUM:
This Bugliosi quote deserves an instant replay (for emphasis):
"I suppose it is a given that there will be other Doug Hornes who
will breast-feed the conspiracy loonies for generations to come with their
special lactations of bilge, blather, and bunk." -- VB
==============================
Sandy McCroskey
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:00:59 -0600, John McAdams
>
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_jig_is_up
Ha ha. I don't think John is going to quit any of his *gigs* any time
soon.
So that's your theory, Fokes—the Zapruder film was altered?
I've been waiting for you to present or at least endorse one (instead
of any/all)!
/sandy mccroskey
John Fiorentino
I had a chance to listen to Horne on "Black Op," and while I realize you
prefer LN supporters arguments that are devoid of any "rhetoric" or
"bombast" - Horne is quite obviously delusional.
If we set aside the technical issues of altering that film in the timeline
laid out by Horne and lay that over his theory that among other things the
film was made to match the "altered" autopsy photos and x-rays the whole
idea begins to collapse of it's own weight.
The only "house of cards" is Thorne's theory.
Here's an indication from one of the people Thorne relies upon and whom he
mentioned last evening in the interview:
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97
Date: 07/14/97
Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon
. . .
Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-
rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was
a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President
Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-
timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were
3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in
selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said
"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to
produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said
that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed
the film and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.
. . .
END
So, Mr. McMahon believes JFK was shot "6 to 8 times from at least three
directions."
The whole idea, (a Liftonesque nightmare redux) is patently absurd on its
face.
Horne must believe that while the "conspirators" were altering the z-film,
others were altering the autopsy photos and x-rays to conform with the
blow-out BOH idea, and "painting" in a "non-existent" exit wound above
JFK's right ear.
ALL of this trickery MUST have been planned in advance by said
conspirators, who could have had no definitive advanced assurance that
JFK's body would even ever leave Dallas before an autopsy was undertaken.
It's hogwash, plain and simple.
John F.
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:jal3i5pnk4cj2rhqf...@4ax.com...
bigdog
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:00:59 -0600, John McAdams
>
That's what I love about the CTs. The evidence is against them so they
scoff at the evidence. ALL the physical evidence points to LHO as the
assassin, so if we are to believe some of it was tampered with, we must
believe all of it was tampered with. If only some of the evidence had been
tampered with, the tampered evidence would point in a different direction
that the genuine evidence.
claviger
A lot of this fantastic thinking derives from the misperception that ER
doctors saw a very different head wound than the autopsy doctors. Not
true. Some ER doctors describe a wound exactly as the autopsy pathologists
describe. So now Horne must assume the conspiracy reached all the way into
the ER, but that presents a problem too. If the conspiracy didn't control
all the doctors then they will contradict the conspiracy doctors. The
conspiracy would unravel before it ever got started. If the conspiracy had
no control over any doctor in ER then how does Horne explain some of those
doctors seeing the same wound that has yet to be faked on the Z-film?
Did they have the technology in 1963 to actually manipulate the tiny
images on the film strip? If so, how does that work? Today its easily done
by computer, but not back then. Does Horne describe the process by which
the film strip was manually altered?
Another problem is the other films taken that corroborate the Z-film. Were
they faked too? All this seems way too complicated for even the CIA to
pull off in 1963.
claviger
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:00:59 -0600, John McAdams
>
You're kidding, right?
claviger
> Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97
> Date: 07/14/97
> Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon
>
> rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was
> a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President
> Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-
> timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were
> 3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in
> selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said
> "you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to
> produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said
> that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed
> the film and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.
>
>
> So, Mr. McMahon believes JFK was shot "6 to 8 times from at least three
> directions."
>
> The whole idea, (a Liftonesque nightmare redux) is patently absurd on its
> face.
>
> Horne must believe that while the "conspirators" were altering the z-film,
> others were altering the autopsy photos and x-rays to conform with the
> blow-out BOH idea, and "painting" in a "non-existent" exit wound above
> JFK's right ear.
>
> ALL of this trickery MUST have been planned in advance by said
> conspirators, who could have had no definitive advanced assurance that
> JFK's body would even ever leave Dallas before an autopsy was undertaken.
>
> It's hogwash, plain and simple.
John.
As many as 6-8 directions. OK, which directions? Were 3-5 silencers
used? What are the trajectories? Did McMahon answer any of these
questions?
Anthony Marsh
>
> http://www.blackopradio.com/black452a.ram
>
> http://www.blackopradio.com/black452b.ram
>
>
>>>> "Listen to Douglas Horne's [12/10/09] interview on Black Op [linked
> above]. The wound in back of JFK's head blacked out and the explosive head
> wound is crude art work. The Warren Commission house of cards has fallen."
> <<<
>
>
>
> Oh, good Lord, Peter. You've got to be joking. Surely you haven't fallen
> for the nonsense spouted by Doug "Two Brains" Horne, have you?
>
You mean you don't remember that movie "The President with Two Brains"?
ShutterBun
>
> - Show quoted text -
Indeed, the bulk of the evidence in this case fits together so cohesively
that even if one were to attempt to discredit a single piece of it, the
implications of doing so very quickly lead, out of necessity, to a
conspiracy so massive in scale as to be unbelievable. Imagine the number
of people from various agencies and walks of life who would be required to
both carry out, and cover up the supposed Z- film alteration.
John Fiorentino
questions?"
Not to my knowledge.
John F.
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93b65c60-e902-45ad...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Herbert Blenner
> David,
>
> A lot of this fantastic thinking derives from the misperception that ER
> doctors saw a very different head wound than the autopsy doctors. Not
> true. Some ER doctors describe a wound exactly as the autopsy pathologists
> describe. So now Horne must assume the conspiracy reached all the way into
> the ER, but that presents a problem too. If the conspiracy didn't control
> all the doctors then they will contradict the conspiracy doctors. The
> conspiracy would unravel before it ever got started. If the conspiracy had
> no control over any doctor in ER then how does Horne explain some of those
> doctors seeing the same wound that has yet to be faked on the Z-film?
How do you explain the Zapruder film showing President Kennedy and
Governor Connally with the wrong posture to have suffered elliptical entry
wounds with a longer axis of 15 mm?
>
> Did they have the technology in 1963 to actually manipulate the tiny
> images on the film strip? If so, how does that work? Today its easily done
> by computer, but not back then. Does Horne describe the process by which
> the film strip was manually altered?
In 1963, the technology to manipulate microscopic images on film was big
business. They employed the technologies of photolithography, digital
machine control and optics to reduce the costs of placing staged fiction
on film.
>
> Another problem is the other films taken that corroborate the Z-film. Were
> they faked too? All this seems way too complicated for even the CIA to
> pull off in 1963.
The inconsistencies in the Zapruder show that its makers were not as
advanced as you think. For example, Z-313 shows an internal explosion
imparting significant kinetic energy to the former contents of President
Kennedy's head. Further inclusion of this frame in its sequence prevents
stabilizing the motions of Toni Foster.
The Nix film has timing problems. This production shows that in the
interval between adjacent frames vehicles moved a significant fraction of
the dimensions of stationary foreground and background objects. Yet the
moving vehicles and the stationary objects lack the expected motion blur.
Herbert
Thalia
While I am making no claim to whether the Z-Film was altered or not,
the idea that the technology wasn't available in 1963 is hogwash. The
military have access to technology way before mere mortals do.
claviger
Can you give us more details about the kind of technology that was
available in 1963 to alter this kind of amateur movie film? Thanks.
claviger
Who are the film restoration experts who say this? Is Horne considered
a film expert?
yeuhd
> While I am making no claim to whether the Z-Film was altered or not,
> the idea that the technology wasn't available in 1963 is hogwash. The
> military have access to technology way before mere mortals do.
Yes, the U.S. military had a great need to alter 8 mm home movies, and
spent a considerable amount of time and money perfecting their methods.
There it all was, waiting at the photo processing plant in Dallas, Texas,
when Zapruder took his film there to be developed. It is so just because
you think it is so.
Someone told me that no such thing as a time machine exists, but I told
him that that is hogwash. The military have access to technology way
before mere mortals do. When he asked me for evidence, I told him he was
so naive, and that I had no obligation to prove my statement. It so just
because I think it is so.
timstter
LOL! Peter, I am assuming that this is a joke post and you are simply
trying to provoke people for a laugh. :-)
Sounds like Horne has been spouting a load of arrant nonsense down @
Black Ops radio.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
bigdog
> On Dec 11, 6:27 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David,
>
> > A lot of this fantastic thinking derives from the misperception that ER
> > doctors saw a very different head wound than the autopsy doctors. Not
> > true. Some ER doctors describe a wound exactly as the autopsy pathologists
> > describe. So now Horne must assume the conspiracy reached all the way into
> > the ER, but that presents a problem too. If the conspiracy didn't control
> > all the doctors then they will contradict the conspiracy doctors. The
> > conspiracy would unravel before it ever got started. If the conspiracy had
> > no control over any doctor in ER then how does Horne explain some of those
> > doctors seeing the same wound that has yet to be faked on the Z-film?
>
> How do you explain the Zapruder film showing President Kennedy and
> Governor Connally with the wrong posture to have suffered elliptical entry
> wounds with a longer axis of 15 mm?
>
>
>
> > Did they have the technology in 1963 to actually manipulate the tiny
> > images on the film strip? If so, how does that work? Today its easily done
> > by computer, but not back then. Does Horne describe the process by which
> > the film strip was manually altered?
>
> In 1963, the technology to manipulate microscopic images on film was big
> business. They employed the technologies of photolithography, digital
> machine control and optics to reduce the costs of placing staged fiction
> on film.
>
>
>
> > Another problem is the other films taken that corroborate the Z-film. Were
> > they faked too? All this seems way too complicated for even the CIA to
> > pull off in 1963.
>
> The inconsistencies in the Zapruder show that its makers were not as
> advanced as you think. For example, Z-313 shows an internal explosion
> imparting significant kinetic energy to the former contents of President
> Kennedy's head. Further inclusion of this frame in its sequence prevents
> stabilizing the motions of Toni Foster.
>
> The Nix film has timing problems. This production shows that in the
> interval between adjacent frames vehicles moved a significant fraction of
> the dimensions of stationary foreground and background objects. Yet the
> moving vehicles and the stationary objects lack the expected motion blur.
>
> Herbert
Of all the charges of evidence tampering made by the CTs, the most
amusing are the ones that the Z-film was altered.
Peter Fokes
Horne's book and know the names of the film restoration experts?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Chuck Schuyler
THINK...
Rather than alter the film with your so-called photolithography technique,
and risk having the conspiracy unravel, why not just seize the film, and
all copies, and destroy it/claim they lost it?
Do you mean to tell me that the same people who plotted to overthrow the
USG would be worried about charges they lost some dressmaker's home movie
footage???
The silliness never ends...
Thalia
Sorry just pointing out that just because the public didn't have
photoshop, doesn't mean a form of it wasn't available to certain people.
The film industry was fiddling with film in the 1960's, creating special
effects etc. The military was testing the stealth bomber years before it
was known about publicly, did you know that? This is what they were
testing in Area 51. Of course, military technology is kept as secret as
possible as they don't want the 'enemy' to know about it. The internet was
designed in the 1960's for use by top government officials in case of a
nuclear holocaust and they got stuck underground. Then, in the 1990's
civilians were allowed access to it.
We have no idea about the Z-Film and who had access to it because it was
bought by a private company, Time-Life, who then dutifully locked away
from public view. Of course the WC gave us a few still images, printed
back to front [whoops, another bureaucratic bungle!] The public only got
to see the Z-film because Garrison supboenaed it! And then only because a
bootleg copy was made. Who knows when the public would have been allowed
to see it otherwise?
tomnln
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e27f0ad-6a37-4b8f...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
Well, I haven't read his book.....about 2,000 pages I believe?
But, I have read McMahon, and posted it, and I've read many of the other
assortment of loonies over the years on this subject.
Anyone who actually believes this carp needs a good dose of reality.
John F.
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:h4m7i5h1mfvs86gc7...@4ax.com...
bigdog
> On Dec 12, 11:38 pm, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 12:32 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > While I am making no claim to whether the Z-Film was altered or not,
> > > the idea that the technology wasn't available in 1963 is hogwash. The
> > > military have access to technology way before mere mortals do.
>
> > Yes, the U.S. military had a great need to alter 8 mm home movies, and
> > spent a considerable amount of time and money perfecting their methods.
> > There it all was, waiting at the photo processing plant in Dallas, Texas,
> > when Zapruder took his film there to be developed. It is so just because
> > you think it is so.
>
> > Someone told me that no such thing as a time machine exists, but I told
> > him that that is hogwash. The military have access to technology way
> > before mere mortals do. When he asked me for evidence, I told him he was
> > so naive, and that I had no obligation to prove my statement. It so just
> > because I think it is so.
>
> Sorry just pointing out that just because the public didn't have
> photoshop, doesn't mean a form of it wasn't available to certain people.
This is nonsense. Everyone of us is accessing this forum through a
computer that is far more powerful and sophisticated than the most
advanced computers in the world in 1963. Most new cars today have more
computing power on them than the Apollo XI astronauts had on board when
they went to the moon. Graphics packages like Photoshop are resource hogs
and would not have been possible even on the most advanced computers in
1963. Computers of that era were stone age compared to what is readily
available today.
> The film industry was fiddling with film in the 1960's, creating special
> effects etc. The military was testing the stealth bomber years before it
> was known about publicly, did you know that? This is what they were
> testing in Area 51. Of course, military technology is kept as secret as
> possible as they don't want the 'enemy' to know about it. The internet was
> designed in the 1960's for use by top government officials in case of a
> nuclear holocaust and they got stuck underground. Then, in the 1990's
> civilians were allowed access to it.
>
> We have no idea about the Z-Film and who had access to it because it was
> bought by a private company, Time-Life, who then dutifully locked away
> from public view. Of course the WC gave us a few still images, printed
> back to front [whoops, another bureaucratic bungle!] The public only got
> to see the Z-film because Garrison supboenaed it! And then only because a
> bootleg copy was made. Who knows when the public would have been allowed
> to see it otherwise?-
If the Z-film had been tampered with as you suggest, why would they have
hidden it away. Why would you tamper with evidence and then conceal it? As
usual, the CTs don't think anything through.
Herbert Blenner
The actions of Time magazine shows that in December of 1963 they had
two versions of the head shot sequence. Time thought one version was
too gruesome for viewing by the WC while another sequence was being
prepared for publication.
Source: Executive session transcript of December 16, 1963
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex1216/html/WcEx1216_0037a.htm
CHAIRMAN: I might say to the members that Time has volunteered to make
this film available to us, and I accepted.
MR. MC CLOY: Now, here he's reaching up for his throat.
REP. BOGGS: But he's looking straight ahead, reaching up for his
throat, that's very significant, I think.
CHAIRMAN: There's another sequence which they did not include and it
shows the burst of blood and things from his head, blown out, they did
not put it in because they thought it was too gruesome, and that's the
head shot, which apparently came from the rear. They've got that and
you can blow it up and stop it and do everything, and we can have it
whenever we want it.
End of source.
The WC published CE 885 that contained the head shot sequence
published by Time magazine. Apparently they recognized that
sanitization of this sequence disrupted the continuity of Toni
Foster's motion. They prepared to deal with this problem by reversing
the order of Z-314 and Z-315.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0042b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0043a.htm
This planned mistake exaggerated the discontinuity of Foster's
movement. So placement of Z-314 and Z-315 in their proper order
reduced the discontinuity and effectively diverted attention from the
lesser discontinuity caused by inclusion of Z- 313 in its numerical
sequence. For a graphic demonstration see the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/misfit.htm
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Many government agencies and private companies have always had an
interest in and have altered many films. This is nothing new.
But the particular characteristics of his camera and film make it
impossible that anyone altered the Zapruder film. Damaged yes, but not
altered.
Anthony Marsh
That is not as easy to do when you study the chronology. Many people knew
about it and Zapruder was on live TV talking about it within minutes. Can
you imagine the CIA bursting into a live TV brodcast and killing everyone
present so that no living person would know about the film? And this is
before anyone had actually seen what's on the film. For all they knew he
could have missed the shot sequence. How were they to know that he
accidentally filmed the grassy knoll shooter? How about the Dave Powers
film? That was not released immediately. Some people knew he was taking
film with his camera, because we can see him in photographs with the
camera. So, why wasn't that released immediately? Do we know of any cases
where they did seize and destroy immediately? Maybe Babushka Lady. We also
see some people who had cameras and were taking pictures which have never
been seen. Recently they found some photos that someone had dumped in the
trash. Guess that must scare the bejeezes out of you.
> Do you mean to tell me that the same people who plotted to overthrow the
> USG would be worried about charges they lost some dressmaker's home movie
> footage???
>
> The silliness never ends...
>
Your straw man arguments never end. Your overuse of straw is what is
causing global warming.
timstter
> WHY don't you debate Doug Horne on Black Ops Radio Tim?
>
I wasn't aware that people debated Doug Horne on Black Ops radio, tomnln.
I thought they just listened to his boring Liftonesque monologues re body
alteration and <snicker> forged autopsy photos.
Say, why don't YOU ring Bill O'Reilly, advise him that you are a Black Ops
media star and see if he'll have you on his show? Should be amusing if he
does a *Fetzer* on you, LOL!
You could take along the Bledsoe Document and claim it as authentic, just
like you did on the Anton Batey show! :-)
Chuck Schuyler
Sorry, Tony. Plotters would've simply seized film or photos and held
them indefinitely, destroyed them or claim they lost them.
No one could be certain what additional film or photos would show up
later. Altering film when you don't know what else is going to surface
is dumb.
Plus, the Z film timeline is well known. It wasn't altered.
Anthony Marsh
Ah, the King of the Straw Man. So if they destroy vital clues from the
limousine you think that means that everyone in the government must have
been involved in the murder plot? Anyone who covers up anything must
have committed the original crime?
> of people from various agencies and walks of life who would be required to
> both carry out, and cover up the supposed Z- film alteration.
>
Imagine the number of Internet stooges who would be required to carry
out a cover-up of the evidence. Mind boggling.
tomnln
Never volunteering yourself to a live audio debate.
Looks like you're Really upset with me for making you look Bad on these>>>
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/eusebio_azcue.htm
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb89a43c-940f-4457...@k32g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> David,
>
> A lot of this fantastic thinking derives from the misperception that ER
> doctors saw a very different head wound than the autopsy doctors. Not
> true. Some ER doctors describe a wound exactly as the autopsy pathologists
The ER doctors did see a very different wound. It had been closed up and
covered with matted blood and brain matter. The autopsy doctors cleaned
the scalp and reflected it to reveal the extent of the wound.
> describe. So now Horne must assume the conspiracy reached all the way into
> the ER, but that presents a problem too. If the conspiracy didn't control
No, he doesn't have to fall for your straw man argument.
> all the doctors then they will contradict the conspiracy doctors. The
No, they won't. They are under orders.
> conspiracy would unravel before it ever got started. If the conspiracy had
> no control over any doctor in ER then how does Horne explain some of those
> doctors seeing the same wound that has yet to be faked on the Z-film?
>
There is no such wound seen on the Zapruder film.
> Did they have the technology in 1963 to actually manipulate the tiny
> images on the film strip? If so, how does that work? Today its easily done
> by computer, but not back then. Does Horne describe the process by which
> the film strip was manually altered?
>
Film was being altered long before computer technology.
> Another problem is the other films taken that corroborate the Z-film. Were
> they faked too? All this seems way too complicated for even the CIA to
> pull off in 1963.
>
That is what we call the slippery slope. Once you start claiming that
one piece of evidence is fake then you eventually have to claim that all
the evidence is fake.
>
>
timstter
> You're always volunteering someone else for Suicide missions tim;
>
> Never volunteering yourself to a live audio debate.
>
> Looks like you're Really upset with me for making you look Bad on these>>>
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/eusebio_azcue.htm
>
Nah, none of those make ME look bad, Tom. They simply prove that you are
either denying evidence/testimony or don't know what you're talking
about..
Would it be a suicide mission to take The Bledsoe Document on Bill
O'Reilly's show, tomnln? I thought you thought it was a slam dunk to prove
conspiracy with!
Let me know when you'll be on the show and I'll word him up about how the
document is a fake. If there's time, maybe he can get onto the three sets
of 26 volumes you took to Marina in the U-Haul trailer! :-)
Anthony Marsh
It wasn't just plotters who simply seized firm or photos and destroyed
them. It was also Jesse Curry who seized the camera from a boy who took a
photo of the back seat of the limo at Parkland and ripped out the film.
And some unnamed person at the autopsy who seized the camera of the second
cameraman and exposed his film to light. So such actions were typical of
the cover-up by people who were not part of the shooting. BTW, the CIA
claims they simply lost stuff all the time.
> No one could be certain what additional film or photos would show up
> later. Altering film when you don't know what else is going to surface
> is dumb.
>
Of course it's dumb, which is why the cover-up has been revealed. Like the
lies about the wounds to the body which were revealed when the autopsy
photos were leaked. Guess that scared the bejeezes out of you guys in
Cover-up Central!
yeuhd
> On 12/11/2009 6:27 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > David,
>
> > A lot of this fantastic thinking derives from the misperception that ER
> > doctors saw a very different head wound than the autopsy doctors. Not
> > true. Some ER doctors describe a wound exactly as the autopsy pathologists
>
> The ER doctors did see a very different wound. It had been closed up and
> covered with matted blood and brain matter. The autopsy doctors cleaned
> the scalp and reflected it to reveal the extent of the wound.
>
> > describe. So now Horne must assume the conspiracy reached all the way into
> > the ER, but that presents a problem too. If the conspiracy didn't control
>
> No, he doesn't have to fall for your straw man argument.
>
> > all the doctors then they will contradict the conspiracy doctors. The
>
> No, they won't. They are under orders.
>
> > conspiracy would unravel before it ever got started. If the conspiracy had
> > no control over any doctor in ER then how does Horne explain some of those
> > doctors seeing the same wound that has yet to be faked on the Z-film?
>
> There is no such wound seen on the Zapruder film.
>
> > Did they have the technology in 1963 to actually manipulate the tiny
> > images on the film strip? If so, how does that work? Today its easily done
> > by computer, but not back then. Does Horne describe the process by which
> > the film strip was manually altered?
>
> Film was being altered long before computer technology.
The image area is so small on 8 mm film that any attempt to alter a small
area of an already small image, and then copy it to another film, using
the technology available in 1963, would be so patently obvious to any film
professional. You yourself are on the record as stating that the Zapruder
film is not altered. Do you have ANY example of an image originally on an
8 mm film that was altered and copied using technology available in 1963,
that fooled any film professional into thinking he was watching the first
generation, in-camera original?
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56b7f2b3-e41d-485b...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok guys. I just listened to to Horne interview, over 2 hours and the
people who analyzed the Z film are from Hollywood, the best in the
business, they blew the film up beyond anything anyone has done and they
said not only did they change the wounds on the head they did a really
really bad job. They said it's obvious to anyone who knows film. Rather
than shoot from the hip, take Fokes advice... read the book or listen to
the interview. And read Morley's book while you're at it. It's a new era
guys. Wake up.
Burgundy.
Herbert Blenner
In 1963 industry made transistors with dimensions of 0.05 mm or smaller.
These tiny parts included two or three relatively large pads for bonding
connecting wires and the smaller structures that comprised the transistor
itself.
Each transistor consisted of several layers formed during separate
manufacturing steps. They positioned each layer with an accuracy measured
in several wavelengths of light, approximately 0.005 mm.
Of course industry did not make one tiny transistor at a time. Instead
each layer contained many precisely spaced and identical patterns. So a
few steps made a wafer containing tens of thousands or even a million
transistors.
The final step in the process called dicing separated the transistors in
individual parts.
Herbert
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, they are from Hollywood. The world of make believe. That says it
all.
bigdog
camp says the Z-film is genuine and proves the headshot came from the
front and the other camp which says the Z-film is a fake.
Anthony Marsh
I haven't listened to the Horne interview, but I am pretty sure these
supposed Hollywood experts that he is talking about are the ones Fetzer
dug up. And they clearly knew nothing about Double 8 mm film.
BTW, I can't remember the guy's name, but I had lunch with some
researcher who claims that the original Zapruder film shows the SS
agents from the follow up car run up to the limo and shoot Kennedy while
the limo was behind the sign, and then Walt Disney was hired to paint in
Kennedy as if nothing had happened until Z-313. Pure lunacy, as are all
the alternationist theories.
> Burgundy.
>
claviger
OK, then explain a few things. How is it that some of the doctors in ER
describe a wound exactly where we see it in the Z-film, and the
pathologists observed the same wound? There were several copies of the
Z-film in separate hands, one kept by Zapruder himself. How did they alter
all of these copies? What about the other home movies taken that day? And
why would they even plan an assassination so incredibly complex that would
be so technically complicated? All copies of all films must be collected,
altered, and matched. The body would need surgery to sew up the wounds? If
they had a patsy lined up why go to all this trouble?
Please tell us where Horne locates the origin of the shots. We know they
didn't come from the RR overpass or the GK because those areas were
surrounded by witnesses.
claviger
If a conspiracy was going to frame LHO then it would not make sense to
have a second shooter from an opposite direction, the GK. No pro would
choose that position, because it is too exposed and no way to control
pedestrians and spectators walking up behind him. The fact a law
enforcement agency used the parking lot would complicate that situation
even further. The GK fence would be a position chosen by another lone nut,
not a professional hitman who wanted to make a safe getaway. If the HSCA
conclusion is correct, based on the dubious "acoustic evidence", this
sniper missed from the closest position to the Limousine! That sounds like
something an incompetent amateur would do!
What would make sense is something very close to the same trajectory as
LHO from the 6th floor window. What would be perfect is another MC rifle
fired from the 6th or 7th floor window of the Dal-Tex building as close to
the same trajectory as LHO as possible. A silencer would make it a perfect
set up of the patsy. We know a suspicious person with mob ties was in the
Dal-Tex building at the time. This scenario is the only one that makes any
sense. It would be very difficult to prove a second shooter was involved.
bigdog
Another new era? How many new eras does this make? We had one new era
after charlatans like Thompson and Lane began spewing false attacks on the
WC. Then we had the Jim Garrison era. Then there was the public release of
the Z-film that was going to usher in a new era. Then we had the post HSCA
era. Nothing much happened for about a decade. Then we had the Ollie Stone
era followed by the ARRB era. All of these eras brought the promise that
we would finally get at "the truth". Well all those eras came and gone and
nothing much happened. The CT's keep beating their dead horse hoping it
will come back to life. It ain't happening guys. Where you are at is where
you are going to remain. Hopelessly lost in the wilderness. It's over.
Game, set, and match came a long time ago. You aren't going to change the
outcome no matter how hard you try.
yeuhd
That's nice.
Anthony Marsh
You are talking right now only about Double 8 mm. 16 mm was bigger.
> the technology available in 1963, would be so patently obvious to any film
> professional. You yourself are on the record as stating that the Zapruder
Sure, but the idea would be that film professionals would either be in
on the conspiracy or not allowed to see the original.
> film is not altered. Do you have ANY example of an image originally on an
> 8 mm film that was altered and copied using technology available in 1963,
I'll have to look through my films. I think some simple forms of
alteration should be readily apparent to the viewer such as
superimposition, traveling matte, insertion, dodging, mirror copying, etc.
Just putting titles over live action would be an easily spotted
alteration. I don't know of any technique for Double 8 mm that an expert
like Zavada would not be able to figure out. BTW, he did a nifty
presentation about the old hoaxes of filming ghosts. Some UFO hoaxes are
quite easy to spot. Others take more in depth analysis. Most Hollywood
special effects were only used on large format films. But the principles
are the same.
> that fooled any film professional into thinking he was watching the first
> generation, in-camera original?
>
The idea is not to fool the one expert in the world who can spot the
alteration. The idea is to fool the millions of non-experts.
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
This detailed analysis was new.
The analysis was based on "a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the
Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives."
Each frame was scanned at a 6K resolution (state of art in Hollywood
is currently only 4K). (for more details read the book).
Two of the film restoration experts mentioned in the book are:
1) Ned Price (24 years experience restoring films from 1919 to
present).
Here is an article that mentions Ned's work with Warner:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7525143.stm
One of his projects was restoration of Hitchcock's classic film, North
By Northwest:
http://blog.afi.com/afifest/index.php/2009/10/30/two-new-prints-showcase-film-restoration/
2) Paul R. Rutan Jr. (president and chief technician of Triage Motion
Picture Services.)
If interested, get the Blu-Ray release of The Good, The Bad and The
Ugly. One of the extras on the disc is ...
<quote on>
�Reconstructing �The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly�� (11:09) discusses
primarily with Paul Rutan Jr., owner of Triage Labs, significant
details regarding the film�s restoration process at their facility
specializing in obsolete video formats.
<quote off>
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=17952
Horne mentions that the experts believe the alteration did not involve
traveling mattes but instead aerial imaging.
A wealth of details about the process is included in the book.
>> Burgundy.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
>Do you have ANY example of an image originally on an 8 mm film that was
>altered and copied using technology available in 1963, that fooled any
>film professional into thinking he was watching the first generation,
>in-camera original?
The alteration certainly hasn't fooled experts who have worked on film
restoration for decades and know what they are talking about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7525143.stm
http://blog.afi.com/afifest/index.php/2009/10/30/two-new-prints-showcase-film-restoration/
<quote on>
<quote off>
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=17952
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
See my previous post, Tony. I provide names of the experts. These
people know what they are talking about.
>
>> that fooled any film professional into thinking he was watching the first
>> generation, in-camera original?
>>
>
>
>The idea is not to fool the one expert in the world who can spot the
>alteration. The idea is to fool the millions of non-experts.
Exactly.
Why not just READ the book? A lot simpler than trying to guess what
analysis was done and how.
Apparently further analysis is ongoing.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
Herbert Blenner
What happened to your claim that 8 mm film was too small for
manipulation to escape detection?
Herbert
Sandy McCroskey
> On 14 Dec 2009 13:36:34 -0500, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Do you have ANY example of an image originally on an 8 mm film that was
> >altered and copied using technology available in 1963, that fooled any
> >film professional into thinking he was watching the first generation,
> >in-camera original?
>
> The alteration certainly hasn't fooled experts who have worked on film
> restoration for decades and know what they are talking about.
>
> This detailed analysis was new.
>
> The analysis was based on "a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the
> Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives."
>
> Each frame was scanned at a 6K resolution (state of art in Hollywood
> is currently only 4K). (for more details read the book).
>
> Two of the film restoration experts mentioned in the book are:
>
> 1) Ned Price (24 years experience restoring films from 1919 to
> present).
>
> Here is an article that mentions Ned's work with Warner:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7525143.stm
>
> One of his projects was restoration of Hitchcock's classic film, North
> By Northwest:
>
>
> 2) Paul R. Rutan Jr. (president and chief technician of Triage Motion
> Picture Services.)
>
> If interested, get the Blu-Ray release of The Good, The Bad and The
> Ugly. One of the extras on the disc is ...
>
> <quote on>
>
> “Reconstructing ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly‘” (11:09) discusses
> primarily with Paul Rutan Jr., owner of Triage Labs, significant
> details regarding the film’s restoration process at their facility
> specializing in obsolete video formats.
>
> <quote off>
>
> http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=17952
>
> Horne mentions that the experts believe the alteration did not involve
> traveling mattes but instead aerial imaging.
>
> A wealth of details about the process is included in the book.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
As a trial lawyer could tell you, "experts" can be found who will
testify to a lot of things.
That two people with these credentials are on the Zapruder alteration
bandwagon doesn't in itself impress me a whit.
I would need more information.
It's very easy for a layman to be snowballed by technical double-talk.
I'd like to hear what someone with experience in film alteration says
about this book.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
No, they don't. And weren't they dug up by Fetzer? That should tell you
something right away.
His supposed expert claimed that the ghost images in the sprocket holes
could not possibly been the result of a natural process and were created
when the CIA secret lab screwed up in forging the fake copy.
Anthony Marsh
> On 14 Dec 2009 13:36:34 -0500, yeuhd<needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you have ANY example of an image originally on an 8 mm film that was
>> altered and copied using technology available in 1963, that fooled any
>> film professional into thinking he was watching the first generation,
>> in-camera original?
>
> The alteration certainly hasn't fooled experts who have worked on film
> restoration for decades and know what they are talking about.
>
No, they don't. The Zapruder film proves itself authentic.
> This detailed analysis was new.
>
> The analysis was based on "a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the
> Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives."
>
> Each frame was scanned at a 6K resolution (state of art in Hollywood
> is currently only 4K). (for more details read the book).
>
> Two of the film restoration experts mentioned in the book are:
>
> 1) Ned Price (24 years experience restoring films from 1919 to
> present).
>
> Here is an article that mentions Ned's work with Warner:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7525143.stm
>
> One of his projects was restoration of Hitchcock's classic film, North
> By Northwest:
>
> http://blog.afi.com/afifest/index.php/2009/10/30/two-new-prints-showcase-film-restoration/
>
>
> 2) Paul R. Rutan Jr. (president and chief technician of Triage Motion
> Picture Services.)
>
> If interested, get the Blu-Ray release of The Good, The Bad and The
> Ugly. One of the extras on the disc is ...
>
> <quote on>
>
> �Reconstructing �The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly�� (11:09) discusses
> primarily with Paul Rutan Jr., owner of Triage Labs, significant
> details regarding the film�s restoration process at their facility
Anthony Marsh
> Burgundy,
>
> If a conspiracy was going to frame LHO then it would not make sense to
> have a second shooter from an opposite direction, the GK. No pro would
Wrong. It was not exposed. No one reported seeing him shoot. You can't
even see him on the Moorman photo. The way to control conditions is to
have genuine Secret Service identification and flash it anyone bothers
you.
> choose that position, because it is too exposed and no way to control
> pedestrians and spectators walking up behind him. The fact a law
That's why most snipers operate in teams of two. The second guy protects
the shooter.
> enforcement agency used the parking lot would complicate that situation
> even further. The GK fence would be a position chosen by another lone nut,
How could the law enforcement agency using the parking lot interfere?
> not a professional hitman who wanted to make a safe getaway. If the HSCA
He did make a safe getaway by having genuine Secret Service
identification. The Mossad has pulled off some very risky assassinations
and almost always gotten away safely.
> conclusion is correct, based on the dubious "acoustic evidence", this
> sniper missed from the closest position to the Limousine! That sounds like
> something an incompetent amateur would do!
>
> What would make sense is something very close to the same trajectory as
> LHO from the 6th floor window. What would be perfect is another MC rifle
> fired from the 6th or 7th floor window of the Dal-Tex building as close to
> the same trajectory as LHO as possible. A silencer would make it a perfect
> set up of the patsy. We know a suspicious person with mob ties was in the
> Dal-Tex building at the time. This scenario is the only one that makes any
> sense. It would be very difficult to prove a second shooter was involved.
>
>
You think that a second rifle would produce exactly the same ballistics
evidence on the bullet jackets as Oswald's rifle?
>
Anthony Marsh
There are not two camps. There is only a lonely voice crying in the
wilderness. There are only a few of us who say that the Zapruder film is
genuine and proves the headshot came from the front. I may be the only one
you know about. Almost all others think either the Zapruder film is
genuine and proves the head shot came from the TSBD or think the Zapruder
film is fake and hides the fact that the head shot came from the grassy
knoll.
yeuhd
???
My claim still stands. Where or why did you think I dropped the claim?
claviger
One big problem with the Hollywood "best in the business" experts: William
E Newman. He was the closest eyewitness to President Kennedy when the
third bullet struck the head. In two statements Newman describes the head
wound being on the side of the head. He even thought he saw the
President's ear shot off. On a normal person the ear is attached to the
side of the head, not the back. What Newman probably saw was the dangling
skull fragment that we see in the Z- film.
John McAdams
wrote:
>Listen to Douglas Horne's interview on Black Op.
>
>The wound in back of JFK's head blacked out and the explosive head
>wound is crude art work.
>
>The Warren Commission house of cards has fallen.
>
>
Do these folks say the same thing about the Nix and Muchmore films?
Both show brain matter flying upward and forward.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Actually, Fetzer had nothing to do with this analysis, Tony.
PF
Peter Fokes
McAdams) wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:34:40 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Listen to Douglas Horne's interview on Black Op.
>>
>>The wound in back of JFK's head blacked out and the explosive head
>>wound is crude art work.
>>
>>The Warren Commission house of cards has fallen.
>>
>>
>
>Do these folks say the same thing about the Nix and Muchmore films?
>
>Both show brain matter flying upward and forward.
I understand the detailed analysis of the Zapruder film is ongoing.
You'll have to ask Doug Horne if those films are under study.
>
>.John
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Just curious. How many folks commenting on this thread have read Mr.
>Horne's book and know the names of the film restoration experts?
It appears folks have lots to say before reading the book.
I believe most people posting here would find the book fascinating --
whether or not they agreed or disagreed with the Horne's conclusions.
PF
>
>Regards,
>Peter Fokes,
>Toronto
>
>
>
>On 12 Dec 2009 12:52:32 -0500, bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 11, 9:39�pm, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 11, 6:27�pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > David,
>>>
>>> > A lot of this fantastic thinking derives from the misperception that ER
>>> > doctors saw a very different head wound than the autopsy doctors. Not
>>> > true. Some ER doctors describe a wound exactly as the autopsy pathologists
>>> > describe. So now Horne must assume the conspiracy reached all the way into
>>> > the ER, but that presents a problem too. If the conspiracy didn't control
>>> > all the doctors then they will contradict the conspiracy doctors. The
>>> > conspiracy would unravel before it ever got started. If the conspiracy had
>>> > no control over any doctor in ER then how does Horne explain some of those
>>> > doctors seeing the same wound that has yet to be faked on the Z-film?
>>>
>>> How do you explain the Zapruder film showing President Kennedy and
>>> Governor Connally with the wrong posture to have suffered elliptical entry
>>> wounds with a longer axis of 15 mm?
>>>
>>Why does anyone have to explain something you made up?
>>>
>>>
>>> > Did they have the technology in 1963 to actually manipulate the tiny
>>> > images on the film strip? If so, how does that work? Today its easily done
>>> > by computer, but not back then. Does Horne describe the process by which
>>> > the film strip was manually altered?
>>>
>>> In 1963, the technology to manipulate microscopic images on film was big
>>> business. They employed the technologies of photolithography, digital
>>> machine control and optics to reduce the costs of placing staged fiction
>>> on film.
>>>
>>If there is one thing you are an expert on, it is staged fiction.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Another problem is the other films taken that corroborate the Z-film. Were
>>> > they faked too? All this seems way too complicated for even the CIA to
>>> > pull off in 1963.
>>>
>>> The inconsistencies in the Zapruder show that its makers were not as
>>> advanced as you think. For example, Z-313 shows an internal explosion
>>> imparting significant kinetic energy to the former contents of President
>>> Kennedy's head. Further inclusion of this frame in its sequence prevents
>>> stabilizing the motions of Toni Foster.
>>>
>>> The Nix film has timing problems. This production shows that in the
>>> interval between adjacent frames vehicles moved a significant fraction of
>>> the dimensions of stationary foreground and background objects. Yet the
>>> moving vehicles and the stationary objects lack the expected motion blur.
>>>
>>> Herbert
>>
>>Of all the charges of evidence tampering made by the CTs, the most
>>amusing are the ones that the Z-film was altered.
>>
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>One big problem with the Hollywood "best in the business" experts: William
>E Newman. He was the closest eyewitness to President Kennedy when the
>third bullet struck the head. In two statements Newman describes the head
>wound being on the side of the head. He even thought he saw the
>President's ear shot off. On a normal person the ear is attached to the
>side of the head, not the back. What Newman probably saw was the dangling
>skull fragment that we see in the Z- film.
William E. Newman was a film restoration expert? I thought he was a
mechanical engineer?
We are discussing film experts who have viewed high definition scans
of a forensic copy of the Zapruder film.
Not witness testimony.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Sandy McCroskey
I mean to say, I would need more information even if I thought for a
second there was a ghost of a chance the Zapruder film was altered in
such a way.
Suddenly, all previous **expert** testimony is invalidated because two
guys have a different opinion? Puh-leeeze!
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Do you mean scans of the 35 mm slides?
Anthony Marsh
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:56:16 -0500, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just curious. How many folks commenting on this thread have read Mr.
>> Horne's book and know the names of the film restoration experts?
>
> It appears folks have lots to say before reading the book.
>
> I believe most people posting here would find the book fascinating --
> whether or not they agreed or disagreed with the Horne's conclusions.
>
I haven't said anything about his book. Only about his methodology.
Anthony Marsh
Actually, my question was if Fetzer is the one who found these supposed
film experts.
Anthony Marsh
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:34:40 -0500, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Listen to Douglas Horne's interview on Black Op.
>>
>> The wound in back of JFK's head blacked out and the explosive head
>> wound is crude art work.
>>
>> The Warren Commission house of cards has fallen.
>>
>>
>
> Do these folks say the same thing about the Nix and Muchmore films?
>
> Both show brain matter flying upward and forward.
>
> .John
>
Do you have the technology to upload those specific frames showing the
brain matter flying upward and forward?
timstter
> Does trhis mean I'll be seeing you on my live audio chat room???
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
>
> "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:56b7f2b3-e41d-485b...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 4:34 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're always volunteering someone else for Suicide missions tim;
>
> > Never volunteering yourself to a live audio debate.
>
> > Looks like you're Really upset with me for making you look Bad on these>>>
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/eusebio_azcue.htm
>
> > "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:cb89a43c-940f-4457...@k32g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 13, 6:09 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > WHY don't you debate Doug Horne on Black Ops Radio Tim?
>
> > > "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:0e27f0ad-6a37-4b8f...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 11, 3:34 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Listen to Douglas Horne's interview on Black Op.
>
> > > > The wound in back of JFK's head blacked out and the explosive head
> > > > wound is crude art work.
>
> > > > The Warren Commission house of cards has fallen.
>
> > > > Peter Fokes,
> > > > Toronto
>
> > > LOL! Peter, I am assuming that this is a joke post and you are simply
> > > trying to provoke people for a laugh. :-)
>
> > > Sounds like Horne has been spouting a load of arrant nonsense down @
> > > Black Ops radio.
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Tim Brennan
> > > Sydney, Australia
> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > I wasn't aware that people debated Doug Horne on Black Ops radio, tomnln.
>
> > I thought they just listened to his boring Liftonesque monologues re body
> > alteration and <snicker> forged autopsy photos.
>
> > Say, why don't YOU ring Bill O'Reilly, advise him that you are a Black Ops
> > media star and see if he'll have you on his show? Should be amusing if he
> > does a *Fetzer* on you, LOL!
>
> > You could take along the Bledsoe Document and claim it as authentic, just
> > like you did on the Anton Batey show! :-)
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> Nah, none of those make ME look bad, Tom. They simply prove that you are
> either denying evidence/testimony or don't know what you're talking
> about..
>
> Would it be a suicide mission to take The Bledsoe Document on Bill
> O'Reilly's show, tomnln? I thought you thought it was a slam dunk to prove
> conspiracy with!
>
> Let me know when you'll be on the show and I'll word him up about how the
> document is a fake. If there's time, maybe he can get onto the three sets
> of 26 volumes you took to Marina in the U-Haul trailer! :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Does this mean you'll be fixing up your website?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
KEVEN
> A lot simpler than trying to guess
> what analysis was done and how.
>
> Apparently further analysis is ongoing.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
Kudos, Mr. Fokes:
I've been closely observing Mr. Horne's work
since his tenure on the ARRB, and have been
looking forward to the release of his book since
learning that he would write one.
I have been particularly fascinated by the medical
evidence in the JFK case for several decades, mostly
due to the ubiquitous indications of suppression and
falsification. I have been hoping that the work of the
ARRB in this area could shed additional light on the
many contradictions in the medical evidence and,
though still waiting for Horne's books to arrive, am
already quite impressed by the cursory information
(essentially an outline) that can be derived from
writings and interviews placed in the public domain
by Mr. Horne over the last several years (particularly
the most recent interview on Black Op Radio).
The following are links to some of the above referenced
information concerning Mr. Horne's work that might
assist those who are considering Mr. Fokes'
suggestion about reading the book:
PART 1 OF 12/10/09 INTERVIEW
http://www.blackopradio.com/black452a.ram
PART 2 OF 12/10/09 INTERVIEW
http://www.blackopradio.com/black452b.ram
DOUG HORNE INTERVIEW WITH DICK RUSSELL
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/11/doug-horne.html
Horne's work is by no means a panacea, or the Golden
Grail of JFK research, but it appears to me that his work
is extraordinarily well sourced, that he is level headed
and logical, and does not go off on unsupportable tangents
of speculation. To me, it appears to be a "must-read"
for any serious researcher or student of the assassination.
J. Keven Hofeling, Esq.
Peter Fokes
> On 12/14/2009 8:56 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> One big problem with the Hollywood "best in the business" experts: William
> >> E Newman. He was the closest eyewitness to President Kennedy when the
> >> third bullet struck the head. In two statements Newman describes the head
> >> wound being on the side of the head. He even thought he saw the
> >> President's ear shot off. On a normal person the ear is attached to the
> >> side of the head, not the back. What Newman probably saw was the dangling
> >> skull fragment that we see in the Z- film.
>
> > William E. Newman was a film restoration expert? I thought he was a
> > mechanical engineer?
>
> > We are discussing film experts who have viewed high definition scans
> > of a forensic copy of the Zapruder film.
>
> Do you mean scans of the 35 mm slides?
No.
Tony, I could become bogged down answering questions on this newsgroup
about Horne's book, and his chapter on the Zapruder film.
Christmas is approaching. Ask someone who loves you to buy Horne's book
from the Mary Ferrell website.
Folks are mumbling in the dark if they do not start the process by reading
the relevant chapter.
>
>
>
> > Not witness testimony.
>
> > Regards,
> > Peter Fokes,
> > Toronto
PF
Anthony Marsh
Horne is a Litonite and a Fetzerite.
Herbert Blenner
> On Dec 14, 9:19 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > professional. You yourself are on the record as stating that the Zapruder
> > > 8 mm film that was altered and copied using technology available in 1963,
> > > generation, in-camera original?
>
> > These tiny parts included two or three relatively large pads for bonding
> > connecting wires and the smaller structures that comprised the transistor
> > itself.
>
> > Each transistor consisted of several layers formed during separate
> > manufacturing steps. They positioned each layer with an accuracy measured
> > in several wavelengths of light, approximately 0.005 mm.
>
> > Of course industry did not make one tiny transistor at a time. Instead
> > each layer contained many precisely spaced and identical patterns. So a
> > few steps made a wafer containing tens of thousands or even a million
> > transistors.
>
> > The final step in the process called dicing separated the transistors in
> > individual parts.
>
> That's nice.
>
> film professional into thinking he was watching the first generation,
> in-camera original?
Yes. The Zapruder film has fooled many suckups and even some
professionals.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/backward.htm
Herbert
KEVEN
Well, Mr. Marsh, you appear to be trying to communicate
something by labeling Mr. Horne a "Litonite (sic)" and a
"Fetzerite." This is some kind of code? Please explain
what you believe a "Liftonite" and a "Fetzerite" to be, and
what exactly it is about Mr. Horne that makes you feel
it appropriate to apply such code words to him.
J. Keven Hofeling, Esq.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, it is a code. Didn't you get your decoder ring in the mail yet?
I'll have to check UPS tracking.
> what you believe a "Liftonite" and a "Fetzerite" to be, and
> what exactly it is about Mr. Horne that makes you feel
> it appropriate to apply such code words to him.
>
Well, I didn't invent the convention, but we have a convention in some
languages where you add a suffix to modify a noun to create a new
definition. Such as adding "ix" to indicate a female who does the thing
such as aviatrix. Or adding "ette" to indicate smaller such as cigarette.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ette
Likewise there are suffixes which we can add to someone's name to indicate
a follower of that person. It varies according to the base of the word
added to. Sometimes we call someone a Stalinist meaning the person is a
follower of Stalin. Sometimes we talk about someone doing something in a
Kafkaesque style. We had a secret conference where we pondered how we
should describe followers and believers of Lifton and Fetzer. As I
remember it there were only a couple of votes for Liftonesque and only one
vote for Liftonian. The majority voted for Liftonite, because it reminded
us of the Luddites.
Fetzerist did not have the ring we were looking for. However,
alternationist is more fitting as a believe in an ideology rather than a
person.
> J. Keven Hofeling, Esq.
>
KEVEN
So then, Mr. Marsh, you are essentially alleging that Mr. Horne is
a "follower" of Mr. Lifton and Mr. Fetzer? Or, more specifically,
that Mr. Horne is an "alterationist."
Would you say that a reasonable definition of "alterationist" is "one
who reconciles the apparent differences between the Parkland
witnesses descriptions of JFK's head wound from the observations
of the Bethesda witnesses descriptions of JFK's head wound by
positing that the wound was altered after the body was taken from
Parkland but before the commencement of the official autopsy,
thus allowing for both the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of
JFK's head wound to be accurate"?
Lifton, of course, has argued that the President's body was
secreted from the presidential plane, then subjected to
surgery to alter the head wound -- possibly at Walter Reed
Army Hospital -- and subsequently secreted to Bethesda
for autopsy. Would you agree that it is fundamentally this
claim that has led to the labeling of Mr. Lifton as an
"alterationist"?
Mr. Horne has stated that, based upon the evidence, he does
not believe Lifton's hypothesis, as described above, is correct.
Rather, Horne states that he is convinced by the evidence that
the slain President arrived at Bethesda in exactly the same
condition as described by the Parkland witnesses; with a
grapefruit sized gunshot wound in the back of the head. The
evidence relied upon for this proposition are the eyewitness
accounts of Bethesda attending radiologist, John Ebersole, MD,
JFK's physician, George Burkley, MD, and the commanding
officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital, Robert O. Canada, MD.
So if JFK arrived at Bethesda in the same condition as reported
by the Parkland witnesses, how does Horne account for the
damage to the top and side of JFK's head that we see in the
autopsy photos taken at Bethesda?
The explanation is provided by evidence that prior to the
beginning of the autopsy, the Bethesda pathologists
performed a craniotomy on JFK's skull, meaning that
the massive head damage depicted by the autopsy
photos was caused by Humes and Boswell, not by
an assassin's bullet.
See ARRB report on mortician Tom Robinson, containing
Robinson's testimony describing the craniotomy, information
about his diagrams depicting the craniotomy, and his
unambiguous protest upon seeing the autopsy photos that
they appear to make it appear that the massive damage to
the head is the result of a bullet rather than the craniotomy.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md180.pdf
The following are links to Robinson's ARRB diagrams:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/html/md88_0003a.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/html/md88_0004a.htm
Additional testimony concerning the JFK craniotomy at
Bethesda is contained in pages 57-59 of the ARRB
deposition of Bethesda technician Edward Reed at the
following link:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Reed_10-21-97/html/Reed_0006b.htm
So then, Mr. Marsh, given Mr. Horne's reliance on the
testimony set out above for the proposition that JFK's
head wound was the same upon arrival at Bethesda as
observed by the Parkland witnesses, and that the
additional damage to JFK's head as depicted in the
autopsy photos was the result of a craniotomy
performed by the Bethesda pathologists, do you
stand by your allegation that Mr. Horne is a
"follower" of David Lifton and Professor Fetzer?
J. Keven Hofeling, Esq.
KEVEN
So then, Mr. Marsh, you are essentially alleging that Mr. Horne is
The Dutchman
Come on, Tony; quit shooting the bull. I read your essay on the
impossibility of the Z-film being altered. It was very good. You and
Kevin could have a good conversation, that would throw a lot of light,
not heat, on this whole Z-film alteration issue, for those of us
without a super technical knowledge of such.
Isn't that what this board is really for?
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Bravo, Dutchman!
Any person who advocates for a civil discussion without the
namecalling is automatically a superior poster!
Regards,
Peter Fokes
Anthony Marsh
Well, I'm not 100% sure about that last one. Strictly speaking we had
agreed that the term "alerationist" only applies to those who believe
the Zapruder film is fake. Along with they also need to think that other
films and photos are fake.
> Would you say that a reasonable definition of "alterationist" is "one
> who reconciles the apparent differences between the Parkland
> witnesses descriptions of JFK's head wound from the observations
> of the Bethesda witnesses descriptions of JFK's head wound by
> positing that the wound was altered after the body was taken from
> Parkland but before the commencement of the official autopsy,
> thus allowing for both the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of
> JFK's head wound to be accurate"?
No, alterationist is used only for the Zapruder film.
Liftonite is for someone who believes in the body alteration theory to
explain the discrepancy between Parkland descriptions and the autopsy
photos. But some do explain it by claiming that the autopsy photos are fake.
BTW, I was the person who found out why Humes had said there was surgery
to the top of the head, which is what sent Lifton off on a tangent.
>
> Lifton, of course, has argued that the President's body was
> secreted from the presidential plane, then subjected to
> surgery to alter the head wound -- possibly at Walter Reed
> Army Hospital -- and subsequently secreted to Bethesda
> for autopsy. Would you agree that it is fundamentally this
> claim that has led to the labeling of Mr. Lifton as an
> "alterationist"?
>
No. Alterationist is about the Zapruder film.
> Mr. Horne has stated that, based upon the evidence, he does
> not believe Lifton's hypothesis, as described above, is correct.
> Rather, Horne states that he is convinced by the evidence that
> the slain President arrived at Bethesda in exactly the same
> condition as described by the Parkland witnesses; with a
> grapefruit sized gunshot wound in the back of the head. The
> evidence relied upon for this proposition are the eyewitness
> accounts of Bethesda attending radiologist, John Ebersole, MD,
> JFK's physician, George Burkley, MD, and the commanding
> officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital, Robert O. Canada, MD.
>
Never rely on witnesses and don't misrepresent what they really said to
prop up a wacky theory.
> So if JFK arrived at Bethesda in the same condition as reported
> by the Parkland witnesses, how does Horne account for the
> damage to the top and side of JFK's head that we see in the
> autopsy photos taken at Bethesda?
>
> The explanation is provided by evidence that prior to the
> beginning of the autopsy, the Bethesda pathologists
> performed a craniotomy on JFK's skull, meaning that
Then that is yet another type of body alteration they requiring a cover-up.
> the massive head damage depicted by the autopsy
> photos was caused by Humes and Boswell, not by
> an assassin's bullet.
>
Bizarre.
> See ARRB report on mortician Tom Robinson, containing
> Robinson's testimony describing the craniotomy, information
> about his diagrams depicting the craniotomy, and his
The damage from the shot was so extensive that the skull fell apart when
they reflected the scalp.
> unambiguous protest upon seeing the autopsy photos that
> they appear to make it appear that the massive damage to
> the head is the result of a bullet rather than the craniotomy.
>
Meaningless. You could also find a spectator who says it was not
Kennedy's body. So what?
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md180.pdf
>
> The following are links to Robinson's ARRB diagrams:
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/html/md88_0003a.htm
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/html/md88_0004a.htm
>
> Additional testimony concerning the JFK craniotomy at
> Bethesda is contained in pages 57-59 of the ARRB
> deposition of Bethesda technician Edward Reed at the
> following link:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Reed_10-21-97/html/Reed_0006b.htm
>
> So then, Mr. Marsh, given Mr. Horne's reliance on the
> testimony set out above for the proposition that JFK's
> head wound was the same upon arrival at Bethesda as
It's not the same saying a secret arrival and a secret craniotomy as the
public arrive and public inspection, in front of the FBI agents who were
taking notes. That is still a body alteration there and thus Horne is
revealed as a Liftonite.
> observed by the Parkland witnesses, and that the
> additional damage to JFK's head as depicted in the
> autopsy photos was the result of a craniotomy
> performed by the Bethesda pathologists, do you
> stand by your allegation that Mr. Horne is a
> "follower" of David Lifton and Professor Fetzer?
>
Yes.
So, tell me how a craniotomy removes a massive hole from the back of the
head which we do not see on the autopsy photos. Precisely.
> J. Keven Hofeling, Esq.
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
No, we use the term alterationist for someone who believes the Zapruder
film is a fake. I am not 100% sure that is what Horne thinks.
The Dutchman
> On 17 Dec 2009 13:40:37 -0500, The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com>
Hehe, thanks, Peter. Even if this board was 50% heat and 50% light, it
would still be illuminating, considering the tremendous aggregate
knowledge residing in the heads of members of this board!
Paul Rutan
I must agree. Without seeing the actual 8mm. However there is a
significant lack of blood when the so called Oswald bullet exits Jack's
face. None on Jackie, no blood anywhere. Hell, even Jackie is wearing
white gloves and thy are still spotless after the explosion. The whole
rear of that car should be covered with blood and brain matter.
Check it out. The film has been altered. Anyone with half a brain can See
that.
Paul
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>> Suddenly, all previous **expert** testimony is invalidated because two
>> guys have a different opinion? Puh-leeeze!
>> /sandy
And the world was once flat.
And no one saw the financial meltdown coming.
And Tiger Woods was one hell of a guy.
Lol!
Have a Happy Holiday!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Herbert Blenner
Upon arrival at the emergency room, President Kennedy had no pulse and
exhibited symptoms of circulatory collapse due to a sudden and massive
loss of blood. Initially the doctors observed blood and tissue oozing from
the head wound. During the attempted resuscitation, infusion of blood and
fluids caused profuse bleeding. When cardiac massage established
synthetic circulation, Dr. Jenkins observed a great rush of blood from the
skull with each compression of the chest. These observations show the
severity of the damage to the venous channels of Kennedy's skull and blood
vessels in his brain. The logical interference of this undisputed medical
evidence is a true Zapruder film would show a great rush of blood from
Kennedy's head with each post head shot beat of his heart. Without doubt,
this unchallenged medical evidence proves that we see a sanitized version
of the Zapruder film.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>>>>> primarily with Paul Rutan Jr., owner of Triage Labs, significant
You are substituting your imagination for science.
>
Sandy McCroskey
> On 20 Dec 2009 15:36:50 -0500, Paul Rutan <roadworshi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Suddenly, all previous **expert** testimony is invalidated because two
> >> guys have a different opinion? Puh-leeeze!
> >> /sandy
>
> And the world was once flat.
>
> And no one saw the financial meltdown coming.
>
> And Tiger Woods was one hell of a guy.
>
> Lol!
>
> Have a Happy Holiday!
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
For what it's worth, the earth never has been flat (I know that's not what
you meant); it is simply not true that no one saw the financial meltdown
coming (William Greider, for one, wrote a number of very prescient
articles in The Nation); and Tiger Woods's questionable character, as
reflected specifically in his ties to Chevron, was spotlighted a few years
ago by Dave Zirin (at TheNation.com). I guess not everyone is equally well
informed. LOL.
Seriously, now, I don't know why you think these two Hollywood film
restoration technicicans know more than other film experts who have
weighed in on the matter, but I'm pretty sure the only real reason is that
they endorse the hypothesis of conspiracy. In any case, since you're not
yourself any sort of film expert, the fact that you are sure they are
right does not count for much.
/Sandy
The Dutchman
Isn't it a big difference between lying down and sitting up in the
back seat? The heart has to resist gravity when JFK's in the car. Just
saying.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you conveniently ignore the fact that JFK remained upright immediately
following the head shot while at Parkland he was laying on a guerney. Once
he toppled over into Jackie's lap, he did bleed profusely from the head.
Gravity does play a role in the flow of blood. Charges of Z-film
manipulation are absolutely ludicrous.
John McAdams
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Dec 20, 7:31=A0pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Dec 2009 15:36:50 -0500, Paul Rutan <roadworshi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Suddenly, all previous **expert** testimony is invalidated because two
>> >> guys have a different opinion? Puh-leeeze!
>> >> /sandy
>>
>> And the world was once flat.
>>
>> And no one saw the financial meltdown coming.
>>
>> And Tiger Woods was one hell of a guy.
>>
>> Lol!
>>
>> Have a Happy Holiday!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
>For what it's worth, the earth never has been flat (I know that's not what
>you meant); it is simply not true that no one saw the financial meltdown
>coming (William Greider, for one, wrote a number of very prescient
>articles in The Nation);
The problem with this is there are always a bunch of analysts
predicting "the coming crash."
Eventually, it happens, and those analysts are "vindicated."
But then nobody notices the four or five or six crashes they predicted
that didn't happen.
>and Tiger Woods's questionable character, as
>reflected specifically in his ties to Chevron, was spotlighted a few years
>ago by Dave Zirin (at TheNation.com). I guess not everyone is equally well
>informed. LOL.
>
Huh? He was evil for having ties with Chevron?
>Seriously, now, I don't know why you think these two Hollywood film
>restoration technicicans know more than other film experts who have
>weighed in on the matter, but I'm pretty sure the only real reason is that
>they endorse the hypothesis of conspiracy. In any case, since you're not
>yourself any sort of film expert, the fact that you are sure they are
>right does not count for much.
>
>
This reminds me of Mike Griffith, who specialized in finding "experts"
who would find the autopsy photos and the Backyard Photos faked.
Somehow, none of them had real credentials in photo analysis. They
did things like work in photo labs.
.John
Sandy McCroskey
> On 20 Dec 2009 15:36:50 -0500, Paul Rutan <roadworshi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Suddenly, all previous **expert** testimony is invalidated because two
> >> guys have a different opinion? Puh-leeeze!
> >> /sandy
>
> And the world was once flat.
>
> And no one saw the financial meltdown coming.
>
> And Tiger Woods was one hell of a guy.
>
Off-topic comment: recently saw a NY Post headline, "Tiger Woods paid
for sex with hookers."
Well, I should hope so!
It would be scandalous if he skipped out without paying.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Any expertise they have does not pertain to Double 8 mm film. Roland
Zavada is the expert on that format.
> /Sandy
>
Sandy McCroskey
You mean Chevron isn't evil for dumping toxic waste on poor people
around the world (and right here in the US too)?
And what about the partnership with Burma's military junta?
We all have our own definitions for "evil," I guess.
/sm
John McAdams
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 4:28�pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 21 Dec 2009 16:10:06 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
>>
>> >and Tiger Woods's questionable character, as
>> >reflected specifically in his ties to Chevron, was spotlighted a few years
>> >ago by Dave Zirin (at TheNation.com). I guess not everyone is equally well
>> >informed. LOL.
>>
>> Huh? �He was evil for having ties with Chevron?
>>
>
>You mean Chevron isn't evil for dumping toxic waste on poor people
>around the world (and right here in the US too)?
>And what about the partnership with Burma's military junta?
>We all have our own definitions for "evil," I guess.
>
OK, but I somehow suspect that you folks at THE NATION could find any
capitalistic corporation to be "evil."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Herbert Blenner
> >>>>> primarily with Paul Rutan Jr., owner of Triage Labs, significant
Readers should note that Anthony Marsh frequently employs his jab and run
tactic when lacking evidence to counter an argument of an opponent. As a
demonstration of the truthfulness of my previous remark, I post the four
sentences that support the conclusions of my earlier post and follow each
individual sentence with the underlying evidence.
I invite Anthony Marsh and anyone else post testimonies, which counter the
ones that I have posted. Go for it and show readers that there are other
cherries to pick.
1. Upon arrival at the emergency room, President Kennedy had no pulse and
exhibited symptoms of circulatory collapse due to a sudden and massive
loss of blood.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Carrico
Mr. SPECTER - Who was the first doctor to reach President Kennedy on
his arrival at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. CARRICO - I was.
Mr. SPECTER - And who else was with President Kennedy on his arrival,
as best you can recollect it?
Dr. CARRICO - Mrs. Kennedy was there, .and there were some men in the
room, who I assumed were Secret Service men; I don't know.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you identify any nurses who were present, in
addition to Miss Bowron?
Dr. CARRICO - No, I don't recall any of them.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's condition
upon his arrival?
Dr. CARRICO - He was lying on a carriage, his respirations were slow,
spasmodic, described as agonal.
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by "agonal" if I may interrupt you for
just a moment there, Doctor?
Dr. CARRICO - These are respirations seen in one who has lost the
normal coordinated central control of respiration. These are spasmodic
and usually reflect a terminal patient.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the
President?
Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he
was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous
movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt
and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower
third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats,
felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking chest
wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head. The large
skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a
little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of
the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and
cerebellar tissue. The pupils were inspected and seemed to be
bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time,
because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury,
a cuffed endotracheal tube was introduced, employing a larynzo scope.
Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the
larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal
injury. The endotracheal tube was inserted past this injury, the cuff
inflated, and the tube was connected to a respirator to assist the
inadequate respiration. At about this point the nurse reported that no
blood pressure was obtained.
End of quotation.
2. Initially the doctors observed blood and tissue oozing from the head
wound. During the attempted resuscitation, infusion of blood and fluids
caused profuse bleeding.
Source: WCR
Dr. Carrico noted two wounds: a small bullet wound in the front lower
neck, and an extensive wound in the President's head where a sizable
portion of the skull was missing. He observed shredded brain tissue
and "considerable slow oozing" from the latter wound, followed by
"more profuse bleeding" after some circulation was established.
End of quotation.
3. When cardiac massage established synthetic circulation, Dr. Jenkins
observed a great rush of blood from the skull with each compression of
the chest.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Jenkins
Mr. SPECTER - Now, will you now describe the wound which you observed
in the head?
Dr. JENKINS - . . . Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac
massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound,
because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of
blood from the skull wound.
. . .
Mr. SPECTER - May the record show that we are back on the record and
Dr. Jenkins has made an interesting observation about the time of the
declaration of death, and I will ask you, Dr. Jenkins, for you to
repeat for the record what you have just said off the record.
Dr. JENKINS - As the resuscitative maneuvers were begun, such as
"chest cardiac massage," there was with each compression of the
sternum, a gush of blood from the skull wound, which indicated there
was massive vascular damage in the skull and the brain, as well as
brain tissue damage, and we recognized by this time that the patient
was beyond the point of resuscitation, that he was in fact dead, and
this was substantiated by getting a silent electrical pattern on the
electrocardiogram, the cardioscope that was connected up.
End of quotation.
4. These observations show the severity of the damage to the venous
channels of Kennedy's skull and blood vessels in his brain.
Source: WC testimonies
Mr. SPECTER - And what else did you state at the press conference at
2:30 on November 22?
Dr. CLARK - I stated that the President had lost considerable blood,
that one of the contributing causes of death was this massive blood
loss . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER - What was the cause of death in your opinion?
Dr. McCLELLAND - The cause of death, I would say, would be massive
head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar
tissues and massive blood loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER - Well, what questions were asked of you and what
responses did you give at that press conference?
Dr. PERRY - . . . As regards the cause of death, Dr. Clark and I
concurred that massive brain trauma with attendant severe hemorrhage
was the underlying cause of death, . . .
End of testimonies.
Conclusions. The logical interference of this undisputed medical evidence
Herbert Blenner
You ignore the fact the several eyewitnesses saw blood running down
President Kennedy's head during the few seconds between the head shot and
his collapse. The failure of the Zapruder or the Nix film to show this
flowing blood is further evidence of manipulation of both films.
When Kennedy arrived at Parkland the doctors observed no pulse and
observed no more than a slow oozing of blood. They noted agonal effects at
respiration. These symptoms are consistent with the terminal stage of
bleeding to death.
If gravity had a significant effect upon bleeding from the head then the
Parkland doctors would have elevated Kennedy as they infused blood and
attempted to control the induced bleeding.
> Charges of Z-film manipulation are absolutely ludicrous.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/backward.htm
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
You forget that gravity assists the flow of blood from the head to the
heart as much as gravity opposes the flow of blood from the heart to the
head. The net result is position of a victim has little effect upon
hemorrhage.
Herbert
bigdog
You can spin it all you want. Claims of Z-film alteration are pure
nonsense and your attempts to dress them up with your usual techno- babble
do nothing to make them any less nonsensical. It amounts to nothing more
than putting lipstick on a pig.