This head shot has given me quite a headache. But, finally, I have solved it. The reason this head shot makes no sense is that it did not happen. This was a meticulously planned murder, and they planned to fake this head shot before Zapruder got up on the pedestal. It didn't come from the back and it didn't come from the front. There is no shot at all in frame 313. I don't mean to say that this frame was created in a studio, though it was tarted up with gore to make it look convincing. This is a real frame from a real film shot while Kennedy was being murdered. There just isn't any shot in this frame, and there hadn't been a shot since frame 304 when Greer plugged JFK his first time. The shot was faked in a most ingenious way.
The plan, as executed by the assassins, was to fake a forward motion in JFK by means of a remotely-detonated explosive device sewn into JFK's back brace. It was detonated by William Greer, and you can see his right index finger still extended to the button in frame 312. The explosion damaged the back brace, leaving a tear and powder burns, as can be seen in the Warren Commission photo of the back brace. The resulting detonation can be observed in the Nix film. It has been edited out in the Zapruder film. Perhaps the resulting motion to JFK's body did not look right, which would explain why the editor "pasted" in JFK in the frames preceding the fake shot. I realize, of course, that it was not photoshopped, and that there were different technical means employed in those days, but I'm trying to keep this simple. At various times in these frames, Jackie's lapel and hair can be seen through a semi-transparent JFK. Since there are no sworn statements claiming that JFK was in a semi-transparent state on November 22, 1963, I think we can safely assume that this is proof that the Zapruder film was faked, if any more proof was needed. JFK, therefore, was not thrown backwards by the effect of any shot. His loving wife was blasting away at his genitals, and that is what caused him to lurch back. I imagine that does that to a guy. The evidence of this is the cloud of smoke which appears with the faked head shot. There would be no reason to fake a cloud of smoke. Also, Jackie, during this time, seems oddly unconcerned with making any personal connection with her husband by looking at his face, Instead, she busily gets to work on his lower abdomen. I think a shot to the balls is most likely. Why would she do such a thing? Read Seymour Hersh's book, and you'll get the idea. Was JFK really that bad? I don't know. But, this is still murder, and the wife didn't do the murder part. It is our business.
> This head shot has given me quite a headache. But, finally, I have solved
> it. The reason this head shot makes no sense is that it did not happen.
> This was a meticulously planned murder, and they planned to fake this head
> shot before Zapruder got up on the pedestal. It didn't come from the back
> and it didn't come from the front. There is no shot at all in frame 313. I
> don't mean to say that this frame was created in a studio, though it was
> tarted up with gore to make it look convincing. This is a real frame from
> a real film shot while Kennedy was being murdered. There just isn't any
> shot in this frame, and there hadn't been a shot since frame 304 when
> Greer plugged JFK his first time. The shot was faked in a most ingenious
> way.
You're not trying hard enough, newbie.
I had a kook tell me that while JFK was hidden behind the sign all the SS agents in the Queen Mary ran up and shot JFK in the head. The Walt Disney painted the rest of the frames himself to make everything look normal until frame 313.
Yeah? Cool. Some clown told me pictures of Officer Haygood can't be him because his friend told him the Booby Hargis was the only Dallas cop who could possibly be wearing gloves. Not only that, but he copyrighted the Single Glove Theory in 1995. I dunno. Sumthin about the JFK assassination brings the nuts out.
In article <9f9a9326-6d58-4ff2-af68-c262b44ac7c5@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> The plan, as executed by the assassins, was to fake a forward motion in > JFK by means of a remotely-detonated explosive device sewn into JFK's back > brace.
Ok, I get what you're doing now. You're trying to get a reaction by saying just anything that comes fleetingly into your mind about this assassination.
In another thread that was called "trolling" or some such thing, and the moderators did allow another poster to directly call "Research" a "troll" just the other day.
In article <5b230325-ec1a-402f-80bb-dab2846997a7@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lesson 1.
> This head shot has given me quite a headache.
Quite a few things about this assassination appear to have given you a headache, such as determining which way is north in Dealey Plaza, a place you appear to have never set foot in in your entire life.
> But, finally, I have solved > it.
Uh-huh. Your various "solutions" to various matters in this assassination are the product of an extremely overactive imagination. Let's see, what have all the permutations been by now? Oh yes, first Connally was holding a soda bottle, then you changed it to him putting a gun in his pocket, then you changed it again to him withdrawing the gun to shoot JFK, and most recently it has become an exploding back brace. How JFK didn't notice the explosives attached to his back brace when he put it on that morning is beyond the realm of plausibility, but I'm sure you'll come up with a highly-entertaining explanation for that as well.
> The reason this head shot makes no sense is that it did not happen.
So when people like Abraham Zapruder and Bill Newman said they saw his head explode open, they were lying? Isn't that your usual way of wriggling out of such things? Whenever someone said anything that is consistent with your beliefs, they were telling the truth, and whenever it's inconsistent with your beliefs they were lying? Isn't that the only criteria you usually use to separate fact from fiction, your own personal beliefs and nothing else?
> This was a meticulously planned murder, and they planned to fake this head > shot before Zapruder got up on the pedestal.
Wow, you've got all the answers now. Everybody, we need to just all sit back and watch this amazing explosion of insight.
> It didn't come from the back > and it didn't come from the front. There is no shot at all in frame 313. I > don't mean to say that this frame was created in a studio, though it was > tarted up with gore to make it look convincing. This is a real frame from > a real film shot while Kennedy was being murdered. There just isn't any > shot in this frame, and there hadn't been a shot since frame 304 when > Greer plugged JFK his first time. The shot was faked in a most ingenious > way.
Which you seem unable to explain in any even remotely plausible way.
But hey, that has never stopped you before.
Btw, have you finally figured out which direction is north in Dealey Plaza? Or are you still under the delusion that Main runs north-south and that the Triple Underpass runs east-west?
In article <9155f8f9-f0a1-4e20-94c8-794232785781@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yeah? Cool. Some clown told me pictures of Officer Haygood can't be him > because his friend told him the Booby Hargis was the only Dallas cop who > could possibly be wearing gloves. Not only that, but he copyrighted the > Single Glove Theory in 1995. I dunno. Sumthin about the JFK assassination > brings the nuts out.
It sure does. Along those lines I have found the following assertions, all made by one poster in this newsgroup, to be quite entertaining:
John Connally is seen to be holding a soda bottle in the Zapruder film.
Later changed to:
Connally is seen putting a gun in his pocket.
Later changed to:
Connally is seen withdrawing a gun from his pocket.
Here's another good one:
JFK's back brace was rigged with explosives (which he apparently didn't notice when he put it on that morning).
And:
A man with a rifle is seen on the Triple Underpass bridge in the Cabluck photo. The assertion is that prior to the photo being taken the man fired at the limousine with the rifle from a point past the end of the bridge, which would require him to then carry his rifle onto the bridge and lay it against the railing immediately after the last shot was fired, or else he would not be able to reach that location in time to be captured in the photo. (Never mind that several witnesses went to the same end of the bridge immediately after the shooting to go around behind the knoll fence, requiring them to pass right by the shooter as he is coming onto the bridge in the opposite direction, yet none of these witnesses see anyone carrying a rifle even though the shooter was carrying it in full view.)
And:
The Triple Underpass bridge runs east-west, meaning the Cabluck photo was of the north side of the bridge, which would also require Main to go through Dealey Plaza and under the same bridge as a north-south street.
(In reality, the vast majority of posters in this newsgroup, including the vast majority of CTs, have known perfectly well for years that the Triple Underpass runs much closer to north-south, and all three streets that pass through Dealey Plaza are much closer to being east-west streets than north-south streets.)
And:
William Greer (or the bridge shooter) shot Connally in the back when the Connally was turned somewhat away from him, which would require a left to right path through Connally's torso given the position Connally was in at the time. (In reality the path was right to left through his torso.)
John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <9f9a9326-6d58-4ff2-af68-c262b44ac7c5@googlegroups.com>,
> fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The plan, as executed by the assassins, was to fake a forward motion in
>> JFK by means of a remotely-detonated explosive device sewn into JFK's back
>> brace.
> Ok, I get what you're doing now. You're trying to get a reaction by
> saying just anything that comes fleetingly into your mind about this
> assassination.
> In another thread that was called "trolling" or some such thing, and the
> moderators did allow another poster to directly call "Research" a
> "troll" just the other day.
These guys are nutters, trying to parodize conspiracy believers (AKA almost everybody on the planet:-)
Unfortunately, they just don't have the comic skills to get a laugh. I haven't seen a truly funny nutter since Jim Rathman bailed shortly after I showed him the 285 shot and faxed him Stroscio's letter of endorsement:-)
On Monday, October 15, 2012 9:26:49 PM UTC-4, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yeah? Cool. Some clown told me pictures of Officer Haygood can't be him
> because his friend told him the Booby Hargis was the only Dallas cop who
> could possibly be wearing gloves. Not only that, but he copyrighted the
> Single Glove Theory in 1995. I dunno. Sumthin about the JFK assassination
> brings the nuts out.
First of all, I'm not Tony's "friend". Second of all, I never made any such statement as "Booby Hargis was the only Dallas cop who could possibly be wearing gloves". At the time I did my research late 1979 into 1980, and pointed out Hargis' gloves, films and photos taken before, during and after the assassination were very limited. For one thing, the Internet didn't exist, and for a second thing, only a small handful of people actually owned prints, slides and films, and we didn't have access to the Cabluck photographs that I am aware of. I happily admit to my mistake in my claim that Hargis was the only motorcycle cop wearing gloves that day. Obviously I was WRONG.
Somebody actually who responds to something! I think I'm in love. The obnoxiousness of my post was not directed at you, but at that fellow who is not your friend, and I intended it only in the context of his statements, not yours. I only wish that he would admit to the obvious facts as easily as you do.
In article <2a77dd07-4234-49b8-b91c-19fbdd5ebd30@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Somebody actually who responds to something! I think I'm in love.
I've responded to plenty that you've said. And you've avoided the most salient points I've raised. Here's just one of them, yet again:
You have John Connally being shot from the front. I can't tell if you think he was shot by your bridge shooter or by Greer, since you keep changing and changing and changing your scenario week after week after week. But whatever: bridge shooter or Greer, you still haven't explained, even though I've brought it up to you again and again and again, how the trajectory through Connally's torso works when his *actual* wounds indicated a right to left trajectory through his torso, and both of your shooters would have the bullet going through his torso in a left to right trajectory.
You also have still failed to admit your obvious mistake when you said to me, of all people, that I don't know north from south in Dealey Plaza, and that the Cabluck photo shows the north side of the bridge, when in reality there is no "north side" of that bridge, since I was indeed correct from the beginning when I said that the bridge itself runs much closer to north-south than to east-west. So there would only be an east side and a west side to that bridge.
In one article you said you rarely read what I say because I, er, "throw bull." In reality it is transparently obvious why you refuse to address these points of mine directly: because you are unable to refute these obvious flaws in your scenario.
I also find it fascinating that you say that you think you're "in love" with a poster who has just admitted a possible mistake, yet you refuse and refuse and refuse to admit a much more *obvious* mistake of your own regarding which direction is north in Dealey Plaza.
A continued refusal to admit that will obviously be seen, even by the majority of your own fellow CTs, as a lapse in your own credibility.
> The > obnoxiousness of my post was not directed at you, but at that fellow who is > not your friend, and I intended it only in the context of his statements, not > yours. I only wish that he would admit to the obvious facts as easily as you > do.
Strange that you wish that of Steve, but you still refuse, and refuse, and refuse to admit the obvious *fact* that you were *wrong* about which way is north in Dealey Plaza. Why do you praise someone else for admitting their mistakes while failing to admit your own?
> > Somebody actually who responds to something! I think I'm in love.
> I've responded to plenty that you've said.
Yes, but you're a casserole. That's really all I can say, in the moderated group, anyway. I don't talk to casseroles unless I have to, and I don't have to talk to you.
In article <c59e77cd-5828-4e4c-875a-84db19e8ac92@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 19, 2012 10:32:16 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <2a77dd07-4234-49b8-b91c-19fbdd5ebd30@googlegroups.com>,
> > fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Somebody actually who responds to something! I think I'm in love.
> > I've responded to plenty that you've said.
> Yes, but you're a casserole. That's really all I can say, in the moderated > group, anyway. I don't talk to casseroles unless I have to, and I don't > have to talk to you.
Translation: You are utterly unable to refute the fundamental problems I've pointed out with your scenario, so you come up with some of the flimsiest excuses imaginable to avoid addressing them.
This damages your credibility even more than before, whether you admit it or not, and whether you realize it or not.
My credibility? Why would I care about that? I'm not running for political office. I'm not trying to sell a book. I'm not trying to get people to believe *me.* I'm saying that 2+2=4. Don't trust me. Just do the math and see for yourself. You, who refuse to do the math, need people to trust you if they are going to believe that 2+2=5. Credibility is your department, not mine. Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:24:16 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
But, if you'd like to try an experiment, Mr. John Reagor King, I'm willing. If you choose to humor me, you will restrict your comments to the narrow point of the blur in front of William Greer in Zapruder frame 318. Now, to be clear, by "in front of," I mean between Greer and Zapruder's camera. Surely, you will grant that there is a blur there. Surely, you will grant that such a blur must represent a real object. Surely. I say that it is Greer's left arm. I say that it can be nothing other than Greer's left arm. So, if you can, without changing the subject and talking about how absurd it would be to think that Greer shot Kennedy, tell me what it could possibly be, other than Greer's arm, then we could have our little experiment in discussion. If you are unable to that, then I do not care what you think about my credibility. Anyone who is unable to do that is unable to reason properly. So, what is it, this blur, Mr. John Reagor King? What is this object that is blurred? What could it possibly be, other than Greer's left arm? Huh?
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:55:06 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> Lesson 1.
> This head shot has given me quite a headache. But, finally, I have solved
> it.
What took you so long?
> The reason this head shot makes no sense is that it did not happen.
Do you expect to be taken seriously?
> This was a meticulously planned murder, and they planned to fake this head
> shot before Zapruder got up on the pedestal. It didn't come from the back
> and it didn't come from the front. There is no shot at all in frame 313.
Right. Everybody just imagined it. All the witnesses. The blood and brains splattered all over the limo and on the motorcylcle escort cops. The emergency team at Parkland. Everybody who reported a head wound was hallucinating.
> I
> don't mean to say that this frame was created in a studio, though it was
> tarted up with gore to make it look convincing. This is a real frame from
> a real film shot while Kennedy was being murdered. There just isn't any
> shot in this frame, and there hadn't been a shot since frame 304 when
> Greer plugged JFK his first time. The shot was faked in a most ingenious
> way.
Ingenious will never be used to describe one of your posts.
There was a head shot. It just wasn't in frame 313, bigdog. I certainly don't expect to be taken seriously by you, bigdog. Why don't you read some of John Reagor King's posts, bigdog. You'll love his stuff, bigdog.
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:58:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:55:06 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> > Lesson 1.
> > This head shot has given me quite a headache. But, finally, I have solved
> > it.
> What took you so long?
> > The reason this head shot makes no sense is that it did not happen.
> Do you expect to be taken seriously?
> > This was a meticulously planned murder, and they planned to fake this head
> > shot before Zapruder got up on the pedestal. It didn't come from the back
> > and it didn't come from the front. There is no shot at all in frame 313.
> Right. Everybody just imagined it. All the witnesses. The blood and brains splattered all over the limo and on the motorcylcle escort cops. The emergency team at Parkland. Everybody who reported a head wound was hallucinating.
> > I
> > don't mean to say that this frame was created in a studio, though it was
> > tarted up with gore to make it look convincing. This is a real frame from
> > a real film shot while Kennedy was being murdered. There just isn't any
> > shot in this frame, and there hadn't been a shot since frame 304 when
> > Greer plugged JFK his first time. The shot was faked in a most ingenious
> > way.
> Ingenious will never be used to describe one of your posts.
In article <1e642f9c-956d-47e4-86e0-2d4d8f2ef8dd@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> But, if you'd like to try an experiment, Mr. John Reagor King, I'm willing. > If you choose to humor me, you will restrict your comments to the narrow > point of the blur in front of William Greer in Zapruder frame 318. Now, to be > clear, by "in front of," I mean between Greer and Zapruder's camera. Surely, > you will grant that there is a blur there. Surely, you will grant that such a > blur must represent a real object.
Yes indeed, and I've told you what it quite obviously is, since it is seen in many other frames as well: the reflection of sunlight on the flat top of Roy Kellerman's head.
> Surely. I say that it is Greer's left arm.
I see no evidence that Greer's left arm moves anywhere near that far away from the steering wheel at any point.
> I say that it can be nothing other than Greer's left arm.
Yes, you have decided, and you will stubbornly stick to your decision no matter what credible evidence is presented to the contrary.
> So, if you can, > without changing the subject and talking about how absurd it would be to > think that Greer shot Kennedy, tell me what it could possibly be, other than > Greer's arm, then we could have our little experiment in discussion.
I've already told you repeatedly what it really is over a period of many weeks, and have done so again today. It is quite obvious when you look at more than one frame.
> If you > are unable to that, then I do not care what you think about my credibility.
I'm quite able to do it and have done it. Do you not care about what the majority of your own fellow CTs think about your credibility, since you're failing to convince them as well?
> Anyone who is unable to do that is unable to reason properly.
Pot/kettle.
> So, what is it, > this blur, Mr. John Reagor King? What is this object that is blurred? What > could it possibly be, other than Greer's left arm? Huh?
Already stated above, and in multiple previous replies to you over a period of more than a month.
In article <57dcc43c-faac-4a3e-ab7f-352c43348411@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> My credibility? Why would I care about that? I'm not running for political > office. I'm not trying to sell a book. I'm not trying to get people to > believe *me.*
Including the majority of your own fellow CTs.
> I'm saying that 2+2=4.
No, you are saying that 0.00002 + 0.00002 = 4, rather than the correct answer, which is 0.00004. In other words, whether you realize it or not, and whether you admit it or not, you are adding together extraordinarily flimsy bits of "evidence," erroneously stating them to be much more conclusive than they actually are, and then claiming them to add up to much more than they actually add up to in reality. To you, every little common, mundane blur of light and shadow becomes an object: a soda bottle in Connally's hand, morphing into a gun in his hand, and a reflection of sunlight that morphs into a gun in Greer's hand, and another blur that morphs into a hole in the windshield that wasn't there. So no, you are definitely not making 2 + 2 = 4, whether you realize it or not, whether you admit it or not.
> Don't trust me.
I certainly don't, as you routinely ignore all sorts of perfectly credible and reasonable evidence which smashes your scenarios to smithereens. You still refuse to explain how Skinny and his friends ran right past your bridge shooter as the latter was walking onto the bridge from the opposite direction without plainly seeing him carrying the rifle. You still refuse to admit that I was right all along when I said that bridge runs north-south, even though you were corrected on this weeks ago by one of your own fellow CTs as well as by me. You still refuse to explain how Connally being shot by either your bridge shooter or by Greer would result in the right to left trajectory through his torso that his wounds indicate, when a shot from either of your shooters would obviously result in a left to right trajectory through his torso. You have additionally put a soda bottle in Connally's hand, then changed that to him putting a pistol in his pocket, then changed it again to him withdrawing a pistol from his pocket.
Given all of this, why should I, or *anyone* with even *average* common sense, including the majority of your own fellow CTs, believe *anything* you say at this point, even regarding any other subject *besides* this assassination, unless the claim can be independently verified beyond your word?
> Just do the math and see > for yourself. You, who refuse to do the math,
Pot/kettle. You're the one quite obviously refusing to do the math, not me. You're the one refusing to even *attempt* to consider *all* of the evidence. You consider only a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the evidence, and then claim you've arrived at the truth, which you quite obviously have come nowhere close to doing in actual reality.
Even according to the majority of your own fellow CTs, who take you no more seriously than I do.
> need people to trust you if > they are going to believe that 2+2=5.
As I am claiming nothing even remotely close to being analogous to 2 + 2 = 5, that, uh, "criticism" of me by you is meaningless. You're the one using some sort of "new" mathematics previously unknown, where tiny fractions in the millionths add up to whole numbers.
> Credibility is your department, not > mine.
I'm not even slightly worried about my own credibility. You're the one who should be terrified of yours.
In article <7f71231e-909e-46af-8c28-0e4c4ce7a11e@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The dark blur in front of Greer in frame 318 is certainly not a reflection > of Kellerman's shiny hair. That is the stupidest thing you've said yet.
Oh, it's a "dark blur" now? And from nothing more than a "dark blur" you've come to the decision that that is Greer's *left* arm? Twisted around on the *right* side of his body?
Your history indicates you "see" all sorts of things in this film that plainly are not present.
OK. Experiment over. I'll stop responding to your inane comments, once again. I am overwhelmed by all the support provided by your fellow nutters, and I simply cannot fight them all. I hope your major new article adding up stuff works out well for you. Adieu! Adieu!
