Z-Film Altered. Moorman and Jean Hill in the Street.
Greg Jaynes
Z-Film Altered. Moorman and Jean Hill in the Street.
Zapruder film as we know it an alteration:
Just on the face of it, it's a ridiculus concept.
I watched the following for this grow as a case
study of mass hysteria.
But there are many ridiculus ideas and I don't
spend a lot of time on them. But I have something
to offer here so I will.
As usual take it or leave it.
I can't promise that the witness to this will back me up.
But there was a witness. Please believe me, if I was
going to make up a witness, I would pick someone else.
The witness was Mark Oakes.
Has anyone heard the Z-film alteration guys claiming Jean
Hill and Mary Moorman were standing in the street and
not where we see them in the Z-film?
I asked Jean Hill if she or Mary Moorman were ever in the
street as the Zapruder film was shot. (Actually a discussion
and multiple questions)
I parked behind the fence and walked up to the pergola
and around to the "retaining wall". Jean Hill was standing
there talking to Mark Oakes. This was before he started
his several years long hate fest back stabbing campaign
against me. And it was around the time this claim about
them being in the street first came to my attention.
I asked Jean Hill point blank to her face if she and Mary
Moorman were in the street at any point during the
assassination. Neither she nor Oakes had heard this
claim by this time and they both looked at me like
I was asking some stupid ass question. I made some
brief explanation it about being mentioned on the internet.
Jean Hill told me point blank to my face that neither she
or Mary Moorman were ever in the street during the
assassination.
Whatever else is there to prove the Z-Film is faked,
I've had this one scratched off my list for a long time.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
Barb Junkkarinen
Hey there, sweet thang, you have been away toooo long.
Fetzer, White and their merry band have been claiming Moorman taking
her pic from the street as one of their BIG "proofs" that the Z film
was altered for years. After many many discussions where it was
demonstrated their "work" was faulty and that other things tell us
Moorman was not in the street when she took her pic, Tink, me, Bill
Miller, Craig Lamson and Jerry Logasn decided to corral it all in one
article last year. (link below)
There was much gnashing of teeth and carrying on .... then they made
noises that maybe the Moorman photo itself was not what it should be
and had been altered as well. I kid you not.
Of course neither one was in the street when the shooting was going on
and she took her pic. Her pic alone tells that story as her pic
relative to the height of the cycle shows. They also would have been
run over by the outboard motorcycle as Altgen's 255 shows. But it was
their line of sight argument and their trip to DP with survey
equipment that got unraveled.
They have a whole list of "proofs" ... the Moorman in the street one
fell, as have others, but not all have been corraled into an article
yet. The latest to fall was just the other day when Lifton's claim
that the film we have couldn't have been shot from Z's camera as Z's
camera was incapable of "full flush left" ...
Anyway, here's the links to the Moorman-in-the-Street? article, and
also a link to the thread on the "full flush left" thing.
http://www.jfklancer.com/moorman_essay.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15326&st=0
Stick around, or at least pop in more often, eh?
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
bigdog
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The real question is why anyone would have bothered to "move" Hill and
Moorman out of the street and onto the grass. How would that have
changed in any material way what happened to JFK?
Greg Jaynes
wrote:
Hi Barb,
Hmmmm.... Let's see:
> http://www.jfklancer.com/moorman_essay.html
White, Fetzer, Thomas, Mack - (with regards to Blakey)
if any of those guys tell me it's twelve o' clock, I'm gonna
check my watch.
But let's see what this is;
Josiah Thompson who wrote ; Six Seconds in Dallas
Vs
Jim Fetzer who has a couple of his own to answer for.
Now, these titans of inquiry get to split up the team of Jack White
and Gary Mack as their technical advisors.
This reads like a bad script. But to treat it at face value;
In this case,
> http://www.jfklancer.com/moorman_essay.html
there's a lot to read and understand. My singletasking
mind is currently overwhelmed with NBA point spreads.
But I'll take your word for it Barb that they did it right.
Especially since I already know the conclusion is true.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
yeuhd
> The real question is why anyone would have bothered to "move" Hill and
> Moorman out of the street and onto the grass. How would that have
> changed in any material way what happened to JFK?
Per conspiracy theories, supposedly it was only a collateral error of a
larger image manipulation involving JFK and the limousine.
However, the technology just wasn't there in 1963 to do such image
manipulation on an 8mm film without it being painfully obvious. A reversal
film like Kodachrome was intended to be seen in its camera original, and
was not designed to be copied. The image structure (thickness of emulsion
layers, etc.) is such that even a one- generation copy of 8mm Kodachrome
shows significant image degradation.
Herbert Blenner
> Z-Film Altered. Moorman and Jean Hill in the Street.
>
> Zapruder film as we know it an alteration:
>
> Just on the face of it, it's a ridiculus concept.
> I watched the following for this grow as a case
> study of mass hysteria.
>
> But there are many ridiculus ideas and I don't
> spend a lot of time on them. But I have something
> to offer here so I will.
>
> As usual take it or leave it.
I have made a cropped 2x enlargement of Nix frame fifteen.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/nix152x.jpg
Nix-15 does not show green grass immediately behind the legs of Mary
Ann Moorman. Instead we see either a bald spot on the lawn or a
portion of the roadway forming the local horizon behind the legs.
If you can suggest a geometry to allow the unseen feet of Moorman
standing on the grass then please post an explanatory graphic.
Herbert
Barb Junkkarinen
They never answered that question, that I can recall, though asked
several times by several people. :-)
Barb :-)
Greg Jaynes
Don't you get it Herbert? It's the Nix film that's been altered.
It's the only one who's original cannot be accounted for.
RGJ
WhiskyJoe
> The real question is why anyone would have bothered
> to "move" Hill and Moorman out of the street and onto
> the grass. How would that have changed in any material
> way what happened to JFK?
So that no one would thing that Hill and Moorman were
woman of the street. They were trying to protect
JFK's reputation.
Herbert Blenner
Availability of a parent film cannot prove authenticity of a copy. For
this reason the absence of the parent to our copy of the Nix film is
not evidence of alteration.
Further an irreconcilable conflict between two films does not disprove
either film. This situation arises since either member of an untrue
pair maybe true.
The Zapruder film disproves itself. In particular omission of Z-313
from its numerical sequence stabilizes the motions of Toni Foster.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withoutz313.gif
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withz313.gif
Likewise the changing background surrounding Moorman's feet disprove
the Nix film.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/nix152x.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/films/nix/jpg/nix1-seq022.jpg
So Greg, tell me what did I not get?
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
You don't seem to understand the mindset of the alterationists. They
incorrectly think that the Zapruder film does not show what they need for
conspiracy and is hailed by WC defenders as proof that there is no
conspiracy, so they make up whatever anomaly of the month they can tie in
to prove that the Zapruder film is fake. That way they can substitute
their own theory of the shooting and claim that is what the REAL Zapruder
film originally showed or SHOULD have known if it were real.
John Fiorentino
While there was of course, no alteration to the Z-film. Hill did at least
once claim she jumped out in the street. I have that documented.
So, while the idea of a Z-film alteration is whacky, so was Hill.
John F.
"Greg Jaynes" <jay...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cb3049ec-ea0b-4437...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 26, 11:40 pm, Greg Jaynes<jay...@mail.com> wrote:
>> Z-Film Altered. Moorman and Jean Hill in the Street.
>>
>> Zapruder film as we know it an alteration:
>>
>> Just on the face of it, it's a ridiculus concept.
>> I watched the following for this grow as a case
>> study of mass hysteria.
>>
>> But there are many ridiculus ideas and I don't
>> spend a lot of time on them. But I have something
>> to offer here so I will.
>>
>> As usual take it or leave it.
>
> I have made a cropped 2x enlargement of Nix frame fifteen.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/nix152x.jpg
>
Is this a contest to produce the worst possible quality frame? Can I
play too? Ok, I'll find an extreme blow-up of a picture of a President
and see if you can guess who it is.
> Nix-15 does not show green grass immediately behind the legs of Mary
> Ann Moorman. Instead we see either a bald spot on the lawn or a
> portion of the roadway forming the local horizon behind the legs.
>
More nonsense. Are you playing the alterationist game just for fun?
Can I play too? Ok, look at that coat. Does it look RED to you? No,
therefor the Nix film was altered, therefore that proves that the
Zapruder film was altered. See how easy it is?
> If you can suggest a geometry to allow the unseen feet of Moorman
> standing on the grass then please post an explanatory graphic.
>
Garbage.
Take your horrible quality graphics and show them off to the JPEG forum.
You don't have the 8 mm copy of the Nix film, do you? So you make up crap.
> Herbert
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
It doesn't matter since they said they were in the street at sometime,
and it's not noted in film.
From Spartacus__________________________
A Polaroid photograph taken by Dallas resident Mary Ann Moorman on Elm
Street in Dealey Plaza, Dallas on November 22, 1963 shows the
President slumping in reaction to a gunshot, as well as the infamous
"grassy knoll" in the background.
Moorman had driven to Dealey Plaza with her friend, Jean Lollis Hill,
to see the presidential motorcade. They chose a location on the south
side of Elm Street, down the hill from the Texas School Book
Depository, where there were few spectators to block their view...
The Dallas Times-Herald, published on the day of the assassination,
reported that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were standing in the street
when Mary took her photograph. Moorman herself repeated the claim when
interviewed by Charley Jones on News Radio 1080 KRLD, broadcast live
from The Sixth Floor Museum in 1997.
The Zapruder film, however, shows her standing still on the grass at
the time she snapped the Polaroid. Jean Hill told authorities after
the assassination that she had called to the President to get his
attention, a claim repeated by Mary Moorman herself in the Discovery
Channel special. In a 1965 letter to historian Richard B. Trask, Hill
stated that she had "jumped into the street and yelled, 'Mr.
President, we want to take your picture!'" This is rather striking,
because the Zapruder film shows Hill standing completely still on the
grass, with hands clasped, and only snapping her head toward the
President at the last moment. It constitutes a proof that the film has
been faked on its own.
Mary Moorman stated that she stepped into the street to take her
photograph. Jean Hill stated that she stepped into the street with her
to get the President's attention. The reconstruction photograph
confirms that Mary was standing in the street when she took her
photograph. As the Zapruder film shows the women standing only on the
grass, this proves that, at the very least, frames have been removed
from the film. And that, in turn, is more than enough evidence to
prove the lack of authenticity of the Zapruder film...
Since the Zapruder film shows Mary standing on the grass at the very
instant that she took her photograph, it also proves that this 27-
second home movie - which many take to be the closest thing to
"absolute truth" in the assassination - has been subject to
alteration.
Mary and Jean wore dark shoes that day. Since their clothes were
seemingly very colored and 'unchanged', that sure seems like a dead
ringer for alteration much more than where they could have been for
the actual shots.
BTW, did Toni Foster wear white shoes that day?
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Have you seen the new movie Avatar? If the same technology had been used
on the Zapruder film, do you think you would be able to spot it as a
special effect? Remember the little mistakes they made in Star Wars? I
was lucky enough to see some rushes of that before it came out and even
I could see some of their errors.
Anthony Marsh
All good arguments which don't even make a dent in the alterationists.
They just counter that the CIA had Top Secret technology in 1963 far in
advance of what you claim was only available later. Do you think it
could be faked today given all the techniques available today? Then the
alterationists say the CIA had that same technology in their Ultra Top
Secret photo lab in 1963. Don't try simplistic arguments against
simplistic minds.
paul seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b61a08c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
[..]
> You don't seem to understand the mindset of the alterationists. They
> incorrectly think that the Zapruder film does not show what they need for
> conspiracy and is hailed by WC defenders as proof that there is no
> conspiracy, so they make up whatever anomaly of the month they can tie in
> to prove that the Zapruder film is fake. That way they can substitute
> their own theory of the shooting and claim that is what the REAL Zapruder
> film originally showed or SHOULD have known if it were real.
Seems to me we are each of us obviously free to take any starting point we
like on the " X % of the evidence is fake " continuum. I suppose it is
even theoretically possible that it's ALL fake. In fact, since I have
never been to Dealey Plaza, & never met John Kennedy or L H Oswald, it's
POSSIBLE from my POV that Dealey Plaza is a totally fictional location &
there never was a US president called Kennedy. All the evidence for THOSE
things could be fake. The whole of reality could be 'fake'. Somebody
could have faked it all and just be trying to fool me.....
But of course the trouble with that is, it leaves you no solid starting
point for all for believing ANYTHING - so I would suggest that the most
reasonable place to start would be with the strong presumption that NONE
of the evidence is fake, & just see if it's even possible to come up with
plausible scenarios that fit that evidence as is . Only to the extent that
that proves to be impossible should we even consider starting to look at
the evidence for evidence of ..um.. evidence fakery.
Another observation : Once people begin to entertain the idea of maybe
even just a teeny weeny little bit of 'faked evidence' ( because there's
something about the evidence 'as is' that crucifies their pet theory, for
eg ) , it does seem to be the thin end of the wedge because before you
know it they tend to be off declaring *bucketloads* of inconvenient
evidence 'faked'. Which brings me back to Mantik. Seems to me that ( at
least in MIDP) he didn't actually go so far as to claim the x-rays had
been altered more than in the addition of the 6.5mm metal frag to the AP
and in the addition of some suspicious 'extra' OD to the laterals. But
Mantiks' followers haven't been nearly so cautious. They (as a group) tend
to be off merrily reworking those things like Michelangelo before you can
say 'optical densitometer'. And then before you turn round, they have
decided the autopsy *photos* must be fake too. And just when you are
scratching your head & thinking hold on a second, they are insisting that
, of course, the Z film has been reworked like Mary Poppins with Dick Van
Dyck & a Cartoon racecourse.
Why ? really *because it makes everything so easy*.
Are you suffering from a non plausible theory that contradicts bucketloads
of known evidence ? Do your friends scoff at the way your pet scenarios
just don't fit the facts ? Well, Fear Not , researcher ! With just a dash
of New Improved Formula Family Size Evidence Fakery you can grind away
those stubborn facts and wash those irritating little impossibilities out
of your theory !!
It's all too EASY.
Rant Over
paul s
Anthony Marsh
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4b61a08c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> [..]
>
>> You don't seem to understand the mindset of the alterationists. They
>> incorrectly think that the Zapruder film does not show what they need
>> for conspiracy and is hailed by WC defenders as proof that there is no
>> conspiracy, so they make up whatever anomaly of the month they can tie
>> in to prove that the Zapruder film is fake. That way they can
>> substitute their own theory of the shooting and claim that is what the
>> REAL Zapruder film originally showed or SHOULD have known if it were
>> real.
>
> Seems to me we are each of us obviously free to take any starting point
> we like on the " X % of the evidence is fake " continuum. I suppose it
> is even theoretically possible that it's ALL fake. In fact, since I have
> never been to Dealey Plaza, & never met John Kennedy or L H Oswald, it's
> POSSIBLE from my POV that Dealey Plaza is a totally fictional location &
> there never was a US president called Kennedy. All the evidence for
> THOSE things could be fake. The whole of reality could be 'fake'.
> Somebody could have faked it all and just be trying to fool me.....
>
Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure. How do you know that YOU even exist? Maybe they
faked you too! ;]>
> But of course the trouble with that is, it leaves you no solid starting
> point for all for believing ANYTHING - so I would suggest that the most
As I have warned others many times before it is a slippery slope. It is
hard to stop once one starts claiming that evidence is fake.
> reasonable place to start would be with the strong presumption that NONE
> of the evidence is fake, & just see if it's even possible to come up
> with plausible scenarios that fit that evidence as is . Only to the
Just a side note. Evidence can be authentic, but not mean what one
particular person claims it means.
> extent that that proves to be impossible should we even consider
> starting to look at the evidence for evidence of ..um.. evidence fakery.
>
Another side note. Evidence can be genuine, but change or be tampered with
or even stolen. Some lead fragments are missing. CE 569 has changed
appearance over the years. John Hunt has written extensively about how
some evidence was not properly cataloged and some fragments changing. The
Hosty note was certainly genuine evidence and it was destroyed. Certain
documents were destroyed or altered, but were genuine at the time.
> Another observation : Once people begin to entertain the idea of maybe
> even just a teeny weeny little bit of 'faked evidence' ( because there's
> something about the evidence 'as is' that crucifies their pet theory,
> for eg ) , it does seem to be the thin end of the wedge because before
You'll notice a pattern that almost every kook with a wacky theory yells
fake ONLY when the evidence disproves his wacky theory. No one yells fake
when his wacky theory depends on the evidence being authentic.
> you know it they tend to be off declaring *bucketloads* of inconvenient
> evidence 'faked'. Which brings me back to Mantik. Seems to me that ( at
> least in MIDP) he didn't actually go so far as to claim the x-rays had
> been altered more than in the addition of the 6.5mm metal frag to the AP
> and in the addition of some suspicious 'extra' OD to the laterals. But
You also need to look at his various presentations at the research
conferences and also talk to him directly. His opinion might change from
year to year.
> Mantiks' followers haven't been nearly so cautious. They (as a group)
> tend to be off merrily reworking those things like Michelangelo before
> you can say 'optical densitometer'. And then before you turn round, they
> have decided the autopsy *photos* must be fake too. And just when you
> are scratching your head & thinking hold on a second, they are insisting
> that , of course, the Z film has been reworked like Mary Poppins with
> Dick Van Dyck & a Cartoon racecourse.
>
You may not believe this, but at the RI conference I had lunch with one
guy who has a theory that the head shot happened when Kennedy was behind
the sign and the rest of the Zapruder film was hand drawn by Walt Disney.
> Why ? really *because it makes everything so easy*.
>
> Are you suffering from a non plausible theory that contradicts
> bucketloads of known evidence ? Do your friends scoff at the way your
> pet scenarios just don't fit the facts ? Well, Fear Not , researcher !
> With just a dash of New Improved Formula Family Size Evidence Fakery you
> can grind away those stubborn facts and wash those irritating little
> impossibilities out of your theory !!
>
> It's all too EASY.
>
> Rant Over
>
Nice.
> paul s
Anthony Marsh
So what? They were never in the street during the shooting.
> From Spartacus__________________________
> A Polaroid photograph taken by Dallas resident Mary Ann Moorman on Elm
> Street in Dealey Plaza, Dallas on November 22, 1963 shows the
> President slumping in reaction to a gunshot, as well as the infamous
> "grassy knoll" in the background.
>
> Moorman had driven to Dealey Plaza with her friend, Jean Lollis Hill,
> to see the presidential motorcade. They chose a location on the south
> side of Elm Street, down the hill from the Texas School Book
> Depository, where there were few spectators to block their view...
>
> The Dallas Times-Herald, published on the day of the assassination,
> reported that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were standing in the street
> when Mary took her photograph. Moorman herself repeated the claim when
Nonsense.
> interviewed by Charley Jones on News Radio 1080 KRLD, broadcast live
> from The Sixth Floor Museum in 1997.
>
> The Zapruder film, however, shows her standing still on the grass at
> the time she snapped the Polaroid. Jean Hill told authorities after
And yet some kooks claim it doesn't.
> the assassination that she had called to the President to get his
> attention, a claim repeated by Mary Moorman herself in the Discovery
> Channel special. In a 1965 letter to historian Richard B. Trask, Hill
> stated that she had "jumped into the street and yelled, 'Mr.
Silly.
> President, we want to take your picture!'" This is rather striking,
> because the Zapruder film shows Hill standing completely still on the
> grass, with hands clasped, and only snapping her head toward the
> President at the last moment. It constitutes a proof that the film has
> been faked on its own.
>
Junk.
> Mary Moorman stated that she stepped into the street to take her
> photograph. Jean Hill stated that she stepped into the street with her
> to get the President's attention. The reconstruction photograph
No.
> confirms that Mary was standing in the street when she took her
> photograph. As the Zapruder film shows the women standing only on the
> grass, this proves that, at the very least, frames have been removed
> from the film. And that, in turn, is more than enough evidence to
> prove the lack of authenticity of the Zapruder film...
>
> Since the Zapruder film shows Mary standing on the grass at the very
> instant that she took her photograph, it also proves that this 27-
> second home movie - which many take to be the closest thing to
> "absolute truth" in the assassination - has been subject to
> alteration.
>
Not true. The photographic evidence always trumps witness testimony.
> Mary and Jean wore dark shoes that day. Since their clothes were
> seemingly very colored and 'unchanged', that sure seems like a dead
> ringer for alteration much more than where they could have been for
> the actual shots.
>
> BTW, did Toni Foster wear white shoes that day?
>
Anomaly of the month club member.
Did you look at the frame from the Nix film uploaded the other day? Did
that jacket look bright red to you? No, so obviously you have to claim
that the Nix film is a fake. And therefore you have to claim that all
the evidence is fake.
> CJ
>
Herbert Blenner
Oh, I was expecting you to post higher quality frames. But now I see
that your were only exercising your license to abuse other posters.
Herbert
>
>
>
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> Greg:
>
> While there was of course, no alteration to the Z-film. Hill did at
> least once claim she jumped out in the street. I have that documented.
>
So what? Never rely on witness statements.
curtjester1
>
> > The Dallas Times-Herald, published on the day of the assassination,
> > reported that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were standing in the street
> > when Mary took her photograph. Moorman herself repeated the claim when
>
> Nonsense.
>
Coming from a Z film authentisist, that's somethow not very compelling.
Pontificatting is not a defense. Did you know that Jean Hill was dating a
police officer who was in the motorcade? Some people have reasons to want
to get close.
> > Mary and Jean wore dark shoes that day. Since their clothes were
> > seemingly very colored and 'unchanged', that sure seems like a dead
> > ringer for alteration much more than where they could have been for
> > the actual shots.
>
> > BTW, did Toni Foster wear white shoes that day?
>
> Anomaly of the month club member.
> Did you look at the frame from the Nix film uploaded the other day? Did
> that jacket look bright red to you? No, so obviously you have to claim
> that the Nix film is a fake. And therefore you have to claim that all
> the evidence is fake.
>
I mean it's not like beige shoes...it's dark as in black...hmmm.
>
Still having problems with what witnesses said about their whereabouts
right after the shots like Curry, Stavis Ellis, James Chaney and what they
said, and why it's not on any film?
CJ
paul seaton
[..]
>>
>
> You may not believe this, but at the RI conference I had lunch with one
> guy who has a theory that the head shot happened when Kennedy was behind
> the sign and the rest of the Zapruder film was hand drawn by Walt Disney.
What makes you think I may not believe it ??
Given the amount of outright kookery in this particular field of endevour
I'd be amazed if you hadn't .. :-)
KEVEN
Such as the error in the following frame
of the Zapruder film (337) where we see
Jackie's shoulder over JFK's right ear
(where we should be seeing the top of
JFK's head)?
And yes, that really is Jaclie's shoulder
and not JFK's skull with the scalp torn
back as you can see in the following:
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/zq330342.gif
Keven
Greg Jaynes
Ok, Marsh. What do you have to say about that?
Where's the rest of his head?
RGJ
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15373&st=90
Scroll down to post #96 .... hope the blinking on and off outline
shows for you ... should.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
Could you possibly produce even worse quality frames so that we can't
see anything at all?
> RGJ
>
>
KEVEN
wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2010 17:44:00 -0500, KEVEN <J-KEVEN...@QWESTOFFICE.NET>
I think his outline is slightly larger, but even without
arguning the point, when we look at JFK's head
just a few frames earlier, as follows, we see the
outline of a totally intact head easily recognizable
as JFK:
http://www.jfk-online.com/Closeup_312-313.gif
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
Then, just a few seconds later, we have a half-
headed JFK. Where has the top of his head
gone, and why are we now seeing Jackie's
shoulder where the top of his head should be?
http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx306/Hinrichs7/337headshape.gif
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z335.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z337.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/zq330342.gif
And no, Z-335 and Z-337 are not showing us
damage consistent with the chunk of flesh
flipping out of the head during the Z-film
head shot sequence as follows (since it does
not blow the entire top of his head completely
away):
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/headshot3.gif
Note that the wound opening up in the Z-film
sequence above should look something like
the following Groden rendition of it (can you
believe those defending the Z-film expect us
to believe that Jackie closed up a wound like
the following so well that it was undetectable
to a room full of witnesses at Parkland, as
well as to most of the Bethesda witnesses?):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head1.jpg
In fact, when we look at the following autopsy
photos we see neither a JFK with the top of
his head blown off, nor a JFK with a huge
opening and closing bone door in his head.
Instead, the autopsy photos show us a
little potato chip sized piece of bone or
flesh hanging off the right side of his head:
http://sinoemedicalassociation.org/pathologylectures/JFK-autopsy.jpg
As a matter of fact, mortician Tom Robinson
gave the following description of JFK's head
wounds to the HSCA which completely and
totally contradict both of the Z-film versions
of the head wound:
QUOTE (except for that in dashed lines):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/...
ROBINSON:...I remember the bones of the skull
and face badly shattered.
PURDY: Where on the face were they shattered,
which of the bones?
ROBINSON: You cannot see that from the outside.
This is looking through the opening THAT THE
PHYSICIANS HAD MADE AT THE BACK OF THE
SKULL. (emphasis not in original)
PURDY: How big was that opening? Was it an
official opening?
ROBINSON: Well, there, of course, was an opening
from the bullets, BUT THEN THEY HAD ENLARGED
THAT. The brain had been removed, and you could
see it. (emphasis not in original)
PURDY: Could you tell how large the opening had
been caused by the bullets?
ROBINSON: Not really, well, I guess I can because
a good bit of the bone had been blown away. There
was nothing there to piece together, so I would say
PROBABLY (ABOUT THE SIZE OF) A SMALL
ORANGE. (emphasis not in original)
PURDY: Could you give us an estimate of inches
and the nature of the shape?
ROBINSON: Three.
PURDY: And the shape?
ROBINSON: Circular.
PURDY: Was it fairly smooth or fairly ragged?
ROBINSON: Ragged.
PURDY: Approximately where was this wound
located?
ROBINSON: Directly behind the back of the head.
PURDY: Approximately behind the ears or higher up?
ROBINSON: No, I would say pretty much between them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKIPPING TESTIMONY ABOUT TRACHEOTOMY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the
body which may not have been artificially caused, that is
caused by something other than the autopsy?
ROBINSON: Probably, A LITTLE MARK AT THE TEMPLES
IN THE HAIRLINE. As I recall, IT WAS SO SMALL IT COULD
BE HIDDEN BY THE HAIR. It didn't have to be covered with
make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of
the bullet that caused it.(emphasis not in original)
PURDY: In other words, THERE WAS A LITTLE WOUND.
(emphasis not in original)
ROBINSON: Yes.
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead
or part of the head was it on?
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.
PURDY: On his right side?
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.
PURDY: You say it was in the FOREHEAD REGION UP
NEAR THE HAIRLINE? (emphasis not in original)
ROBINSON: Yes.
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.
PURDY: Approximately what size?
ROBINSON: VERY SMALL, ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN INCH.
(emphasis not in original)
PURDY: QUARTER OF AN INCH IS ALL THE DAMAGE. HAD
IT BEEN CLOSED UP BY THE DOCTORS? (emphasis not in
original)
ROBINSON: NO, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO CLOSE IT. IF ANYTHING
I JUST WOULD HAVE PROBABLY PUT A LITTLE WAX ON IT.
(emphasis not in original)
END QUOTE:
Now based upon Tom Robinson's HSCA
interview, JFK at autopsy had a major
circular wound three (3) inches in diameter
in the back of his head, or the size of a
small orange, and a very small wound in
his right temple about a quarter inch in
diameter.
The following are Robinson's ARRB diagrams:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Robinson1.GIF
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Robinson2.GIF
So how are the Z-film defenders going to
explain this? Body alteration? Humes and
Boswell surgically reconstructed the head
so well that the head injuries we see
inflicted in the Z-film are now undetectable?
And why are Bethesda witnesses (in the
interviews and diagrams the HSCA tried to
classify top secret for fifty (50) years)
giving the following descriptions of JFK's
head wounds identical to the Parkland
descriptions and not like the versions
depicted by the Z-film, autopsy photos,
and x-rays?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md62/html/Image2.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md141/html/md141_0002a.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md194/html/md194_0002a.htm
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=328&relPageId=5
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=328&relPageId=11
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md65/html/md65_0004a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md65/html/md65_0016a.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/html/Image04.htm
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=327&relPageId=2
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/Image13.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Robinson1.GIF
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md85/html/md85_0009a.htm
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md86/html/md86_0011a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md148/html/md148_0001a.htm
And why do some of the Bethesda witnesses
describe the BOH wound as being larger than
the Parkland witnesses described it?
TOM ROBINSON'S ARRB INTERVIEW:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711
QUOTE
...-Removal of the President's Brain: Robinson drew
dotted lines on the drawing he executed of the
posterior skull which shows the wound between the
ears. When asked by ARRB staff what the dotted
lines represented, he said "saw cuts." HE EXPLAINED
THAT SOME SAWING WAS DONE TO REMOVE
SOME BONE BEFORE THE BRAIN COULD BE
REMOVED, AND THEN WENT ON TO DESCRIBE
WHAT IS A NORMAL CRANIOTOMY PROCEDURE,
SAYING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED
ON JFK. HE SEEMED TO REMEMBER THE USE OF
A SAW, AND THE SCALP BEING REFLECTED
FORWARD (emphasis not in original).
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Robinson1.GIF
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Robinson2.GIF
END QUOTE
QUOTE
...ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is
alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see
whether they were consistent with what he remembered
seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments
follow, related to various fox photos:
..."-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds
to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND
SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS
MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS AT THE
TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE
DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE
DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT
THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN
ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS....ARRB
STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER
THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD
WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE
THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY
SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN,"
BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN
THE BACK OF THE HEAD. (emphasis not in original)
END QUOTE:
ARRB DEPOSITION OF EDWARD F. REED (PAGES 57-59)
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Reed_10-21-97/html/Reed_0006b.htm
GUNN: Were you present at the time of the first incision?
REED: Yes.
GUNN: What was the first incision?
REED: The cranium. The scalp, right here.
GUNN: And can you describe how that procedure—
REED: Commander Humes made an incision. After we
brought all the x-rays back, we were allowed to sit in
the podium and observe. AND COMMANDER HUMES
MADE AN INCISION--THAT I COULD SEE FROM MY
VANTAGE POINT--AN INCISION IN THE FOREHEAD,
AND BROUGHT BACK THE SCALP. (emphasis not in
original)
GUNN: Okay.
REED: Like this [gesturing].
GUNN: AND YOU WERE MAKING A LINE FIRST
ACROSS THE TOP OF YOUR FOREHEAD,
ROUGHLY ALONG THE HAIRLINE. (emphasis not
in original)
REED: With a scalpel.
GUNN: —and then pulling the scalp back.
REED: That's correct. Just like this.
GUNN: And were you able to see the size of the
wound when the scalp—
REED: Not from my—not from where I was, no. The
podium [sic] was a good 20 feet away.
GUNN: What else did you observe from where you were
with regard to any incisions or operations on the head?
REED: WELL, AFTER ABOUT 20 MINUTES, COMMANDER
HUMES TOOK OUT A SAW, AND STARTED TO CUT THE
FOREHEAD WITH THE BONE -- WITH THE SAW.
MECHANICAL SAW. CIRCULAR, SMALL, MECHANICAL --
ALMOST LIKE A CAST SAW, BUT IT'S MADE --
GUNN: Sure—
REED: —SPECIFICALLY FOR BONE. (emphasis not in
original)
GUNN: And what did you see next?
REED: We were asked to leave at that time. Jerry Custer
and myself were asked to leave.
END QUOTE:
That says it all, doesn't it?
No commentary necessary.
Keven
Anthony Marsh
I hope you mean the M. Hinrichs image.
> Bests,
> Barb :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 1/28/2010 6:24 AM,BarbJunkkarinen wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Jan 2010 16:30:15 -0500, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jan 27, 12:17 am,BarbJunkkarinen<barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 26 Jan 2010 23:40:20 -0500, Greg Jaynes<jay...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Z-Film Altered. Moorman and Jean Hill in the Street.
>
>
> >>>> Just on the face of it, it's a ridiculus concept.
> >>>> I watched the following for this grow as a case
> >>>> study of mass hysteria.
>
> >>>> But there are many ridiculus ideas and I don't
> >>>> spend a lot of time on them. But I have something
> >>>> to offer here so I will.
>
> >>>> As usual take it or leave it.
>
> >>>> I can't promise that the witness to this will back me up.
> >>>> But there was a witness. Please believe me, if I was
> >>>> going to make up a witness, I would pick someone else.
> >>>> The witness was Mark Oakes.
>
> >>>> Has anyone heard the Z-film alteration guys claiming Jean
> >>>> Hill and Mary Moorman were standing in the street and
> >>>> not where we see them in the Z-film?
>
> >>>> I asked Jean Hill if she or Mary Moorman were ever in the
> conspiracy and is hailed by WC defenders as proof that there is no
> conspiracy, so they make up whatever anomaly of the month they can tie in
> their own theory of the shooting and claim that is what the REALZapruder
> film originally showed or SHOULD have known if it were real.
This is simply delusional. Researchers are asking very honest questions
about what is going on with the Zapruder. They should be treated with
respect, not ridicule.
Anthony is again swirling around in his ivory tower in denial that the
anomalies of the Zapruder film(s) seem to be obvious to everyone but him.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Sandy McCroskey
Reading the reviews on Amazon.com of Fetzer's "Great Zapruder Film Hoax,"
which I have actually read (though I couldn't stop laughing) and even
own--in the form of the galleys sent to reviewers, I wouldn't spend good
money on it--would disabuse you of the notion that Tony is the only person
who can see through this ludicrous theory. I often recommend this book to
acquaitances as proof that James Fetzer and his cohort are not playing
with a full deck.
/sm
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duncan MacRae's post #96. Martin Hinrich's post #93 sjows a small
winking on and off line too, Duncan's shows more ... with things quite
well outlined.
By the way, if one goes to the link at it comes up with one post (#1)
and then an outline list of posts by name below it, click on the
"options" drop down menu on the right at the top of the first post and
click on "standard" view ... then all posts will be visible by number,
just scroll down.
Barb :-)
>
>> Bests,
>> Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Feb 5, 10:24锟絧m, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 2:05锟絧m, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 1/28/2010 6:24 AM,BarbJunkkarinen wrote:
>>
>> > > On 27 Jan 2010 16:30:15 -0500, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> 锟絯rote:
>>
>> > >> On Jan 27, 12:17 am,BarbJunkkarinen<barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>> On 26 Jan 2010 23:40:20 -0500, Greg Jaynes<jay...@mail.com> 锟絯rote:
>>
>> > >>>> Z-Film Altered. Moorman and Jean Hill in the Street.
>>
>> > >>>>Zapruderfilm as we know it an alteration:
>>
>> > >>>> Just on the face of it, it's a ridiculus concept.
>> > >>>> I watched the following for this grow as a case
>> > >>>> study of mass hysteria.
>>
>> > >>>> But there are many ridiculus ideas and I don't
>> > >>>> spend a lot of time on them. But I have something
>> > >>>> to offer here so I will.
>>
>> > >>>> As usual take it or leave it.
>>
>> > >>>> I can't promise that the witness to this will back me up.
>> > >>>> But there was a witness. 锟絇lease believe me, if I was
>> > >>>> going to make up a witness, I would pick someone else.
>> > >>>> The witness was Mark Oakes.
>>
>> > >>>> Has anyone heard the Z-film alteration guys claiming Jean
>> > >>>> Hill and Mary Moorman were standing in the street and
>> > >>>> not where we see them in the Z-film?
>>
>> > >>>> I asked Jean Hill if she or Mary Moorman were ever in the
>> > >>>> street as theZapruderfilm was shot. (Actually a discussion
>> > >>>> and multiple questions)
>>
>> > >>>> I parked behind the fence and walked up to the pergola
>> > >>>> and 锟絘round to the "retaining wall". Jean Hill was standing
>> This is simply delusional. 锟絉esearchers are asking very honest questions
>> about what is going on with the Zapruder. 锟絋hey should be treated with
>> respect, not ridicule.
>>
>> Anthony is again swirling around in his ivory tower in denial that the
>> anomalies of the Zapruder film(s) seem to be obvious to everyone but him.
>>
>> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com
>
>Reading the reviews on Amazon.com of Fetzer's "Great Zapruder Film Hoax,"
>which I have actually read (though I couldn't stop laughing) and even
>own--in the form of the galleys sent to reviewers, I wouldn't spend good
>money on it--would disabuse you of the notion that Tony is the only person
>who can see through this ludicrous theory. I often recommend this book to
>acquaitances as proof that James Fetzer and his cohort are not playing
>with a full deck.
>
>/sm
Hi Sandra,
That's funny. One of my favorite chapters is Costella's telling of
his and White's adventure in DP and their discovery of "listening
devices." I laughed so hard. But that is rather telling about their
scholarship and research overall. Yikes. In doing some work with
others on some things in that book, I wrote an article about the
"listening devices" ... it is here, if you are interested:
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/barbj-rainsensors.html
Other articles on that same site, which we called Assassinated
Science, are here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/
Enjoying your exchanges with Pamela. Good luck. :-)
Barb :-)
tomnln
"Sandy McCroskey" <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b822258b-f456-4d57...@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
/sm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You sound smart enough to represent the LN's in a live audio debate with me
!
HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy McCroskey
> On 5 Feb 2010 23:17:20 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
>
>
>
> >On Feb 5, 10:24 pm, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 28, 2:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On 1/28/2010 6:24 AM,BarbJunkkarinen wrote:
>
>
> >> > >> On Jan 27, 12:17 am,BarbJunkkarinen<barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> >> > >> wrote:
>
> >> > >>>> Z-Film Altered. Moorman and Jean Hill in the Street.
>
> >> > >>>>Zapruderfilm as we know it an alteration:
>
> >> > >>>> Just on the face of it, it's a ridiculus concept.
> >> > >>>> I watched the following for this grow as a case
> >> > >>>> study of mass hysteria.
>
> >> > >>>> But there are many ridiculus ideas and I don't
> >> > >>>> spend a lot of time on them. But I have something
> >> > >>>> to offer here so I will.
>
> >> > >>>> As usual take it or leave it.
>
> >> > >>>> I can't promise that the witness to this will back me up.
> >> > >>>> going to make up a witness, I would pick someone else.
> >> > >>>> The witness was Mark Oakes.
>
> >> > >>>> Has anyone heard the Z-film alteration guys claiming Jean
> >> > >>>> Hill and Mary Moorman were standing in the street and
> >> > >>>> not where we see them in the Z-film?
>
> >> > >>>> I asked Jean Hill if she or Mary Moorman were ever in the
> >> > >>>> street as theZapruderfilm was shot. (Actually a discussion
> >> > >>>> and multiple questions)
>
> >> > >>>> I parked behind the fence and walked up to the pergola
> >> about what is going on with the Zapruder. They should be treated with
Yeah, that bit about the rain sensors that are supposedly listening
devices is choice, one of my all-time favorites.
By the way, "Sandy" isn't short for anything. My "real" name is George
W(illiam) McCroskey (Jr.).
Anthony Marsh
No, that is not true. Certain researchers are simply delusional and
should be treated with ridicule at least daily.
> Anthony is again swirling around in his ivory tower in denial that the
> anomalies of the Zapruder film(s) seem to be obvious to everyone but him.
>
Have you even seen my apartment? I ain't got no ivory tower.
Unlike you I have actually researched all of this.
> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Greg Jaynes
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll concede that listen devices in the plaza is a ridiculus notion.
But what is a rain sensor? Where can I find one?
RGJ
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, I don't get it. Are those sensors listening to the rain?
And of course the CIA would never do anything like that.
Like surreptitiously installing video cameras into radiation detecting
boxes in Iraq.
Or putting cameras into Xerox copiers to transmit Top Secret documents
being copied in the Soviet Union.
Barb Junkkarinen
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Oops...my bad, not sure I typed Sandra in the first place- sorry about
that!
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
Read my article, darlin'. <g> The rain sensors are part of the
underground sprinkler system ... keeps the sprinklers from coming on
in the rain sensor detects enough water has fallen from the sky, sky,
fallen from the sky.
From my article:
"It took me about 30 seconds on Google to find the very brand of rain
sensors shown in the photos he included in his chapter. The "Wireless
RainSensor" is manufactured by R&D Engineering; Dealey Plaza has the
WRS1 model."
Dave Perry also did an article and it's on the same assassinated
science site and can be found here, he has a lot of info about the
system.
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm
Barb :-)
>
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
They had their chance to prove the sensors were detecting something
other than rainfall, but instead published this nonsense unchecked.
Read my article?
Sandy McCroskey
They detect the amount of rainfall an area gets in order to regulate a
sprinkler system. I don't know where they're sold.
Barb Junkkarinen
Not sure *WHY* I typed that in the first place .... sigh. :-)
>>
Anthony Marsh
If they were secret devices how are they going to prove that? How do you
prove that your phone is tapped when the government denies it?
Anthony Marsh
So what? That alone does not disprove their theory. The CIA or NSA could
place listening deviced inside the rain sensor housing just the way the
CIA installed cameras on the working Xerox copiers or video cameras in
the radiation detectors in Iraq.
It only emboldens the kooks when you offer up weak arguments against them.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Read the dang article. What somebody coulda done ... sure. But
Costella did NO testing, which would have been easy as I explain in my
article, particularly because Costella is an electrical engineer.
Weak arguments. Pfffft.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
It is explained in the article. Somebody need to hold your hand?
Anthony Marsh
No, it isn't. Don't be silly. My point stands. The rain sensing devices
are legitimate. Then the CIA or NSA could place listening devices inside
them. Your article does not rule that out. We've caught the CIA doing
the same trick with other devices, so how would you rule it out in this
case?
When you can't prove your point you only encourage the kooks.
Anthony Marsh
Testing? Such as a frequency sweep? You think Costella keeps in his
pocket a frequency sweeper to make sure that he isn't being recorded?
That's paranoid. Only someone like me would keep a frequency sweeper in
his pocket.
> Weak arguments. Pfffft.
Your argument proving the rain sensors real says nothing about whether
some agency added a listening device in it. The Xerox machines were real
and worked normally.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
You're just pretending dumb, right? The point of the article is that
THEY didn't do any testing to confirm that these rain sensors were
listening devices before they reached their stupid conclusion and
published it. In my article, I spell out exactly how it could ... and
should ... have been done before they published their paranoid kooky
idea in a book. That is the point.
Sandy McCroskey
> On 2/8/2010 11:03 AM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Feb 2010 10:18:50 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> On 2/7/2010 5:52 PM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>> On 6 Feb 2010 20:47:41 -0500, Anthony Marsh
So you don't think it's the least bit silly for the intrepid investigators
to have surmised, without any proof whatsoever, and in fact not even any
wisp of supposed evidence, that these rain senors have been equipped with
listening devices to pick up the dark ruminations of CTs as whispered at
the scene of the long-ago crime... .although CTs are generally quite
uninhibited about spouting their theories to anyone who will listen? Well,
well, well...!
One CT posted here once that he found it suspicious that there was a
sensor on each side of the street; he didn't seem to think it possible for
rain to fall on one side of a street and not the other. That's what makes
this forum so entertaining!
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Jeez, let me repeat my point a few times until you get it. Why would you
expect those kooks to have the technical skills to do a bug sweep? Can YOU
do a bug sweep? No. Not many people have the skills and the money for the
equipment to do a room sweep. Nevertheless, people who do need to do room
sweeps and have the money and the skills do room sweeps routinely.
You didn't do a frequency sweep. You only said it COULD be done. The kooks
can't do it. You can't do it. The average person can't do it.
> published it. In my article, I spell out exactly how it could ... and
> should ... have been done before they published their paranoid kooky
> idea in a book. That is the point.
>
Wonderful. And I guess you could prove something if you could visit the
moon. But you can't, so you can't. All you can do is point out that it is
a kooky idea. That's it. You can't disprove it. THAT's what encourages the
kooks.
Anthony Marsh
Who, moi? I guess you couldn't read between the lines when I called them
kooks and when I said that it is a silly idea.
Maybe this concept is too advanced for you, but I'll try again. I may
agree with someone, but point out that their debunking is flawed and lazy.
> One CT posted here once that he found it suspicious that there was a
> sensor on each side of the street; he didn't seem to think it possible for
> rain to fall on one side of a street and not the other. That's what makes
> this forum so entertaining!
>
So what? Maybe it's suspicious that they did not have more sensors to
cover ALL of Dealey Plaza. Why have them nearest the sidewalks when it's
the grass which is what they should be concerned about?
> /sm
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeez, let me repeat my point. Costella is an electrical engineer. He
is capable. Well, he should be capable. And he also should have
thought of it ... as any researcher wanting to prove something should
do. I explained the equipment needed. You and your "bug sweeps" ... no
James Bond needed.
'Nuf.
Sandy McCroskey
Oh, gee, maybe I missed that post. Or maybe I think that arguing at
length about why their idea is not so silly (you're at it again,
below) is talking out of the other side of your mouth?
After all, how much "debunking" does such a silly notion need?
It depends upon how much credibility *you* are tempted to give it.
> > One CT posted here once that he found it suspicious that there was a
> > sensor on each side of the street; he didn't seem to think it possible for
> > rain to fall on one side of a street and not the other. That's what makes
> > this forum so entertaining!
>
> So what? Maybe it's suspicious that they did not have more sensors to
> cover ALL of Dealey Plaza. Why have them nearest the sidewalks when it's
> the grass which is what they should be concerned about?>
Did someone say "silly"?
/sm
>
Now it sounds like you don't think it was a silly idea at all.
Anthony Marsh
I don't expect you to understand this advanced concept, but when you
debunk a theory with a flawed argument, you do a poor job of debunking and
also spread false concepts.
Just like the scientist who said that traveling to the moon is impossible
because there is no air in outer space.
>
>>> One CT posted here once that he found it suspicious that there was a
>>> sensor on each side of the street; he didn't seem to think it possible for
>>> rain to fall on one side of a street and not the other. That's what makes
>>> this forum so entertaining!
>>
>> So what? Maybe it's suspicious that they did not have more sensors to
>> cover ALL of Dealey Plaza. Why have them nearest the sidewalks when it's
>> the grass which is what they should be concerned about?>
>
> Did someone say "silly"?
> /sm
>
>>
> Now it sounds like you don't think it was a silly idea at all.
>
>
Now it sounds like you are making false charges again.
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
SO, that's your best defense? Costella is an electrical engineer, so he
should have anticipated and always carried around with him room sweeping
equipment. And you wouldn't call that a paranoid thing to do? Did he sweep
YOU for mics?
You've been watching too many James Bond movies if you think it is as easy
as having a miniature frequency sweeper in your pocket. And how does he
tell the difference in frequency between the rain sensor reporting
frequency and the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA frequency? Do you know what those
frequencies are and how to tell who placed the listening device?
> 'Nuf.
You lose yet again.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Last post. A "sweeper" and the notion of carrying one around is your
idea. An electrical engineer would/should know what he needed to check
to see if there was any audio transmission going on. They were in
Dallas,Texas not in Podunk, Nowhere. Simple as renting a spectrum
analyzer (widely available, hit the web and find a test equipment
rental company ... there are several in Dallas). Take it to the plaza,
get close to one of the rain sensors, attach a small low beam antenna
to the analyzer, and monitor the electric field emitted by the sensor.
If being used as listening device, it will show output on the analyzer
when you whisper sweet nothings in the rain sensor's ear. Take a
lunch, it could take some time to go thru all the frequency bands. I
have confidence in you, Anthony, why don't you go there now.
The whole point was that it was ridiculous on its face to put out a
conclusion like this having done ZERO research .... including not
doing some testing with some equipment an electrical engineer
would/should know where to find and how to use.
Simple to do. They did NADA. They published this "kooky" paranoid
nonsense.
That was the point.
But leave it to you to try to ball it all up just because you enjoy
being ridiculous.
Now go eat more fiber and lighten up on the starch in your shorts.
Sandy McCroskey
Sure sounds silly to *me*, Marsh, and that's the honest truth. "Why
have them nearest the sidewalks when it's the grass which is what they
should be concerned about?" You crack me up.
/sm