> > On Oct 8, 7:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/7/2012 6:03 PM, curtjester1 wrote:

> >>> On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:

> >>>>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
> >>>>>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
> >>>>>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.

> >>>>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.

> >>>>>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either.  Jack White might

> >>>>>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done

> >>>>>>> quite a bit of great work.

> >>>>>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a

> >>>>>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication.  There are many parts to the

> >>>>>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link

> >>>>>>> should provide anyone.  One will see why the sign was needed to be

> >>>>>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT

> >>>>>>> alive.  One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of

> >>>>>>> the people.  They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that

> >>>>>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.

> >>>>>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been

> >>>>>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'

> >>>>>>>http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/costella1.html

> >>>>>>> CJ

> >>>>> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
> >>>>> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
> >>>>> talk.  You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
> >>>>> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
> >>>>> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out.  I do think
> >>>>> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
> >>>>> motorcade came through.  That's the one I watched most all the way
> >>>>> through.  I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
> >>>>> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their

> >>>> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.

> >>>>> testimonies.  If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
> >>>>> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that.  And
> >>>>> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
> >>>>> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
> >>>>> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
> >>>>> looking:

> >>>>>http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/zfilmaltered.htm

> >>>>> CJ

> >>> I think it would have been better if he measured the nine frames of
> >>> brake lights for an impact on how much a car would slow down in that
> >>> period of time.  If one analyzes the witness testimony, what they
> >>> described would not be a mere reduction in four miles an hour, which
> >>> is barely discernable at all.  it would have had to be much more
> >>> dramatic.

> >>> CJ

> >> FYI, there are not nine frames of brake lights. You are being fooled by
> >> the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life
> >> every day.

> >   Films taken during the assassination show that the limousine's brake
> > lights were on and remained on until after President Kennedy had been
> > fatally injured.  Source:  J. Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed
> > Kennedy, pp. 12-15; 35; 244-45 (1989); R. Groden and H. Livingstone,
> > High Treason, pp. 13-19; 127-28 (2nd ed. 1989).

> That is simply not true.
> Stop spreading false information.

> >> If one analyzes the witness testimony? What are you mumbling about?
> >> That's exactly what I did in my article and proved that some researchers
> >> misrepresented witness statements.- Hide quoted text -