Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Faking of Zapruder Frame 224
404 views
Skip to first unread message
Saintly Oswald
Oct 1, 2012, 1:50:14 PM10/1/12
to
I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame 224 and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory was a relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the conspiracy would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224 *after* Life Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a Googling, and the nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life publication was frame 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high resolution Zapruder frames, and there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and 223, but no 222. That's strange, think I, so I go to the website from which I downloaded the pictures, and they don't have it either. Most peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an MPI version, but it's very fuzzy, certainly not up to Regal King John's requirements, and I'm here to convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed, now. I look at my nice crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple rectangle right over Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's odd, think I. And in the next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and completely covers that purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have we here? I go to look at the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a *purple* rectangle, of course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all! Yikes! This is enough to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where I'm at! Then I look at my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 shows that purple rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that middle window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat. Then in 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's lapel comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers the entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 1, 2012, 4:25:30 PM10/1/12
to
One trouble with my idea that the film was altered after the Life
publication is that in frame 225 Connally's necktie in both the Life and
my high resolution versions has the same distorted line, presumably caused
by the shot hitting him. If that was faked, then it had to be done early
on, before, probably, the need for a SBT would have been known. Perhaps
the purple rectangle in the color versions is caused by differences of
contrast in the the different versions. When I play with the contrast of
the Life version, I can't get the rectangle, but I can get the same line
against his shirt of which the rectangle is a part. Perhaps it is just a
coincidence that frame 222 is missing from the nice clear version? On the
other hand, if it had been known that Greer had shot Connally, and the
editor would have known because he had to re-frame the limousine to hide
that shot, then the faking might have been intended to account for his
wounds rather than for the SBT, and would have been done with the original
editing. Actually, that would be the creation of the SBT right there by
the editor. Yes. I like that. I hope you all do, too. But I wouldn't bet
on a post-Life publication faking as I proposed when I opened this topic.
publication is that in frame 225 Connally's necktie in both the Life and
my high resolution versions has the same distorted line, presumably caused
by the shot hitting him. If that was faked, then it had to be done early
on, before, probably, the need for a SBT would have been known. Perhaps
the purple rectangle in the color versions is caused by differences of
contrast in the the different versions. When I play with the contrast of
the Life version, I can't get the rectangle, but I can get the same line
against his shirt of which the rectangle is a part. Perhaps it is just a
coincidence that frame 222 is missing from the nice clear version? On the
other hand, if it had been known that Greer had shot Connally, and the
editor would have known because he had to re-frame the limousine to hide
that shot, then the faking might have been intended to account for his
wounds rather than for the SBT, and would have been done with the original
editing. Actually, that would be the creation of the SBT right there by
the editor. Yes. I like that. I hope you all do, too. But I wouldn't bet
on a post-Life publication faking as I proposed when I opened this topic.
Research
Oct 3, 2012, 3:51:35 PM10/3/12
to
"Saintly Oswald" <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca1696e5-fb6a-4cea...@googlegroups.com...
He can actually see the "rectangle or triangle" shape. In another thread I
tried to discuess this issue with another poster who claimed I invented it
and that it didn't exist. But what can we expect from LNers. I called the
"rectangle or triangle" shape an ink smear. Because it is. It's not a
lapel flip. It is a faulty alteration where the forger's hand slipped.
Maybe you think I'm crazy. Well o.k. Then ask yourself how did Z314 and
Z315 get switched. PLEASE don't rely on the Zavada report. That was one of
those government projects to make lame excuses seem probable. And it in
reality says nothing. It is part of the conspiracy to cover-up the murder
conspiracy. One of those fake excuses. Watch out cause the LNers have no
case without it.
John Reagor King
Oct 3, 2012, 11:06:15 PM10/3/12
to
In article <e34732d2-edb4-4bd2...@googlegroups.com>,
clearest versions I've ever seen of the film. Are you looking at the
posting of that MPI video on Youtube instead? If so, that is not nearly
of the clarity of the MPI dvd, and in fact I have not yet seen any online
posting of the Zapruder film that is nearly as clear. It seems that some
degree of resolution is always lost when posting a video on Youtube,
probably because of the conversion to a type of file that Youtube will
post.
> certainly not up to Regal King John's
> requirements,
Again, what's with the making fun of my real name, when I've never made
fun of any name you've ever gone by? ;-)
> and I'm here to convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed,
> now.
Why on earth do you care about converting me?
> I look at my nice crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple
> rectangle right over Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's odd,
> think I. And in the next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and
> completely covers that purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have we
> here? I go to look at the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a
> *purple* rectangle, of course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all!
> Yikes! This is enough to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where I'm
> at! Then I look at my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 shows
> that purple rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that
> middle window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat.
> Then in 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's
> lapel comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers the
> entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
You do that. After you eat, I would suggest you try to acquire a much
better copy of the film. It is obvious to me that this "purple rectangle"
you refer to is nothing more than an ordinary shadow from the rollbar
immediately in front of Connally. One doesn't see the shadow on him
earlier in the film simply because the limo is turning gradually toward
the sun because of the slight southward curve of Elm from the intersection
with Houston.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame 224
> and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory was a
> relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the conspiracy
> would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224 *after* Life
> Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a Googling, and the
> nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life publication was frame
> 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high resolution Zapruder frames, and
> there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and 223, but no 222. That's strange, think
> I, so I go to the website from which I downloaded the pictures, and they
> don't have it either. Most peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an MPI
> version, but it's very fuzzy,
You must not have it on the original dvd then, because it has some of the
> I got up this morning and realized that if Connally wasn't shot in frame 224
> and his lapel flip had been faked, that since the Magic Bullet Theory was a
> relatively late development in the assassination episode, that the conspiracy
> would probably have to have faked his lapel flip in frame 224 *after* Life
> Magazine had published some still frames. So I went a Googling, and the
> nearest pre-Z225 frame which I could find from the Life publication was frame
> 222. Fine, I'll look at that. I go to my high resolution Zapruder frames, and
> there's no frame 222. I've got 221 and 223, but no 222. That's strange, think
> I, so I go to the website from which I downloaded the pictures, and they
> don't have it either. Most peculiar, Mama, wo! I have something called an MPI
> version, but it's very fuzzy,
clearest versions I've ever seen of the film. Are you looking at the
posting of that MPI video on Youtube instead? If so, that is not nearly
of the clarity of the MPI dvd, and in fact I have not yet seen any online
posting of the Zapruder film that is nearly as clear. It seems that some
degree of resolution is always lost when posting a video on Youtube,
probably because of the conversion to a type of file that Youtube will
post.
> certainly not up to Regal King John's
> requirements,
fun of any name you've ever gone by? ;-)
> and I'm here to convert HIM, so I'm getting very disappointed,
> now.
> I look at my nice crispy Z223, and for the first time I notice a purple
> rectangle right over Connally's shirt. I never saw that before. That's odd,
> think I. And in the next frame, 224, Connally's lapel perfectly and
> completely covers that purple rectangle. Ay Carumba, think I! What have we
> here? I go to look at the Life picture, which is in B&W, so I don't see a
> *purple* rectangle, of course. In fact, I don't see any rectangle at all!
> Yikes! This is enough to make a normal fella paranoid, just imagine where I'm
> at! Then I look at my "MPI" sequence, which has all the frames, and 221 shows
> that purple rectangle as a long streak betwwen the Stemmons sign and that
> middle window frame in the car between the passangers and the front seat.
> Then in 222 it shrinks to the little purple rectangle. In 223, Connally's
> lapel comes up to meet its near edge. And it 224, Connally's lapel covers the
> entire rectangle. I'm going to have some Cap'n Crunch, now.
better copy of the film. It is obvious to me that this "purple rectangle"
you refer to is nothing more than an ordinary shadow from the rollbar
immediately in front of Connally. One doesn't see the shadow on him
earlier in the film simply because the limo is turning gradually toward
the sun because of the slight southward curve of Elm from the intersection
with Houston.
John Reagor King
Oct 3, 2012, 11:06:47 PM10/3/12
to
In article <ca1696e5-fb6a-4cea...@googlegroups.com>,
I have a great deal of trouble following your logic on this. Seriously.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 3, 2012, 11:08:44 PM10/3/12
to
You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
of 222.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQo/5Y7tAFlnfMA/s370/ConnallysCokeZ222.jpg
AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
of 222.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQo/5Y7tAFlnfMA/s370/ConnallysCokeZ222.jpg
Anthony Marsh
Oct 4, 2012, 10:37:04 PM10/4/12
to
Do you think the MPI video is the ONLY copy of the Zapruder film?
Saintly Oswald
Oct 4, 2012, 10:50:21 PM10/4/12
to
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQo/5Y7tAFlnfMA/s370/ConnallysCokeZ222.jpg
If you look at the original Life picture, and your prescription is up to
date, you will see that Connally's right jacket lapel looks like it
probably comes together with the left under the Dr Pepper bottle. The only
dark spot in there is Connally's tie. The editor expanded this dark spot,
Connally' s tie, to cover the entire area of the jacket he (the editor)
opened up, not realizing, or caring, that the dark spot was Connally's
tie, not his shirt color, or a vest or a shadow. Perhaps he originally had
made it white there, and that looked funny. Or, perhaps he found it too
difficult to deal with the pop bottle, or whatever Connally is holding
there, and thought it better to just cover it up. This is a small piece of
film and nobody would notice this adulteration, and the editor would
certainly want the lapel pop noticed. He's got to save the Single Bullet
Theory, here. The desperate argument that this is a shadow ignores
reality on so many levels that it warrants no more than a chuckle. Hah hah
hah.
If you look at the original Life picture, and your prescription is up to
date, you will see that Connally's right jacket lapel looks like it
probably comes together with the left under the Dr Pepper bottle. The only
dark spot in there is Connally's tie. The editor expanded this dark spot,
Connally' s tie, to cover the entire area of the jacket he (the editor)
opened up, not realizing, or caring, that the dark spot was Connally's
tie, not his shirt color, or a vest or a shadow. Perhaps he originally had
made it white there, and that looked funny. Or, perhaps he found it too
difficult to deal with the pop bottle, or whatever Connally is holding
there, and thought it better to just cover it up. This is a small piece of
film and nobody would notice this adulteration, and the editor would
certainly want the lapel pop noticed. He's got to save the Single Bullet
Theory, here. The desperate argument that this is a shadow ignores
reality on so many levels that it warrants no more than a chuckle. Hah hah
hah.
Research
Oct 4, 2012, 10:51:33 PM10/4/12
to
"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-224A79...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Really? The sun would have to be setting in order to throw a shadow you
are describing. But being just afternoon, the sun was above the limo not
setting in under the triple underpass. Why does it appear and disappear in
1/18th of a second? Shouldn't it take a little more time? It is only in
one frame.
curtjester1
Oct 4, 2012, 10:51:46 PM10/4/12
to
On Oct 3, 11:08 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
> AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
> brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
> in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
> too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
> original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
> the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
> artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
> cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
> my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
> of 222.
>
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQ...
> You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
> AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
> brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
> in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
> too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
> original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
> the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
> artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
> cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
> my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
> of 222.
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:51:35 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
> > "Saintly Oswald" <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:51:35 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
CJ
Saintly Oswald
Oct 4, 2012, 11:36:17 PM10/4/12
to
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches. I'll keep
trying, but I'm beginning to think that this might be from an image Life
possessed but did not publish. It's from a Christie's Auction page,
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5132982.
There are four frames there. They may be of value to some who like the
picture study. It seems it's been there for four years, so it's probably
not going anywhere, but I'd download them now, anyway. You never know.
This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches. I'll keep
trying, but I'm beginning to think that this might be from an image Life
possessed but did not publish. It's from a Christie's Auction page,
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5132982.
There are four frames there. They may be of value to some who like the
picture study. It seems it's been there for four years, so it's probably
not going anywhere, but I'd download them now, anyway. You never know.
curtjester1
Oct 4, 2012, 11:38:11 PM10/4/12
to
Zapruder Film Faker Symposium:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/UNDchapter/VideosJFK3.html
CJ
> > case without it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.assassinationscience.com/UNDchapter/VideosJFK3.html
CJ
> You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
> AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
> brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
> in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
> too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
> original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
> the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
> artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
> cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
> my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
> of 222.
>
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQ...
> AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
> brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
> in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
> too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
> original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
> the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
> artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
> cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
> my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
> of 222.
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:51:35 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
> > "Saintly Oswald" <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:51:35 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 10:34:19 AM10/5/12
to
In article <506d0f4f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
also refused to admit.
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Have you ever seen the Max Holland show The Lost Bullet?
I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit
> Have you ever seen the Max Holland show The Lost Bullet?
that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
also refused to admit.
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 10:35:38 AM10/5/12
to
In article <0418a38f-8c69-4620...@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
> AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
> brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
> in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
> too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
> original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
> the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
> artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
> cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
> my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
> of 222.
>
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQo/5Y7tAFl
> nfMA/s370/ConnallysCokeZ222.jpg
That's the shadow of the rollbar, not a soda bottle.
> You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
> AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
> brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
> in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
> too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
> original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
> the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
> artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
> cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
> my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
> of 222.
>
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQo/5Y7tAFl
> nfMA/s370/ConnallysCokeZ222.jpg
Saintly Oswald
Oct 5, 2012, 10:37:03 AM10/5/12
to
Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 5, 2012, 10:38:03 AM10/5/12
to
John Connally is not holding a coke in this picture. He is reaching into his jacket pocket. That's what they covered up. Why would they care if we saw that he was reaching into his jacket pocket? Why would they take the trouble to hide that?
curtjester1
Oct 5, 2012, 4:26:58 PM10/5/12
to
On Oct 4, 11:36 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
> a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches. I'll keep
> trying, but I'm beginning to think that this might be from an image Life
> possessed but did not publish. It's from a Christie's Auction page,http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5132982.
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
> a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches. I'll keep
> trying, but I'm beginning to think that this might be from an image Life
as it has frame 222 and you will see that Jackie's coat color is what is
on both sides of JBC. If you look too, JBC is looking back and is in a
sideway's position (like he said he did when he heard a shot), returning
to look straight ahead. JFK is already hit and besides the Stemmons sign
and the frames they spliced and one can tell more by Jackie looking
intently at him during that time. JBC returns to his straight ahead
position by 226 and shows no sign of sudden movement or distress until
242. If there was a lapel flip at all, it was just due to JBC moving and
turning around, causing the coat to move.
curtjester1
Oct 5, 2012, 4:27:54 PM10/5/12
to
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
> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
>
>
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
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 8:44:15 PM10/5/12
to
In article <b826247b-b27a-4fd0...@googlegroups.com>,
Connally. You can plainly see it falling on him in many other frames
besides Z222. It continues to be there, for example, later when he
changes position and it is by that time falling across his wrist.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
> a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches.
I keep telling you that that is the shadow of the rollbar in front of
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
> a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches.
Connally. You can plainly see it falling on him in many other frames
besides Z222. It continues to be there, for example, later when he
changes position and it is by that time falling across his wrist.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 5, 2012, 8:44:39 PM10/5/12
to
On 10/5/2012 10:38 AM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> John Connally is not holding a coke in this picture. He is reaching into his jacket pocket. That's what they covered up. Why would they care if we saw that he was reaching into his jacket pocket? Why would they take the trouble to hide that?
>
Why is it that when you make up a bizarre conspiracy theory you stop
> John Connally is not holding a coke in this picture. He is reaching into his jacket pocket. That's what they covered up. Why would they care if we saw that he was reaching into his jacket pocket? Why would they take the trouble to hide that?
>
short? Why not go all the way and claim that Connally was erased and then
draw in from scratch to hide the fact that he ran behind the limo to shoot
the President from street level? There is time enough when they are hidden
by the sign. You need to up your game.
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 9:00:13 PM10/5/12
to
In article <91491547-d9b6-4108...@googlegroups.com>,
a lot of very poor-quality scans of this film. Connally's left hand is
never in view in the entire film, and his right hand is holding his hat.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Connally is not holding a coke in this picture. He is reaching into his
> jacket pocket. That's what they covered up. Why would they care if we saw
> that he was reaching into his jacket pocket? Why would they take the trouble
> to hide that?
Where on earth are you getting this stuff from? You must be looking at
> John Connally is not holding a coke in this picture. He is reaching into his
> jacket pocket. That's what they covered up. Why would they care if we saw
> that he was reaching into his jacket pocket? Why would they take the trouble
> to hide that?
a lot of very poor-quality scans of this film. Connally's left hand is
never in view in the entire film, and his right hand is holding his hat.
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 9:00:52 PM10/5/12
to
In article <d2302c35-b90d-4576...@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQo/5Y7tAFl
caused by the shadow of the rollbar on part of his shirt. The part of his
shirt that is not in shadow apparently is what you are thinking is a soda
bottle. If you'll just look at more frames following that, you'll see
that the shadow continues to fall on him even as he turns to his right.
> The only
> dark spot in there is Connally's tie. The editor expanded this dark spot,
> Connally' s tie, to cover the entire area of the jacket he (the editor)
> opened up, not realizing, or caring, that the dark spot was Connally's
> tie, not his shirt color, or a vest or a shadow.
There is no "editor." The patterns of light and shadow are perfectly
natural throughout the entire film.
> Perhaps he originally had
> made it white there, and that looked funny. Or, perhaps he found it too
> difficult to deal with the pop bottle, or whatever Connally is holding
> there, and thought it better to just cover it up. This is a small piece of
> film and nobody would notice this adulteration, and the editor would
> certainly want the lapel pop noticed. He's got to save the Single Bullet
> Theory, here. The desperate argument that this is a shadow ignores
> reality on so many levels that it warrants no more than a chuckle. Hah hah
> hah.
Or an alternate explanation: the desperate argument that this is a bottle
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQo/5Y7tAFl
> nfMA/s370/ConnallysCokeZ222.jpg
>
> If you look at the original Life picture, and your prescription is up to
> date, you will see that Connally's right jacket lapel looks like it
> probably comes together with the left under the Dr Pepper bottle.
There is no bottle of any type there. You are looking at light and shadow
>
> If you look at the original Life picture, and your prescription is up to
> date, you will see that Connally's right jacket lapel looks like it
> probably comes together with the left under the Dr Pepper bottle.
caused by the shadow of the rollbar on part of his shirt. The part of his
shirt that is not in shadow apparently is what you are thinking is a soda
bottle. If you'll just look at more frames following that, you'll see
that the shadow continues to fall on him even as he turns to his right.
> The only
> dark spot in there is Connally's tie. The editor expanded this dark spot,
> Connally' s tie, to cover the entire area of the jacket he (the editor)
> opened up, not realizing, or caring, that the dark spot was Connally's
> tie, not his shirt color, or a vest or a shadow.
natural throughout the entire film.
> Perhaps he originally had
> made it white there, and that looked funny. Or, perhaps he found it too
> difficult to deal with the pop bottle, or whatever Connally is holding
> there, and thought it better to just cover it up. This is a small piece of
> film and nobody would notice this adulteration, and the editor would
> certainly want the lapel pop noticed. He's got to save the Single Bullet
> Theory, here. The desperate argument that this is a shadow ignores
> reality on so many levels that it warrants no more than a chuckle. Hah hah
> hah.
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 5, 2012, 9:06:11 PM10/5/12
to
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.
clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 5, 2012, 9:40:37 PM10/5/12
to
On 10/4/2012 11:36 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
> a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches. I'll keep
And who said Connally is holding a bottle of Coke? You? You are only
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> This image I'm using of frame 222 showing John Connally seemingly holding
> a coke, isn't coming up but in one place in my Google searches. I'll keep
here for laughs.
curtjester1
Oct 6, 2012, 4:50:47 PM10/6/12
to
topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
looking:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/zfilmaltered.htm
CJ
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 6, 2012, 8:39:02 PM10/6/12
to
In that symposium, which was in 2003, I thought Costella seemed utterly
lost. Then yesterday, I watched a 2009 video of his that seemed dead-on
reasonable, saying the same things I believed about the faked film,
regarding removing frames as needed to speed up the kill scene and hide
actions. He didn't make the specific claims I have, but I thought he
understood it very well. But in 2003, they were practically saying the
whole thing was a studio creation, and not backing it up with anything
persuasive. Those are my impressions, anyway. I certainly will look into
Costella's more recent stuff when the urge strikes.
lost. Then yesterday, I watched a 2009 video of his that seemed dead-on
reasonable, saying the same things I believed about the faked film,
regarding removing frames as needed to speed up the kill scene and hide
actions. He didn't make the specific claims I have, but I thought he
understood it very well. But in 2003, they were practically saying the
whole thing was a studio creation, and not backing it up with anything
persuasive. Those are my impressions, anyway. I certainly will look into
Costella's more recent stuff when the urge strikes.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 6, 2012, 9:05:47 PM10/6/12
to
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 7, 2012, 11:12:15 AM10/7/12
to
Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published on November 29, 1963, proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy of the Zapruder film, which they call the "camera original," and for which the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that copy, anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original. I've never heard a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide Connally's hand going into his pocket. That makes sense. If you didn't know he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
curtjester1
Oct 7, 2012, 6:03:35 PM10/7/12
to
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
curtjester1
Oct 7, 2012, 6:07:17 PM10/7/12
to
original'.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4703-The-quot-Other-quot-Zapruder-Film
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 12:04:53 AM10/8/12
to
On 10/7/2012 11:12 AM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published on November 29, 1963, proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy of the Zapruder film, which they call the "camera original," and for which the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that copy, anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original. I've never heard a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide Connally's hand going into his pocket. That makes sense. If you didn't know he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
>
>
Why couldn't LIFE/CIA have faked frame 222 BEFORE it was published on
> Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published on November 29, 1963, proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy of the Zapruder film, which they call the "camera original," and for which the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that copy, anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original. I've never heard a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide Connally's hand going into his pocket. That makes sense. If you didn't know he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
>
>
November 29, 1963. I assume from your writing style that you've never
actually seen that issue. And why does Connally have to pull a gun out of
his pocket? Why couldn't he have it in his 10-gallon hat? How about a
theory that Jackie's pillbox hat was invented to conceal a derringer? Who
was that TV Western hero who kept a derringer in his hat?
curtjester1
Oct 8, 2012, 12:06:50 AM10/8/12
to
> Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published
on November 29, 1963, proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life
copy of the Zapruder film, which they call the "camera original," and for
which the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the
government already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's.
Where is that copy,
A good start:
on November 29, 1963, proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life
copy of the Zapruder film, which they call the "camera original," and for
which the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the
government already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's.
Where is that copy,
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 7:52:00 PM10/8/12
to
the sunlight being refracted by the lens. This happens in real life
every day.
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.
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 8, 2012, 7:52:37 PM10/8/12
to
Well, ain't Bee, at least I assume you ain't, sometimes folks *can* do
this thing or another, but they jess don't, and they get all flustered
later on and then they come back and try to make things right. You know,
like that time that Floyd cut a penis into the back of my head without
even askin', and then snuck on in in the middle the night to glue some
hair on my head off Otis's old mule? Well, this is the same kinda thing,
'cept it weren't a schlong in Connally's hand, but a gun. You know how
these things can happen.
this thing or another, but they jess don't, and they get all flustered
later on and then they come back and try to make things right. You know,
like that time that Floyd cut a penis into the back of my head without
even askin', and then snuck on in in the middle the night to glue some
hair on my head off Otis's old mule? Well, this is the same kinda thing,
'cept it weren't a schlong in Connally's hand, but a gun. You know how
these things can happen.
curtjester1
Oct 9, 2012, 9:51:24 AM10/9/12
to
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).
curtjester1
Oct 9, 2012, 9:52:04 AM10/9/12
to
rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down
markedly for at least a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the
limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second)
during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the
Zapruder film (or Z311-319). However, this event is not seen in the
Zapruder film. In fact, the limousine never comes close to performing
this action in the current film.
Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief
slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs
from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8
mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle
that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have
noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez detected it through careful
study and analysis of the film. It seems highly unlikely that this
subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when
they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down markedly.
Here is a small sample of the eyewitness testimony:
-- NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus): "The
President's driver slammed on the brakes - after the third shot.”
-- Dallas Police Department (DPD) policeman Earle Brown: "The first I
noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn
and when the shots were fired, it stopped."
-- DPD patrolman Bobby Hargis (one of the four motorcyclists escorting
JFK’s limousine): "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the
Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt
blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost
immediately after that."
-- DPD D.V. Harkness: "I saw the first shot and the President's car
slow down to almost a stop…I heard the first shot and saw the
President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling on
the car."
-- DPD patrolman Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four motorcyclists
escorting JFK’s limousine): ". . . the car just all but stopped, just
a moment.”
-- DPD J.W. Foster: "immediately after President Kennedy was
struck . . . the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb."
-- Special Agent John Ready (riding in the follow-up car): "I heard
what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right
front running board. The President's car slowed.”
-- Ochus V. Campbell: ". . . observed the car bearing President
Kennedy to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed
up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the
scene."
-- Peggy Joyce Hawkins (on the steps of the Book Depository building):
". . . estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away
from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a
full stop."
Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the
current Zapruder film. Nothing. Throughout the current film the
limousine seems to move at a steady speed. No stop or marked slowdown
can be seen by viewing the film at normal speed, which of course is
the speed at which the witnesses would have observed the motorcade.
* The split-second slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph in
Z295-304 actually presents another problem for the film's
authenticity. Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film,
it represents a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder
notes that such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things
around, and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g.
When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration, one
sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic slowing.
The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration is particularly
interesting because he no longer had voluntary muscular control and
should have been thrown forward. Yet for many frames before and after
this event, he appears to be quite immobile. Nobody in the limousine
shows any signs of being moved by the split-second deceleration. So,
assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the sudden reduction in
speed that he detected would seem to constitute further evidence of
alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it be that this half-second
slowing is a remnant of what was originally a much longer, more
noticeable deceleration?
* Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine is
actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even though the
limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform speed in the film
during this time (Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, Rancho Santa Fe, CA:
Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165). Notes Noel Twyman,
Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from
11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (Bloody Treason,
p. 165)
Dr. Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background
images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also works in
motion picture film technology, studied the film and confirmed his
father's discovery (Bloody Treason, p. 159).
In case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he is a
retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in
cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent
his entire career in motion picture film technology. He is a recipient
of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences. He has authored numerous books on motion
picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In
addition, he is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and
Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films
CJ
curtjester1
Oct 9, 2012, 9:52:37 AM10/9/12
to
Saintly Oswald
Oct 9, 2012, 9:53:30 AM10/9/12
to
We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 9, 2012, 4:03:36 PM10/9/12
to
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:53:30 AM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
Also, since there is no evidence whatsoever from the films or from sworn
> We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
witness testimony, that Greer had the door open and was dragging a foot on
the street, I think it is safe to assume that he used the brakes to slow
the car to a crawl, causing the brake lights to illuminate. Just one man's
opinion.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 9, 2012, 8:35:31 PM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/2012 9:53 AM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo
> slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full
> stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a
> full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
>
>
No, they did not. Stop spreading false information. The 4 cycles behind
> We know with absolute certainty that the presidential limo
> slowed down enough to cause the motorcade behind it to come to a full
> stop. And, at least 3 of the 4 motorcycles with the limo also came to a
> full stop. Greer must of had it going at a crawl.
>
>
the limo were traveling to the sides to keep the public from running up to
the limo. They actually started to overtake the limo when it slowed down.
Hargis decided on his own to stop and park his cycle on Elm to look for
the shooter. Funny how he looked towards the grassy knoll and did not
immediately run to the TSBD as Baker did.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 9, 2012, 8:36:40 PM10/9/12
to
some kook book and repeat the same nonsense.
> Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief
> slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs
> from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8
> mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle
You are just making up crap again.
> that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have
> noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez detected it through careful
> study and analysis of the film. It seems highly unlikely that this
> subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when
> they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down markedly.
> Here is a small sample of the eyewitness testimony:
>
> -- NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus): "The
>
You mean AFTER the head shot? THat makes no sense.
> -- Dallas Police Department (DPD) policeman Earle Brown: "The first I
> noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn
> and when the shots were fired, it stopped."
>
> -- DPD patrolman Bobby Hargis (one of the four motorcyclists escorting
> Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt
> blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost
> immediately after that."
>
> -- DPD D.V. Harkness: "I saw the first shot and the President's car
> slow down to almost a stop�I heard the first shot and saw the
> blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost
> immediately after that."
>
> -- DPD D.V. Harkness: "I saw the first shot and the President's car
> President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling on
> the car."
>
"Some of the agents piling on the car"? Show me in any film where that
> the car."
>
happened. You shouldn't even listen to any witness who says something so
obviously stupid.
> -- DPD patrolman Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four motorcyclists
> a moment.�
>
Again the kooks see the words "all but" and think that means "absolutely."
> -- DPD J.W. Foster: "immediately after President Kennedy was
> struck . . . the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb."
>
nonsense like that to show everyone what you are.
> -- Special Agent John Ready (riding in the follow-up car): "I heard
> what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right
>
Yeah, it did slow. Or else Clint Hill would not be able to catch it.
> -- Ochus V. Campbell: ". . . observed the car bearing President
> Kennedy to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed
> up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the
> scene."
>
> -- Peggy Joyce Hawkins (on the steps of the Book Depository building):
> ". . . estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away
> from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a
> full stop."
>
> Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the
> current Zapruder film. Nothing. Throughout the current film the
> limousine seems to move at a steady speed. No stop or marked slowdown
> can be seen by viewing the film at normal speed, which of course is
> the speed at which the witnesses would have observed the motorcade.
>
> * The split-second slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph in
> Z295-304 actually presents another problem for the film's
> authenticity. Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film,
> it represents a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder
> notes that such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things
> around, and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g.
> When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration, one
> sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic slowing.
shot in the head at the same time?
> The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration is particularly
> interesting because he no longer had voluntary muscular control and
> should have been thrown forward. Yet for many frames before and after
Have you ever heard of reflexes? Has the doctor ever tested your reflexes?
> this event, he appears to be quite immobile. Nobody in the limousine
> shows any signs of being moved by the split-second deceleration. So,
> assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the sudden reduction in
> speed that he detected would seem to constitute further evidence of
> alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it be that this half-second
> slowing is a remnant of what was originally a much longer, more
> noticeable deceleration?
>
I once had a guy tell me that the limo actually came to a full stop with
the parking brake on and then ALL the SS agents from the follow up car
ran up to the limousine and shot the President. Then to hide that fact
Walt Disney personally painted in the rest of the frames to make
everything look normal.
> * Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine is
> actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even though the
> limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform speed in the film
> during this time (Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, Rancho Santa Fe, CA:
> Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165). Notes Noel Twyman,
>
talk about the film.
> Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from
> 11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (Bloody Treason,
> p. 165)
>
> Dr. Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background
> images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also works in
> motion picture film technology, studied the film and confirmed his
> father's discovery (Bloody Treason, p. 159).
>
have been created accidentally while copying the film at a Top Secret
CIA photo lab?
> In case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he is a
> retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in
> cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 y
> years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology.
And he's never shot his own Double 8 mm home movie using a Bell&Howell.
And he's never studied ordinary Double 8 mm home movies to see if they
have the same type of ghost images in the sprocket hole area.
> He is a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the
> Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He has authored numerous
> books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion
> picture science. In addition, he is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion
> Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection
> of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films
>
> CJ
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 9, 2012, 8:37:03 PM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/2012 9:52 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
official testimony to produce new claims.
> limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second)
> during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the
> Zapruder film (or Z311-319). However, this event is not seen in the
> Zapruder film. In fact, the limousine never comes close to performing
> this action in the current film.
>
> Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief
> slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs
> from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8
> mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle
> that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have
> noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez detected it through careful
> study and analysis of the film. It seems highly unlikely that this
> subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when
> they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down markedly.
> Here is a small sample of the eyewitness testimony:
>
> -- NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus): "The
>
> -- Dallas Police Department (DPD) policeman Earle Brown: "The first I
> noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn
> and when the shots were fired, it stopped."
>
> -- DPD patrolman Bobby Hargis (one of the four motorcyclists escorting
> JFK�s limousine): "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the
> -- Dallas Police Department (DPD) policeman Earle Brown: "The first I
> noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn
> and when the shots were fired, it stopped."
>
> -- DPD patrolman Bobby Hargis (one of the four motorcyclists escorting
> Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt
> blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost
> immediately after that."
>
> -- DPD D.V. Harkness: "I saw the first shot and the President's car
> slow down to almost a stop�I heard the first shot and saw the
> blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost
> immediately after that."
>
> -- DPD D.V. Harkness: "I saw the first shot and the President's car
> President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling on
> the car."
>
> -- DPD patrolman Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four motorcyclists
> escorting JFK�s limousine): ". . . the car just all but stopped, just
> the car."
>
> -- DPD patrolman Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four motorcyclists
> a moment.�
>
> -- DPD J.W. Foster: "immediately after President Kennedy was
> struck . . . the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb."
>
> -- Special Agent John Ready (riding in the follow-up car): "I heard
> what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right
> front running board. The President's car slowed.�
> -- DPD J.W. Foster: "immediately after President Kennedy was
> struck . . . the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb."
>
> -- Special Agent John Ready (riding in the follow-up car): "I heard
> what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right
Anthony Marsh
Oct 9, 2012, 8:42:32 PM10/9/12
to
Stop spreading false information.
curtjester1
Oct 9, 2012, 8:44:07 PM10/9/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
True, and well, the film doesn't quite have the 'ability' to show that.
OR the possibility that they didn't meet up with each other afterwards or
with Curry's vehicle. And of course the account of Clint Hill seems to be
missing.
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html
CJ
John Reagor King
Oct 9, 2012, 9:02:36 PM10/9/12
to
In article <5d70f5ff-7ff0-4765...@googlegroups.com>,
How any of that serves any constructive purpose whatsoever in discussing
the JFK assassination is beyond reasonable understanding.
Btw, what's taking you so long to acknowledge that S.M. Holland would have
been standing almost right beside your alleged shooter on the bridge, and
was furthermore standing right there *during* the shooting, and yet never
once said anything about anyone firing a rifle from anywhere even remotely
that close to him?
Or have you jumped to yet another scenario now? Let's see, first it was
Greer shooting in the limo, then added to that is this bridge shooter whom
no witness on the bridge (Holland was hardly the only one) seems to have
recalled, and now Connally has a gun too? What, did Connally shoot JFK,
then himself, and then shoot JFK again?
the JFK assassination is beyond reasonable understanding.
Btw, what's taking you so long to acknowledge that S.M. Holland would have
been standing almost right beside your alleged shooter on the bridge, and
was furthermore standing right there *during* the shooting, and yet never
once said anything about anyone firing a rifle from anywhere even remotely
that close to him?
Or have you jumped to yet another scenario now? Let's see, first it was
Greer shooting in the limo, then added to that is this bridge shooter whom
no witness on the bridge (Holland was hardly the only one) seems to have
recalled, and now Connally has a gun too? What, did Connally shoot JFK,
then himself, and then shoot JFK again?
John Reagor King
Oct 9, 2012, 9:52:03 PM10/9/12
to
In article <8b111cf7-138e-4e77...@googlegroups.com>,
you erroneously claim. You're the one who, yet again, made what some
might consider to be a somewhat immature reply to me the day before
yesterday on Youtube about this film, when you told me to "go rub my lone
nut" or some such thing, even though I have never come even remotely close
to stooping to such a level with you, not even on Youtube where the
comments are unmoderated. You're also the one who claims John Connally is
holding a soda bottle (!) based on a single very poor copy of just one
frame of the film. If you go by such incredibly flimsy evidence to
support your claims, it would be naive of you not to expect others to
challenge you. Replying with an ad hominem insult instead of rational
argument serves no constructive purpose whatsoever in understanding the
JFK assassination. You claim to be truly interested in who really killed
him, yet you stoop to the level of ad hominem insults towards people who
haven't stooped to such a level with you, and are merely pointing out to
you, correctly, the incredibly tenuous nature of your so-called evidence,
which is a contradiction. I do not believe for a moment that anyone truly
interested in who really killed JFK would stoop to this level of insults
INSTEAD of addressing the arguments in a more rational, and substantive
manner.
> proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy
> of the Zapruder film,
To prove that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy you have to
first prove that your claims of alteration are true. You have still
failed to come anywhere close to proving that, and I am correctly pointing
out the inherent fallacy in your theory, *without* stooping to the level
of ad hominem insults as you do.
> which they call the "camera original," and for which
> the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government
> already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that
> copy, anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original.
You have to first prove it is fake. You have so far utterly failed to do
so. Just because you honestly *believe* it's fake doesn't automatically
mean you are correct. You seem to be confusing honest belief with proof.
> I've never heard
> a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide
> Connally's hand going into his pocket.
I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for you to *prove*, for the
first time ever, that his hand actually *did* go into his pocket. Merely
claiming that he did this falls far short of *proving* it.
> That makes sense.
No, it does *not*. It makes sense to you only.
> If you didn't know
> he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out
> a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought
> that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
Oh good gawd. He pulled out a gun and stuck it in his pocket? Now it
isn't a soda bottle anymore? Where on earth do you get this crazy stuff
from? I'm not saying you're about to argue this, but just in case, is
this leading to a claim that Connally shot JFK as well? Or that he shot
himself? Or both?
fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published on
> November 29, 1963,
No, it is merely your *opinion* that it was faked, not a proven fact as
> Anywho, the fact that frame 222 was faked AFTER Life Magazine published on
> November 29, 1963,
you erroneously claim. You're the one who, yet again, made what some
might consider to be a somewhat immature reply to me the day before
yesterday on Youtube about this film, when you told me to "go rub my lone
nut" or some such thing, even though I have never come even remotely close
to stooping to such a level with you, not even on Youtube where the
comments are unmoderated. You're also the one who claims John Connally is
holding a soda bottle (!) based on a single very poor copy of just one
frame of the film. If you go by such incredibly flimsy evidence to
support your claims, it would be naive of you not to expect others to
challenge you. Replying with an ad hominem insult instead of rational
argument serves no constructive purpose whatsoever in understanding the
JFK assassination. You claim to be truly interested in who really killed
him, yet you stoop to the level of ad hominem insults towards people who
haven't stooped to such a level with you, and are merely pointing out to
you, correctly, the incredibly tenuous nature of your so-called evidence,
which is a contradiction. I do not believe for a moment that anyone truly
interested in who really killed JFK would stoop to this level of insults
INSTEAD of addressing the arguments in a more rational, and substantive
manner.
> proves that the conspiracy still controlled the Life copy
> of the Zapruder film,
first prove that your claims of alteration are true. You have still
failed to come anywhere close to proving that, and I am correctly pointing
out the inherent fallacy in your theory, *without* stooping to the level
of ad hominem insults as you do.
> which they call the "camera original," and for which
> the taxpayers paid loads of silly money to possess, when the government
> already owned it's own copy just as good or better than Life's. Where is that
> copy, anyway? Everybody is so focused on the fake original.
so. Just because you honestly *believe* it's fake doesn't automatically
mean you are correct. You seem to be confusing honest belief with proof.
> I've never heard
> a word about those copies. It also proves that they felt it important to hide
> Connally's hand going into his pocket.
first time ever, that his hand actually *did* go into his pocket. Merely
claiming that he did this falls far short of *proving* it.
> That makes sense.
No, it does *not*. It makes sense to you only.
> If you didn't know
> he had just reached into his pocket, you'd never think he had just pulled out
> a gun and stuck it under his hat. In fact, I don't think I'd have thought
> that anyway, if they hadn't covered it up by changing the film.
isn't a soda bottle anymore? Where on earth do you get this crazy stuff
from? I'm not saying you're about to argue this, but just in case, is
this leading to a claim that Connally shot JFK as well? Or that he shot
himself? Or both?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 9, 2012, 9:52:12 PM10/9/12
to
witnesses. Look at the photographic evidence.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 10, 2012, 3:15:07 PM10/10/12
to
These are the fuzzy frames of which I spoke. They are not adequate. I have
them all on my computer. There are higher quality versions available, but
no complete set that I can find. I would like frame 222 from that version,
and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328.
There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like
to examine more closely. And some have made claims about Jackie, using
higher resolution images, and I would like to compare those to this very
clear version. It's a crazy idea, but in murders the spouse usually is the
most likely suspect, and sources do attest to a sexual debauchery on the
part of JFK which most husbands would say, I think, that their wives would
kill them over, so I think I should look into that.
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:51:46 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:08 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
>
> > AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
>
> > brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
>
> > in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
>
> > too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
>
> > original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
>
> > the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
>
> > artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
>
> > cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
>
> > my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
>
> > of 222.
>
> >
>
> > https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQ...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:51:35 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>
> > > "Saintly Oswald" <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > >news:ca1696e5-fb6a-4cea...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
>
> > > One trouble with my idea that the film was altered after the Life
>
> >
>
> > > publication is that in frame 225 Connally's necktie in both the Life and
>
> >
>
> > > my high resolution versions has the same distorted line, presumably caused
>
> >
>
> > > by the shot hitting him. If that was faked, then it had to be done early
>
> >
>
> > > on, before, probably, the need for a SBT would have been known. Perhaps
>
> >
>
> > > the purple rectangle in the color versions is caused by differences of
>
> >
>
> > > contrast in the the different versions. When I play with the contrast of
>
> >
>
> > > the Life version, I can't get the rectangle, but I can get the same line
>
> >
>
> > > against his shirt of which the rectangle is a part. Perhaps it is just a
>
> >
>
> > > coincidence that frame 222 is missing from the nice clear version? On the
>
> >
>
> > > other hand, if it had been known that Greer had shot Connally, and the
>
> >
>
> > > editor would have known because he had to re-frame the limousine to hide
>
> >
>
> > > that shot, then the faking might have been intended to account for his
>
> >
>
> > > wounds rather than for the SBT, and would have been done with the original
>
> >
>
> > > editing. Actually, that would be the creation of the SBT right there by
>
> >
>
> > > the editor. Yes. I like that. I hope you all do, too. But I wouldn't bet
>
> >
>
> > > on a post-Life publication faking as I proposed when I opened this topic.
>
> >
>
> > > Well, well, well. Here is somebody who's prescription has been corrected.
>
> >
>
> > > He can actually see the "rectangle or triangle" shape. In another thread I
>
> >
>
> > > tried to discuess this issue with another poster who claimed I invented it
>
> >
>
> > > and that it didn't exist. But what can we expect from LNers. I called the
>
> >
>
> > > "rectangle or triangle" shape an ink smear. Because it is. It's not a
>
> >
>
> > > lapel flip. It is a faulty alteration where the forger's hand slipped.
>
> >
>
> > > Maybe you think I'm crazy. Well o.k. Then ask yourself how did Z314 and
>
> >
>
> > > Z315 get switched. PLEASE don't rely on the Zavada report. That was one of
>
> >
>
> > > those government projects to make lame excuses seem probable. And it in
>
> >
>
> > > reality says nothing. It is part of the conspiracy to cover-up the murder
>
> >
>
> > > conspiracy. One of those fake excuses. Watch out cause the LNers have no
>
> >
>
> > > case without it.
>
>
>
> The 'purple' is Jackie and her coat.
>
>
>
> http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>
>
>
> CJ
them all on my computer. There are higher quality versions available, but
no complete set that I can find. I would like frame 222 from that version,
and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328.
There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like
to examine more closely. And some have made claims about Jackie, using
higher resolution images, and I would like to compare those to this very
clear version. It's a crazy idea, but in murders the spouse usually is the
most likely suspect, and sources do attest to a sexual debauchery on the
part of JFK which most husbands would say, I think, that their wives would
kill them over, so I think I should look into that.
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:51:46 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:08 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You got me looking at this again, and, once again, I think this was faked
>
> > AFTER the Life Magazine publication. I played around with the contrast and
>
> > brightness on my scan of Life's Z222, and where that purple rectangle is
>
> > in the later editions, John Connally is holding a bottle of pop! This is
>
> > too weird. Pop aside, I think what is going on here is that in the
>
> > original, Connally's jacket is not open. But, to produced the lapel pop,
>
> > the jacket must be open so that it can close. Our purple rectangle is the
>
> > artist's rendition of a shadow on Connally's newly exposed shirt, and it
>
> > cover's the Governor's Dr, Pepper, too. My photo here is side by side with
>
> > my hi-resolution version of 223, because I don't have a comparable version
>
> > of 222.
>
> >
>
> > https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paVmOko4Vcg/UGyiJub2CCI/AAAAAAAAAQ...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:51:35 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>
> > > "Saintly Oswald" <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > >news:ca1696e5-fb6a-4cea...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
>
> > > One trouble with my idea that the film was altered after the Life
>
> >
>
> > > publication is that in frame 225 Connally's necktie in both the Life and
>
> >
>
> > > my high resolution versions has the same distorted line, presumably caused
>
> >
>
> > > by the shot hitting him. If that was faked, then it had to be done early
>
> >
>
> > > on, before, probably, the need for a SBT would have been known. Perhaps
>
> >
>
> > > the purple rectangle in the color versions is caused by differences of
>
> >
>
> > > contrast in the the different versions. When I play with the contrast of
>
> >
>
> > > the Life version, I can't get the rectangle, but I can get the same line
>
> >
>
> > > against his shirt of which the rectangle is a part. Perhaps it is just a
>
> >
>
> > > coincidence that frame 222 is missing from the nice clear version? On the
>
> >
>
> > > other hand, if it had been known that Greer had shot Connally, and the
>
> >
>
> > > editor would have known because he had to re-frame the limousine to hide
>
> >
>
> > > that shot, then the faking might have been intended to account for his
>
> >
>
> > > wounds rather than for the SBT, and would have been done with the original
>
> >
>
> > > editing. Actually, that would be the creation of the SBT right there by
>
> >
>
> > > the editor. Yes. I like that. I hope you all do, too. But I wouldn't bet
>
> >
>
> > > on a post-Life publication faking as I proposed when I opened this topic.
>
> >
>
> > > Well, well, well. Here is somebody who's prescription has been corrected.
>
> >
>
> > > He can actually see the "rectangle or triangle" shape. In another thread I
>
> >
>
> > > tried to discuess this issue with another poster who claimed I invented it
>
> >
>
> > > and that it didn't exist. But what can we expect from LNers. I called the
>
> >
>
> > > "rectangle or triangle" shape an ink smear. Because it is. It's not a
>
> >
>
> > > lapel flip. It is a faulty alteration where the forger's hand slipped.
>
> >
>
> > > Maybe you think I'm crazy. Well o.k. Then ask yourself how did Z314 and
>
> >
>
> > > Z315 get switched. PLEASE don't rely on the Zavada report. That was one of
>
> >
>
> > > those government projects to make lame excuses seem probable. And it in
>
> >
>
> > > reality says nothing. It is part of the conspiracy to cover-up the murder
>
> >
>
> > > conspiracy. One of those fake excuses. Watch out cause the LNers have no
>
> >
>
> > > case without it.
>
>
>
> The 'purple' is Jackie and her coat.
>
>
>
> http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>
>
>
> CJ
Anthony Marsh
Oct 10, 2012, 4:11:35 PM10/10/12
to
On 10/9/2012 9:02 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5d70f5ff-7ff0-4765...@googlegroups.com>,
> fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Well, ain't Bee, at least I assume you ain't, sometimes folks *can* do
>> this thing or another, but they jess don't, and they get all flustered
>> later on and then they come back and try to make things right. You know,
>> like that time that Floyd cut a penis into the back of my head without
>> even askin', and then snuck on in in the middle the night to glue some
>> hair on my head off Otis's old mule? Well, this is the same kinda thing,
>> 'cept it weren't a schlong in Connally's hand, but a gun. You know how
>> these things can happen.
>
> How any of that serves any constructive purpose whatsoever in discussing
> the JFK assassination is beyond reasonable understanding.
>
> Btw, what's taking you so long to acknowledge that S.M. Holland would have
> been standing almost right beside your alleged shooter on the bridge, and
> was furthermore standing right there *during* the shooting, and yet never
> once said anything about anyone firing a rifle from anywhere even remotely
> that close to him?
>
Yet you think the three black employees were only 10 feet away from the
> In article <5d70f5ff-7ff0-4765...@googlegroups.com>,
> fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Well, ain't Bee, at least I assume you ain't, sometimes folks *can* do
>> this thing or another, but they jess don't, and they get all flustered
>> later on and then they come back and try to make things right. You know,
>> like that time that Floyd cut a penis into the back of my head without
>> even askin', and then snuck on in in the middle the night to glue some
>> hair on my head off Otis's old mule? Well, this is the same kinda thing,
>> 'cept it weren't a schlong in Connally's hand, but a gun. You know how
>> these things can happen.
>
> How any of that serves any constructive purpose whatsoever in discussing
> the JFK assassination is beyond reasonable understanding.
>
> Btw, what's taking you so long to acknowledge that S.M. Holland would have
> been standing almost right beside your alleged shooter on the bridge, and
> was furthermore standing right there *during* the shooting, and yet never
> once said anything about anyone firing a rifle from anywhere even remotely
> that close to him?
>
rifle on the floor above them, but did nothing about it.
> Or have you jumped to yet another scenario now? Let's see, first it was
> Greer shooting in the limo, then added to that is this bridge shooter whom
> no witness on the bridge (Holland was hardly the only one) seems to have
> recalled, and now Connally has a gun too? What, did Connally shoot JFK,
> then himself, and then shoot JFK again?
>
curtjester1
Oct 10, 2012, 4:13:07 PM10/10/12
to
On Oct 9, 8:37 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 9:52 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 7:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/7/2012 6:03 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> >> 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.
>
> > * Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the
> > rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down
> > markedly for at least a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the
>
> No one said "a second or two." You keep adding your own ideas to
> official testimony to produce new claims.
>
This is something I copied for you from a site. And yes, there are
> On 10/9/2012 9:52 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 7:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/7/2012 6:03 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> >> 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.
>
> > * Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the
> > rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down
> > markedly for at least a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the
>
> No one said "a second or two." You keep adding your own ideas to
> official testimony to produce new claims.
>
people who said that or very close to it.
> > limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second)
> > during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the
> > Zapruder film (or Z311-319). However, this event is not seen in the
>
> No, it doesn't. That is just the sunlight shining through the lens.> Zapruder film. In fact, the limousine never comes close to performing
> > this action in the current film.
>
thread on the motorcycle cops and the slowdown etc., and they will
actually show you a video of the limo, with the light coming on. There is
no way it can be construed as a light reflection as it goes off and on
right away, so I don't know why you even have come up with that silly idea
anyway. Maybe because you need it to hang to some erroneous theory is all
I can think of. It's really a ridiculous theory anyway, when you think
about it. You still need brake lights to come on even if it were a simple
braking from 12 to 8 MPH, as you seem to think is golden.
CJ
curtjester1
Oct 10, 2012, 4:13:34 PM10/10/12
to
>
Tell, them, it's their citations.
CJ
Saintly Oswald
Oct 10, 2012, 9:35:29 PM10/10/12
to
I think the wind whispered me a question, so I'll answer. At present, and
since the information must be gleaned and my mind is not calcified, this
may change, I think the following sequence is a fair guess:
1. The first hit is from DC Man on JFK (behind the sign).
2. Next, somebody from behind, I'll call him "Oswald," gets JFK in the
back Z224).
3. John Connally shoots JFK (Z287). I now think he was not startled by the
shot so much as beginning his planned routine at the hearing of the shot.
4. Greer shoots Connally (Z289).
5. Greer shoots JFK (Z304).
6. Jackie fiddles with JFK's back brace. Hey, that's what it looks like
(Z299-319).
7. I still don't understand the big head shot, but I'll say that comes
from "Oswald." There may be 2 shots involved there. (Z313).
8. Greer shoots at JFK again (Z318)
9. Bridge Man shoots Connally's wrist and JFK (Z322).
10. I think Bridge Man puts another shot through the windshield, but I
don't know what happens to it (Z330).
I think that's enough for now.
since the information must be gleaned and my mind is not calcified, this
may change, I think the following sequence is a fair guess:
1. The first hit is from DC Man on JFK (behind the sign).
2. Next, somebody from behind, I'll call him "Oswald," gets JFK in the
back Z224).
3. John Connally shoots JFK (Z287). I now think he was not startled by the
shot so much as beginning his planned routine at the hearing of the shot.
4. Greer shoots Connally (Z289).
5. Greer shoots JFK (Z304).
6. Jackie fiddles with JFK's back brace. Hey, that's what it looks like
(Z299-319).
7. I still don't understand the big head shot, but I'll say that comes
from "Oswald." There may be 2 shots involved there. (Z313).
8. Greer shoots at JFK again (Z318)
9. Bridge Man shoots Connally's wrist and JFK (Z322).
10. I think Bridge Man puts another shot through the windshield, but I
don't know what happens to it (Z330).
I think that's enough for now.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 11, 2012, 9:02:07 PM10/11/12
to
> CJ
>
John Reagor King
Oct 11, 2012, 10:42:04 PM10/11/12
to
In article <7e77057b-743e-4a53...@googlegroups.com>,
about thirty feet away from Skinny and at least six of his co-workers, but
none of them hear a shot from anywhere near that close to them. And
Skinny said the first shot came from way up Elm Street. He said it
several times in several different years. Immediately after the last shot
is fired, Skinny and at least three others run right past DC as he is
walking onto the bridge with his rifle and his walkie-talkie, because, as
continues to be entertaining to me to continue pointing out, it is
impossible in an absolute sense for DC to reach the point at which he is
photographed by Cabluck with his walkie-talkie, and his rifle *already*
resting against the railing, unless he is already walking out onto the
bridge as Skinny et al are passing him going the opposite direction. Yet
although the rifle is in full view as DC is carrying it, Skinny et al
never notice anyone with a rifle on the bridge.
I, uh, "wonder" why this could be?
Perhaps because there was no rifle to see?
Just a thought.
> 2. Next, somebody from behind, I'll call him "Oswald," gets JFK in the
> back Z224).
That might work. Of course, it is plain as the sun in the sky on a
cloudless day that both Connally and JFK jerk violently starting at Z226.
Also Connally said he heard the first shot, turned to his right, then was
in the process of turning around to his left to look at JFK, but only got
far enough in the turn to be facing more or less straight forward, and
that it was exactly then that he felt himself to be hit in the back. He
said this year after year after year, and decade after decade after
decade. And quite interestingly, the film does indeed show him turning
his head to the right at around Z165, shows his head continuously turned
to the right all the way to where he disappears behind the sign, and still
shows his head turned to the right in the first frames after he emerges
from behind the sign. And not once does he drink from his soda bottle.
Almost exactly at Z226 his head suddenly turns to facing almost straight
forward, and that's exactly where he jerks violently.
Wow.
His statements match what is seen in the film to absolute perfection.
How did he do that? Did he watch the film first and then decide what to
say?
Inquiring minds want to know.
> 3. John Connally shoots JFK (Z287). I now think he was not startled by the
> shot so much as beginning his planned routine at the hearing of the shot.
[Explosive sounds of extreme mirth.]
Yep, I thought we would be going there as soon as I first saw you a few
days ago claim that you can, uh, "see" him holding a gun. But I thought
you said you "see" him putting it *in* his pocket, not withdrawing it
*from* his pocket. Shall I quote you verbatim saying exactly that from
one of your previous articles? And how is he shooting JFK, may I ask,
when he has his hat in one hand and his soda bottle in the other? My,
your scenario just keeps changing and changing and changing. Also why do
we not see JFK exhibit anything that looks even remotely like a reaction
to being shot again at this point?
> 4. Greer shoots Connally (Z289).
With both of his hands on the steering wheel? That's a neat trick. Also
how are you figuring that trajectory? The entrance in Connally's back was
almost exactly at the bottom of his right armpit. The exit was about two
inches to the left of his right nipple. In other words, the bullet exited
farther to the left in his body than the entrance. If Greer is shooting
Connally at Z289, in the position Connally is in at that moment the bullet
would exit farther to the *right* in his body. You then have to have the
bullet make a sharp turn downward to hit his right wrist, and then make
another sharp turn downward and to the left (i.e. somewhat back toward
Greer) to go into Connally's left thigh. This bullet must have been at
least a thousand times more magical than the wildest claim ever made by
any CT worldwide, in any language or any other form of communication,
about the LNers' single bullet, since that one never changes direction
significantly at all.
> 5. Greer shoots JFK (Z304).
With both of his hands still on the steering wheel? Amazing. How did he
do it? And why do we still see nothing that looks even remotely like a
reaction from JFK to being shot a third time?
> 6. Jackie fiddles with JFK's back brace. Hey, that's what it looks like
> (Z299-319).
> 7. I still don't understand the big head shot,
When that's the easiest shot of all to understand? Perish the thought.
> but I'll say that comes
> from "Oswald." There may be 2 shots involved there. (Z313).
Oh? Where does the other shot come from? Skinny's grassy knoll shooter
who is nowhere even remotely close to DC?
> 8. Greer shoots at JFK again (Z318)
Oh lordy, and with both his hands *still* on the steering wheel?
Amazing.
> 9. Bridge Man shoots Connally's wrist and JFK (Z322).
Oh, that's the wrist shot. Hmm. At that point Nellie is already pulling
her husband down. His right wrist at this point is quite low in the car.
How are you getting the bullet to his wrist without it going through Greer
and the driver's seat? Or maybe Greer was shot, and he just kept driving
and driving and driving. And those bad people at Parkland didn't even
treat him. For shame.
> 10. I think Bridge Man puts another shot through the windshield, but I
> don't know what happens to it (Z330).
No, that's the one that hit Tague.
(C&C)
> I think that's enough for now.
I'll say.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the wind whispered me a question, so I'll answer. At present, and
> since the information must be gleaned and my mind is not calcified, this
> may change, I think the following sequence is a fair guess:
>
> 1. The first hit is from DC Man on JFK (behind the sign).
Ah yes, your bridge shooter, who fires a shot from his rifle from only
> I think the wind whispered me a question, so I'll answer. At present, and
> since the information must be gleaned and my mind is not calcified, this
> may change, I think the following sequence is a fair guess:
>
> 1. The first hit is from DC Man on JFK (behind the sign).
about thirty feet away from Skinny and at least six of his co-workers, but
none of them hear a shot from anywhere near that close to them. And
Skinny said the first shot came from way up Elm Street. He said it
several times in several different years. Immediately after the last shot
is fired, Skinny and at least three others run right past DC as he is
walking onto the bridge with his rifle and his walkie-talkie, because, as
continues to be entertaining to me to continue pointing out, it is
impossible in an absolute sense for DC to reach the point at which he is
photographed by Cabluck with his walkie-talkie, and his rifle *already*
resting against the railing, unless he is already walking out onto the
bridge as Skinny et al are passing him going the opposite direction. Yet
although the rifle is in full view as DC is carrying it, Skinny et al
never notice anyone with a rifle on the bridge.
I, uh, "wonder" why this could be?
Perhaps because there was no rifle to see?
Just a thought.
> 2. Next, somebody from behind, I'll call him "Oswald," gets JFK in the
> back Z224).
cloudless day that both Connally and JFK jerk violently starting at Z226.
Also Connally said he heard the first shot, turned to his right, then was
in the process of turning around to his left to look at JFK, but only got
far enough in the turn to be facing more or less straight forward, and
that it was exactly then that he felt himself to be hit in the back. He
said this year after year after year, and decade after decade after
decade. And quite interestingly, the film does indeed show him turning
his head to the right at around Z165, shows his head continuously turned
to the right all the way to where he disappears behind the sign, and still
shows his head turned to the right in the first frames after he emerges
from behind the sign. And not once does he drink from his soda bottle.
Almost exactly at Z226 his head suddenly turns to facing almost straight
forward, and that's exactly where he jerks violently.
Wow.
His statements match what is seen in the film to absolute perfection.
How did he do that? Did he watch the film first and then decide what to
say?
Inquiring minds want to know.
> 3. John Connally shoots JFK (Z287). I now think he was not startled by the
> shot so much as beginning his planned routine at the hearing of the shot.
Yep, I thought we would be going there as soon as I first saw you a few
days ago claim that you can, uh, "see" him holding a gun. But I thought
you said you "see" him putting it *in* his pocket, not withdrawing it
*from* his pocket. Shall I quote you verbatim saying exactly that from
one of your previous articles? And how is he shooting JFK, may I ask,
when he has his hat in one hand and his soda bottle in the other? My,
your scenario just keeps changing and changing and changing. Also why do
we not see JFK exhibit anything that looks even remotely like a reaction
to being shot again at this point?
> 4. Greer shoots Connally (Z289).
how are you figuring that trajectory? The entrance in Connally's back was
almost exactly at the bottom of his right armpit. The exit was about two
inches to the left of his right nipple. In other words, the bullet exited
farther to the left in his body than the entrance. If Greer is shooting
Connally at Z289, in the position Connally is in at that moment the bullet
would exit farther to the *right* in his body. You then have to have the
bullet make a sharp turn downward to hit his right wrist, and then make
another sharp turn downward and to the left (i.e. somewhat back toward
Greer) to go into Connally's left thigh. This bullet must have been at
least a thousand times more magical than the wildest claim ever made by
any CT worldwide, in any language or any other form of communication,
about the LNers' single bullet, since that one never changes direction
significantly at all.
> 5. Greer shoots JFK (Z304).
do it? And why do we still see nothing that looks even remotely like a
reaction from JFK to being shot a third time?
> 6. Jackie fiddles with JFK's back brace. Hey, that's what it looks like
> (Z299-319).
> 7. I still don't understand the big head shot,
> but I'll say that comes
> from "Oswald." There may be 2 shots involved there. (Z313).
who is nowhere even remotely close to DC?
> 8. Greer shoots at JFK again (Z318)
Amazing.
> 9. Bridge Man shoots Connally's wrist and JFK (Z322).
her husband down. His right wrist at this point is quite low in the car.
How are you getting the bullet to his wrist without it going through Greer
and the driver's seat? Or maybe Greer was shot, and he just kept driving
and driving and driving. And those bad people at Parkland didn't even
treat him. For shame.
> 10. I think Bridge Man puts another shot through the windshield, but I
> don't know what happens to it (Z330).
(C&C)
> I think that's enough for now.
John Reagor King
Oct 11, 2012, 10:42:39 PM10/11/12
to
In article <50e7f745-3e7f-4210...@googlegroups.com>,
> I would like frame 222 from that version,
> and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328.
Oh yes, quite fascinating.
> There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like
> to examine more closely.
Skinny's fourth shot, maybe?
> And some have made claims about Jackie, using
> higher resolution images, and I would like to compare those to this very
> clear version. It's a crazy idea, but in murders the spouse usually is the
> most likely suspect, and sources do attest to a sexual debauchery on the
> part of JFK which most husbands would say, I think, that their wives would
> kill them over, so I think I should look into that.
Oh yes, on the MPI dvd doubtless you will find that she's holding a gun
too. Or a soda bottle. Maybe she bashes her husband over the head with
that? "And *that's* for Judith Campbell!"
But I'm curious as to why you're leaving out poor Roy Kellerman and Nellie
Connally? I mean, you've got almost everyone else in the limousine with a
gun by now. Shouldn't they each be packing heat too? And what about JFK?
I think he should have one too. Yes, the revelation has just come to me.
He had gotten wind that his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Connally, William Greer,
and Roy Kellerman, had all plotted with the CIA to shoot him, and just the
perfect spot would be the approach to the Triple Underpass, shortly before
getting onto the freeway. He was just about to reach for his gun to get
them before they got him when the first shot hit him. At the point you
see his elbows splayed, the gun is in his lap.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These are the fuzzy frames of which I spoke. They are not adequate. I have
> them all on my computer. There are higher quality versions available, but
> no complete set that I can find.
Psst...get the MPI dvd...
> These are the fuzzy frames of which I spoke. They are not adequate. I have
> them all on my computer. There are higher quality versions available, but
> no complete set that I can find.
> I would like frame 222 from that version,
> and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328.
> There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like
> to examine more closely.
> And some have made claims about Jackie, using
> higher resolution images, and I would like to compare those to this very
> clear version. It's a crazy idea, but in murders the spouse usually is the
> most likely suspect, and sources do attest to a sexual debauchery on the
> part of JFK which most husbands would say, I think, that their wives would
> kill them over, so I think I should look into that.
too. Or a soda bottle. Maybe she bashes her husband over the head with
that? "And *that's* for Judith Campbell!"
But I'm curious as to why you're leaving out poor Roy Kellerman and Nellie
Connally? I mean, you've got almost everyone else in the limousine with a
gun by now. Shouldn't they each be packing heat too? And what about JFK?
I think he should have one too. Yes, the revelation has just come to me.
He had gotten wind that his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Connally, William Greer,
and Roy Kellerman, had all plotted with the CIA to shoot him, and just the
perfect spot would be the approach to the Triple Underpass, shortly before
getting onto the freeway. He was just about to reach for his gun to get
them before they got him when the first shot hit him. At the point you
see his elbows splayed, the gun is in his lap.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 12, 2012, 4:54:46 PM10/12/12
to
I am somewhat mystified that I must explain this. I don't think it is
unreasonable that I wish to look at the clearest version of the Zapruder
film available. I suppose that it must be difficult for the blind to
understand the importance of clear pictures. This is understandable, of
course, since the blind cannot see anything, no matter how clear it may
be. So, it does not matter to them that some pictures are clear or that
some pictures are fuzzy. To them, they are just a theory. But, those of us
who can see do find it easier to see what is happening in pictures that
are less fuzzy than in pictures that are more fuzzy. And, some of us
actually do want to see what happened. That anybody would force me to
argue this point is very revealing of that person's motives.
unreasonable that I wish to look at the clearest version of the Zapruder
film available. I suppose that it must be difficult for the blind to
understand the importance of clear pictures. This is understandable, of
course, since the blind cannot see anything, no matter how clear it may
be. So, it does not matter to them that some pictures are clear or that
some pictures are fuzzy. To them, they are just a theory. But, those of us
who can see do find it easier to see what is happening in pictures that
are less fuzzy than in pictures that are more fuzzy. And, some of us
actually do want to see what happened. That anybody would force me to
argue this point is very revealing of that person's motives.
Jason Burke
Oct 12, 2012, 5:35:00 PM10/12/12
to
happened. Didn't you get the CIA notice to keep all this quiet?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 12, 2012, 9:48:36 PM10/12/12
to
On 10/11/2012 10:42 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <50e7f745-3e7f-4210...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> These are the fuzzy frames of which I spoke. They are not adequate. I have
>> them all on my computer. There are higher quality versions available, but
>> no complete set that I can find.
>
> Psst...get the MPI dvd...
>
>> I would like frame 222 from that version,
>> and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328.
>
> Oh yes, quite fascinating.
>
>> There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like
>> to examine more closely.
>
> Skinny's fourth shot, maybe?
>
Now wait a minute. I'm getting confused here. Is he talking about TWO
> In article <50e7f745-3e7f-4210...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> These are the fuzzy frames of which I spoke. They are not adequate. I have
>> them all on my computer. There are higher quality versions available, but
>> no complete set that I can find.
>
> Psst...get the MPI dvd...
>
>> I would like frame 222 from that version,
>> and all of the frames after 328. Some interesting things happen after 328.
>
> Oh yes, quite fascinating.
>
>> There seems to be another shot through the windshield which I would like
>> to examine more closely.
>
> Skinny's fourth shot, maybe?
>
shots through the windshield?
Both through the same hole? I've heard some pretty remarkable claims
about snipers, like the shot through the enemy's scope, but I have never
seen a sniper be able to shoot through a hole in a windshield. Maybe the
first shot was from a .50 caliber and the second was from a .17?
Saintly Oswald
Oct 13, 2012, 10:40:41 AM10/13/12
to
On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:48:37 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Now wait a minute. I'm getting confused here. Is he talking about TWO
>
> shots through the windshield?
>
> Both through the same hole?
I think I'll copyright that theory. You never know.
> Now wait a minute. I'm getting confused here. Is he talking about TWO
>
> shots through the windshield?
>
> Both through the same hole?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 12:14:00 PM10/13/12
to
first.
curtjester1
Oct 13, 2012, 10:46:30 PM10/13/12
to
CJ
curtjester1
Oct 13, 2012, 10:52:49 PM10/13/12
to
Alvarez's slowdown?
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 7:09:13 PM10/14/12
to
curtjester1
Oct 14, 2012, 10:47:48 PM10/14/12
to
were faulty for not working that day? Anyone would know that if they
were that they should have come on numerous times throughout the day
and especially during the shooting.
Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
were working, TOO.
The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
authentic.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Oct 15, 2012, 1:50:50 PM10/15/12
to
lights worked fine. When we don't see them come on that means that the
driver did not apply the brakes.
Why should Greer brake during the shooting? Is that what they teach the
SS to do when they hear gunshots? Stop the car and ask for directions?
Is that what de Gaulle's chauffeur did?
>
> Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
> on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
> frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
> NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
> off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
> were working, TOO.
>
the difference before you start mouthing off.
Oh, you think they have brake lights on the front too?
> The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
> authentic.
>
Maybe I could come up with a kook argument that they faked all the films
to make it look like the brake lights came on.
> CJ
>
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:09:04 PM10/15/12
to
In article <bdcad889-9e80-486f...@googlegroups.com>,
replied to you, that I have yet seen.
> I suppose that it must be difficult for the blind to
> understand the importance of clear pictures. This is understandable, of
> course, since the blind cannot see anything, no matter how clear it may
> be. So, it does not matter to them that some pictures are clear or that
> some pictures are fuzzy. To them, they are just a theory. But, those of us
> who can see do find it easier to see what is happening in pictures that
> are less fuzzy than in pictures that are more fuzzy. And, some of us
> actually do want to see what happened.
Yes, including me.
> That anybody would force me to
> argue this point is very revealing of that person's motives.
Who on earth is "forcing" you to argue this point? Certainly not me.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am somewhat mystified that I must explain this. I don't think it is
> unreasonable that I wish to look at the clearest version of the Zapruder
> film available.
Of course it isn't. Who has said otherwise? Not one person who has
> I am somewhat mystified that I must explain this. I don't think it is
> unreasonable that I wish to look at the clearest version of the Zapruder
> film available.
replied to you, that I have yet seen.
> I suppose that it must be difficult for the blind to
> understand the importance of clear pictures. This is understandable, of
> course, since the blind cannot see anything, no matter how clear it may
> be. So, it does not matter to them that some pictures are clear or that
> some pictures are fuzzy. To them, they are just a theory. But, those of us
> who can see do find it easier to see what is happening in pictures that
> are less fuzzy than in pictures that are more fuzzy. And, some of us
> actually do want to see what happened.
> That anybody would force me to
> argue this point is very revealing of that person's motives.
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:09:14 PM10/15/12
to
curtjester1
Oct 16, 2012, 3:14:38 PM10/16/12
to
stopped and some say slowed down, as distinct testimonies in spades,
you contend that the brake lights didn't come on THEN???
> Why should Greer brake during the shooting? Is that what they teach the
if he continued. BTAIM, everyone and their brother said he stopped.
> SS to do when they hear gunshots? Stop the car and ask for directions?
> Is that what de Gaulle's chauffeur did?
>
>
>
> > Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
>
> Don't even bother quoting the Education Forum. Hangout for loonies.
>
> > on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
> > frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
> > NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
> > off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
> > were working, TOO.
>
> No, and I didn't say reflection. Learn English. I said refraction. Learn
> the difference before you start mouthing off.
on?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15281&hl=motorcyclists&st=75
> Oh, you think they have brake lights on the front too?
>
> > The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
> > authentic.
>
> Ridiculous.
> Maybe I could come up with a kook argument that they faked all the films
> to make it look like the brake lights came on.
>
>
CJ
>
> > CJ
curtjester1
Oct 16, 2012, 4:26:18 PM10/16/12
to
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1744462/pg1
CJ
curtjester1
Oct 16, 2012, 4:27:30 PM10/16/12
to
testimony was correct?
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5604.0
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Oct 16, 2012, 10:56:53 PM10/16/12
to
how to point to a specific picture on the Web site rather than the
entire page.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 16, 2012, 10:59:25 PM10/16/12
to
>> Why should Greer brake during the shooting? Is that what they teach the
>
> it doesn't matter why. He might have thought he was going into fire
> if he continued. BTAIM, everyone and their brother said he stopped.
assassination attempt because his driver did the right thing and
immediately accelerated into the fire.
Your "facts" are wrong. Only a handful of idiots said the limo stopped.
And you are still afraid to read my article.
>
>> SS to do when they hear gunshots? Stop the car and ask for directions?
>> Is that what de Gaulle's chauffeur did?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now as far as the Muchmore film ones can see at a discussion at the EF
>>
>> Don't even bother quoting the Education Forum. Hangout for loonies.
>>
>>> on the motorcyclists and the films in general, one has pinpointed the
>>> frame (in a super closeup0 where the brake light did come on. It was
>>> NOT a reflection, because the light came on and then immediately went
>>> off. They also showed the brake lights from the front, where they
>>> were working, TOO.
>>
>> No, and I didn't say reflection. Learn English. I said refraction. Learn
>> the difference before you start mouthing off.
>
> With your tossing of terms, are you going to say it wasn't coming
> on?
>
Since you've never been out in the real world you don't know that every
day people are fooled into thinking that a car's lights are on when it
is just light refracting through the lens.
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15281&hl=motorcyclists&st=75
>
>
>> Oh, you think they have brake lights on the front too?
>>
> They showed lights on the front working and blinking.
>
wiggle-waggle and used in motorcades just like the motorcycles
wiggle-waggles.
>>> The only way it can be denied is if one is bent on the film to being
>>> authentic.
>>
>> Ridiculous.
>> Maybe I could come up with a kook argument that they faked all the films
>> to make it look like the brake lights came on.
>>
>>
> OR the brake lights came on and people are in denial that they did.
>
> CJ
>
>>
>>> CJ
>
>
curtjester1
Oct 17, 2012, 4:22:42 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 16, 10:59 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 3:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 1:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
Snip all the crazy weirdness....
> On 10/16/2012 3:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 1:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
.
>
> > With your tossing of terms, are you going to say it wasn't coming
> > on?
>
> English. The light bulb did not come on.
> Since you've never been out in the real world you don't know that every
> day people are fooled into thinking that a car's lights are on when it
> is just light refracting through the lens.
>
LOOK at the film.
>
> > With your tossing of terms, are you going to say it wasn't coming
> > on?
>
> English. The light bulb did not come on.
> Since you've never been out in the real world you don't know that every
> day people are fooled into thinking that a car's lights are on when it
> is just light refracting through the lens.
>
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1744462/pg1
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15281&hl=motorc...
Anthony Marsh
Oct 17, 2012, 10:13:12 PM10/17/12
to
On 10/17/2012 4:22 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 16, 10:59 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 3:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 1:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Snip all the crazy weirdness....
> .
>>
>>> With your tossing of terms, are you going to say it wasn't coming
>>> on?
>>
>> English. The light bulb did not come on.
>> Since you've never been out in the real world you don't know that every
>> day people are fooled into thinking that a car's lights are on when it
>> is just light refracting through the lens.
>>
> LOOK at the film.
>
> http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1744462/pg1
>
I am not impressed by kook sites.
> On Oct 16, 10:59 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 3:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 1:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Snip all the crazy weirdness....
> .
>>
>>> With your tossing of terms, are you going to say it wasn't coming
>>> on?
>>
>> English. The light bulb did not come on.
>> Since you've never been out in the real world you don't know that every
>> day people are fooled into thinking that a car's lights are on when it
>> is just light refracting through the lens.
>>
> LOOK at the film.
>
> http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1744462/pg1
>
I have many excellent copies of many films.
0 new messages