Message from discussion The Faking of Zapruder Frame 224
Received: by 10.180.75.197 with SMTP id e5mr2103589wiw.1.1350256153596;
Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: The Faking of Zapruder Frame 224
Date: 14 Oct 2012 19:09:13 -0400
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
X-Original-Trace: 14 Oct 2012 15:49:03 -0500, 22.214.171.124
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1350256153 126.96.36.199 (14 Oct 2012 18:09:13 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 14 Oct 2012 18:09:13 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/13/2012 10:52 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I watched several of those symposium videos, and I kept waiting for the
>>>> clincher, but it never came. I wanted to believe them, and they failed.
>>>> They didn't prove a damn thing. Sorry.
>>>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:27:54 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Let's face it. Jack White knew Mack, but he didn't know Jack.
>>>>> Let's also face that you don't know very much either. Jack White might
>>>>> not have the science background as some at the Symposium but he has done
>>>>> quite a bit of great work.
>>>>> First of all you should get acquainted with the Z film, and why there is a
>>>>> fuss about alteration and fabrication. There are many parts to the
>>>>> Symposium of 2003 besides Jack White, that the previously posted link
>>>>> should provide anyone. One will see why the sign was needed to be
>>>>> enlarged, so it would hide the earlier shot to JFK, and keep the SBT
>>>>> alive. One other very noticeable thing to observe is the listlessness of
>>>>> the people. They are not watching a passing motorcade, so they got that
>>>>> picture from somewhere previous to the motorcade's arrival for a backdrop.
>>>>> If they were real people when the motorcade passed, they would have been
>>>>> animated, waving wildly, and they would not be so 'in position.'
>>> One would first have to realize the audience mostly are already into the
>>> topic, some being very technical people, and a lot was just on camerawork
>>> talk. You can go to many sites online if you want to get some of the more
>>> glaring anomolies that are always brought out. Sometimes one has to look
>>> at not what's there so much, as what is potentially taken out. I do think
>>> you could have got out of Costella, the people not being animated as the
>>> motorcade came through. That's the one I watched most all the way
>>> through. I think the biggest topic discussed as related to alteration is
>>> the limo slowdown that's not shown like witnesses related in their
>> The limo slowdown IS shown. Alvarez measured it.
>>> testimonies. If they eliminated that then one can go to what people and
>>> vehicles might have been doing or not doing in relation to that. And
>>> remember like Costella said, when you fabricate something, one can leave a
>>> lot of authentic photography in, up to a high level, so one really would
>>> have to look. Here's a site that will give you enough to go on as far as
> If it was shown, then why didn't the brake lights come on for
> Alvarez's slowdown?
Because it wasn't caused by the brakes.