Holmes on Altgens and Zapruder
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes recently made the claim that the Zapruder film was not
consistent with the photograph taken by James Altgens, apparently at
the equivalent of frame 255.
He presented a good copy of the photo at the following link:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
Ben's argument was that motorcycle officer Chaney, to JFK's right (our
left) should have been visible in the Zapruder film, as he was in the
photo.
To test his claim, I loaded up some of my old DP diagrams into my
equally ancient Clarisworks program, and spent a considerable amount
of time overlaying cones, originating at the positions of Zapruder and
Altgens with boundaries that to the best of my ability, match what we
see in the images.
I really hate to say it, especially since Ben has been a bit of an ass
lately, but I cannot get around the fact that Chaney really seems to
belong in the Zfilm at frame 255.
But even in the MPI, wide version, he is not there. I considered the
possibility that he was hidden by the bottom sprocket hole then, but
the motorcycle cops seemed to sit slightly higher than the limo
passengers, so Chaney definitely would have been visible if he had
been there.
The only alternatives I can think of is that I had Altgens position or
the limo's drastically wrong (which I doubt), or that we have been
mistaken all along about this photo being taken at 255. But such
errors would have to have been horrendous, to compensate for the
difference.
I would cheerfully welcome any rational explanations for this, but as
you consider Chaney's position, keep in mind, that based on the
Altgens photo, a line leading out from Altgens and passing through the
center of Kellerman's head, would pass *behind* Chaney's motorcycle.
Therefore, according to my calculations, his entire motorcycle should
have been inside Zapruder's field of view, at frame 255.
I will try to post some diagrams about this over the next few days.
Anyway, good work Ben. You make a lot of sense, when you stick with
the JFK case:-)
Robert Harris
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
aeffects
Robert Harris wrote:
> Ben Holmes recently made the claim that the Zapruder film was not
> consistent with the photograph taken by James Altgens, apparently at
> the equivalent of frame 255.
>
> He presented a good copy of the photo at the following link:
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
>
> Ben's argument was that motorcycle officer Chaney, to JFK's right (our
> left) should have been visible in the Zapruder film, as he was in the
> photo.
>
> To test his claim, I loaded up some of my old DP diagrams into my
> equally ancient Clarisworks program, and spent a considerable amount
> of time overlaying cones, originating at the positions of Zapruder and
> Altgens with boundaries that to the best of my ability, match what we
> see in the images.
>
> I really hate to say it, especially since Ben has been a bit of an ass
> lately, but I cannot get around the fact that Chaney really seems to
> belong in the Zfilm at frame 255.
>
> But even in the MPI, wide version, he is not there.
Zapruder say's he was at 'full' zoom, during the limo's trip down Elm
Street. If Chaney belongs in 255 could this mean the frame and those
following same was blownup [increased in size] at some time AFTER the
Dallas 11/22/63 Jamison-Kodak film processing?
Nice work Ben Holmes!
David Healy
Gary Combs
GUYS,
The LNT's keep saying no evidence. This, if you are correct, may just he
"Rosetta Stone" for finally solid evidence. Why not run it by a.a.jfk, and
see what NcAdams says.
gc
Bud
Gary Combs wrote:
> GUYS,
> The LNT's keep saying no evidence.
I wonder why.
> This, if you are correct, may just he
> "Rosetta Stone" for finally solid evidence.
Glad to see a CT admit there has been no solid evidence uncovered
after 40+ years of effort.
> Why not run it by a.a.jfk, and
> see what NcAdams says.
What does it matter what LN say about this "evidence"?
As an aside, I suspect the Z-film had a major impact in influencing
the large numbers of people who think there was a conspiracy in the
assassination, specifically the movement of Kennedy`s head after being
hit. If the purpose of the alteration was to convince people the shots
came from the rear, they did not
by and large achieve that objective.
> gc
aeffects
Bud wrote:
> Gary Combs wrote:
> > GUYS,
> > The LNT's keep saying no evidence.
>
> I wonder why.
> > This, if you are correct, may just he
> > "Rosetta Stone" for finally solid evidence.
>
> Glad to see a CT admit there has been no solid evidence uncovered
> after 40+ years of effort.
cheer up, Dudster -- gonna be a long hot summer for you around here...
> > Why not run it by a.a.jfk, and
> > see what NcAdams says.
>
> What does it matter what LN say about this "evidence"?
not a damn thing, NEVER has
> As an aside, I suspect the Z-film had a major impact in influencing
> the large numbers of people who think there was a conspiracy in the
> assassination, specifically the movement of Kennedy`s head after being
> hit. If the purpose of the alteration was to convince people the shots
> came from the rear, they did not
> by and large achieve that objective.
influencing large numbers...? The Z-film in the hands of the general
public is a relatively new thing (certainly since MPI did it's great
public service), for some in the debate, a bench mark tieing LHO to the
crime/crime scene. Why the need for altering 'ANY' Dealey Plaza,
Kennedy assassination related films-pictures is for others to decide...
> > gc
Jerry Logan
says...
Hello Robert!
I wonder where you are placing Chaney in relation to the limo in order
for this to be true? I've been posting on Ben's Altgens thread but I
fear I haven't been very clear so I've posted a scaled line-of-sight
diagram at jfklancer. You can see it here:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4842.jpg
or go to the research forum and see my post.
As you can see from the diagram, Chaney can be quite far behind the limo
and still allow us to see everything in the Altgens photo. The
perspective of Altgens is very foreshortened and can make judging of
distances difficult. So just drawing out the lines of sight for the
right front fender and right edge of the windshield is very helpful.
Of course, the motorcycle and its shadow can be located anywhere along
the lines of sight - closer or further away from the limo. In the
diagram I've chosen to place the front tire of the cycle 7 feet to the
right of the right side of the limo and using lines of sight that would
tell us that the cycle is 8 feet behind the limo. You can actually place
the cycle and shadow anywhere on the lines of sight but the location I
chose seemed to show just the right amount of shadow at the fender. If
the cycle got closer to the limo, we'd have to see more of the shadow
than we see in the photo.
I'm not sure about the actual placement of the motorcycle relative to
the limo - but I am very sure that the cycle can be very far back and
still be in the Altgens photo just as we see it.
In the diagram I've placed Altgens 12 to the left of the left front
fender and 60 feet ahead of the fender.
Best regards,
Jerry
>
>
>
Ben Holmes
>
>
>
>Gary Combs wrote:
>> GUYS,
>> The LNT's keep saying no evidence.
>
> I wonder why.
Because were they to *admit* that there *is* evidence, they'd have a much harder
time supporting their theory.
So for the most part, and for the majority of LNT'ers, they are forced to simply
lie about the evidence.
Come on, Bud! You know this...
>> This, if you are correct, may just he
>> "Rosetta Stone" for finally solid evidence.
I prefer the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray. (as the "Rosetta
Stone") It's the sort of solid evidence that sends LNT'ers fleeing in the
opposite direction. Even McAdams went running the other way after one tentative
post.
> Glad to see a CT admit there has been no solid evidence uncovered
>after 40+ years of effort.
Ah! But there *IS*! It's almost everywhere you look in this case. But you
label it "unreliable", or explain it away as "anomalies".
Sometimes even those who believe in conspiracy don't fully comprehend just how
*massive* the amount of evidence for conspiracy actually exists.
Take, for example, one simple illustration: the 40+ eyewitnesses, *MEDICAL*
eyewitnesses, that placed the large head wound in the "occipital-parietal"
region... to include, I might note, THE AUTOPSY REPORT ITSELF! Then just take a
look at the lateral X-ray. You don't have to be a doctor to immediately note
what Mantik refers to as a "patch", nor do you have to do optical density
measurements to discover that this white patch indicates solid bone all the way
across the head (Was JFK a "bonehead?"), all you need is the evidence of your
own eyes.
But to be a LNT'er, means you must IGNORE what you see, ignore what you hear,
ignore what eyewitnesses *said* they saw and heard. You must believe in many
improbable things, such as a bullet striking two men, a number of bones, and
ending up with no blood, no tissue, and in nearly pristine condition.
You must believe that LHO is a magician - managing to be downstairs eating
lunch, but also up on the 6th floor with another person (oops, those pesky
eyewitnesses again!)
You must believe that there really *were* three cartridges left at the SN, even
though the earliest evidence *PHOTOGRAPHS* (note the plural), showed only two.
You must believe that a minimum of four people completely missed seeing a 6.5mm
virtually round object in the AP X-ray, yet managed to pick out two objects
*far* smaller in size.
You must believe in the speculation that a bullet passed all the way through
JFK's body, from back to front - despite the evidence against it.
You must assign no ulterior motive for the fact that the original autopsy
report, and many of the original notes, were burned in a fireplace - ALMOST
CERTAINLY *AFTER* LHO WAS KILLED, and indeed as some have done, try to move this
"burning" forward a day, with no evidence whatsoever, so that obvious
conclusions won't be drawn.
You must believe that all three cartridges were fired from the MC, even though
there's rather damning proof that one of them was never in the chamber.
You must believe that there's nothing sinister about the fact that bullet
fragments in this case have morphed in size, shape, and weight.
You must believe that there was nothing strange about a murder investigation
failing to question the closest police EYEWITNESS to the murder - seen in the
Altgens photo just feet away from the victim.
You must believe that there was nothing strange about a murder investigation
failing to question the one medical doctor who was at both Parkland AND
Bethesda, that evidence now shows was running the autopsy, and who was the
personal physician to the murder victim.
You must believe that there was nothing unusual about taking government
property, the X-Rays and Autopsy Photos, and *GIVING* them to people with a
solid reason to keep them private.
I could go on and on... there are so many improbable things that LNT'ers must
pay due honor to, but I'm sure lurkers have gotten the point I'm making by now.
>> Why not run it by a.a.jfk, and
>> see what NcAdams says.
>
> What does it matter what LN say about this "evidence"?
True. I really could care less about posting this in the censored group. I'm
quite sure that most of them are very familiar with the Altgen's photo - it's
been around, and right in everyone's face, for many years.
It only illustrates yet again, what I've said so many times - that it simply
boggles the mind to see the number of improbabilities that you must believe in
to be a LNT'er.
In *this* particular case, you must ignore what your own eyes tell you.
If those in the censored group wish to comment, they'll just have to come here
where their comments will receive rebuttals appropriate to their comments.
And where those telling lies can be called a liar - anyone recall someone
asserting that Hargis DID NOT mention a limo stop?
> As an aside, I suspect the Z-film had a major impact in influencing
>the large numbers of people who think there was a conspiracy in the
>assassination, specifically the movement of Kennedy`s head after being
>hit. If the purpose of the alteration was to convince people the shots
>came from the rear, they did not
>by and large achieve that objective.
Sure they did! Despite Martin's arguments, the film was quite well sealed up -
and very few people ever got to see it for many years. And what people *were*
allowed to see was fairly poor copies - as even Martin will admit. The Z-Film
was never meant for public consumption - it did it's job when the WC concluded
that the guilty would go free.
One of the earliest viewers of the film - a professional, stated that it was his
opinion that there were 6-8 shots shown on the film.
Can't see that today! The alteration to the film did it's job.
Eyewitnesses report the limo stopping.
Can't see that today! The alteration to the film did it's job.
This is why Bud won't get in the thread, and answer why Chaney's shadow is seen
where it is - or why the distance betweeen the standing SS agents makes it clear
that Chaney was in an *impossible* position if the Z-Film and Nix were unaltered
and authentic.
Bud simply has nothing to say... at least, until the subject gets around to the
LNT'ers favorite mantra of no evidence. The Altgen's photo, just like the AP
X-ray, is *solid* physical evidence of a coverup. And you don't coverup lone
nut assassins.
>> gc
Jerry Logan
I just wanted to emntion that I added a LOS for Kellerman to the
diagram.
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4844.jpg
or JFKLancer forum.
Best regards,
Jerry
In article <429d4dd...@news20.forteinc.com>, reha...@yahoo.com
says...
>
Ben Holmes
says...
But only Chaney is affected by it... :)
>and can make judging of
>distances difficult.
So difficult that you refuse to discuss the distance between Chaney and the
closest standing SS agent... :)
>So just drawing out the lines of sight for the
>right front fender and right edge of the windshield is very helpful.
>
>Of course, the motorcycle and its shadow can be located anywhere along
>the lines of sight - closer or further away from the limo. In the
>diagram I've chosen to place the front tire of the cycle 7 feet to the
Why you would choose 7 feet when a much more accurate measurement is possible,
and puts it about *half* that distance, is a mystery.
You STILL haven't answered the question of the length of Martin's shadow, and
since the Z-Film shows where Chaney's motorcycle tire is, in relation to the
*limo's* shadow, the length of shadows becomes a very important tool for judging
your theory. Perhaps this is why you keep ducking it.
>right of the right side of the limo and using lines of sight that would
>tell us that the cycle is 8 feet behind the limo. You can actually place
>the cycle and shadow anywhere on the lines of sight but the location I
>chose seemed to show just the right amount of shadow at the fender. If
>the cycle got closer to the limo, we'd have to see more of the shadow
>than we see in the photo.
>
>I'm not sure about the actual placement of the motorcycle relative to
>the limo - but I am very sure that the cycle can be very far back and
>still be in the Altgens photo just as we see it.
And, as usual, you've completely failed to account for the distance between
Chaney and the closest standing SS agent - another point you've been ducking for
some time now. When will you respond to these points? They are evidence
*against* your theory. You'll have to account for them sooner or later...
tomnln
"Gary Combs" <glcc...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
news:oagne.20063$bD5....@fe07.lga...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1117625044.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Gary Combs wrote:
> >> GUYS,
> >> The LNT's keep saying no evidence.
> >
> > I wonder why.
>
> Because were they to *admit* that there *is* evidence, they'd have a much harder
> time supporting their theory.
>
> So for the most part, and for the majority of LNT'ers, they are forced to simply
> lie about the evidence.
The truth is that CT are much more motivated to twist, misrepresent,
misinterpret, raise suspicion, make ridiculous assumptions and distort.
There isn`t much LN effort to counter this production, what would be
the point? You folks just want to believe this nonsense.
> Come on, Bud! You know this...
I know with more effort by CT, they could convince themselves of
even more suspicious things. How could it be otherwise?
> >> This, if you are correct, may just he
> >> "Rosetta Stone" for finally solid evidence.
>
>
> I prefer the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray. (as the "Rosetta
> Stone") It's the sort of solid evidence that sends LNT'ers fleeing in the
> opposite direction. Even McAdams went running the other way after one tentative
> post.
You did a lousy job of explaining just what purpose it serves to
advance the idea of conspiracy. They had large 6.5mm bullet fragments,
found to be shot from the assassination rifle, inside the limo.
> > Glad to see a CT admit there has been no solid evidence uncovered
> >after 40+ years of effort.
>
> Ah! But there *IS*! It's almost everywhere you look in this case. But you
> label it "unreliable", or explain it away as "anomalies".
Or attribute it to wishful thinking, bias, and poor assumptions on
the part of CT.
> Sometimes even those who believe in conspiracy don't fully comprehend just how
> *massive* the amount of evidence for conspiracy actually exists.
Which, to my way of thinking makes your position so ridiculous. You
see the hands of the conspiracy all over, in every aspect, very early
on. Moving with an
efficiency, knowledge and purpose unheard of in human history. If you
see a picture of a cop bending down and picking something up, you think
it must be a bullet or fragment, and must have been quickly and
efficently supressed, with the cop silenced. How the fuck is just that
small thing done? And you have thousands of things like this, large and
small going on.
> Take, for example, one simple illustration: the 40+ eyewitnesses, *MEDICAL*
> eyewitnesses, that placed the large head wound in the "occipital-parietal"
> region... to include, I might note, THE AUTOPSY REPORT ITSELF! Then just take a
> look at the lateral X-ray. You don't have to be a doctor to immediately note
> what Mantik refers to as a "patch", nor do you have to do optical density
> measurements to discover that this white patch indicates solid bone all the way
> across the head (Was JFK a "bonehead?"), all you need is the evidence of your
> own eyes.
What did the HSCA pathologist experts conclude?
> But to be a LNT'er, means you must IGNORE what you see, ignore what you hear,
> ignore what eyewitnesses *said* they saw and heard.
Balls, you disregard a great deal of the testimony.
> You must believe in many
> improbable things, such as a bullet striking two men, a number of bones, and
> ending up with no blood, no tissue, and in nearly pristine condition.
CE 399 was shown to have been fired from the assassination rifle. Do
you have a reasonable explaination to account for it`s presense at the
hospital if not transported in those victims` bodies/clothing? Was the
"pointed bullet" fired at these men? Why was it reported to be in such
good shape, with it`s point noticeable, not damaged or flattened?
> You must believe that LHO is a magician - managing to be downstairs eating
> lunch, but also up on the 6th floor with another person (oops, those pesky
> eyewitnesses again!)
Downstairs where? With who? There is a witness who put Oz in the
second floor lunchroom around 12:15. Why didn`t Oz tell the
investigators this in the interrogations? Why did he lie instead?
> You must believe that there really *were* three cartridges left at the SN, even
> though the earliest evidence *PHOTOGRAPHS* (note the plural), showed only two.
What is the alternative? That all these cops and the civilian
photographer were "gotten to" almost immediately and with such effect
that they kept silent for 40 years? If this is the crazy shit you want
to believe, this is the crazy shit you need to prove. Who was up on the
6th floor of the TSBD coercing witnesses right away? How many shells
did these *witnesses* mention in their reports?
> You must believe that a minimum of four people completely missed seeing a 6.5mm
> virtually round object in the AP X-ray, yet managed to pick out two objects
> *far* smaller in size.
I mentioned the possibility that they turned from the x-ray to the
skull and saw no corresponding fragment where the x-ray showed, and
went on to other things. That is one explaination I can imagine, but
the actual answer might be outside my grasp with the information on
record.
> You must believe in the speculation that a bullet passed all the way through
> JFK's body, from back to front - despite the evidence against it.
Did they find a bullet inside of him? That alone indicates it passed
through.
> You must assign no ulterior motive for the fact that the original autopsy
> report, and many of the original notes, were burned in a fireplace - ALMOST
> CERTAINLY *AFTER* LHO WAS KILLED, and indeed as some have done, try to move this
> "burning" forward a day, with no evidence whatsoever, so that obvious
> conclusions won't be drawn.
Are you saying people coerced Humes to destroy evidence? How was
this accomplished, what threats did they use to make Humes comply? How
did they keep him silent after the fact?
> You must believe that all three cartridges were fired from the MC, even though
> there's rather damning proof that one of them was never in the chamber.
The dent? I read on Chad Zimmerman`s site that it is common for MC
shells to dent on ejection with rapid working of the bolt.
> You must believe that there's nothing sinister about the fact that bullet
> fragments in this case have morphed in size, shape, and weight.
You must assume it is sinister. Why is that?
> You must believe that there was nothing strange about a murder investigation
> failing to question the closest police EYEWITNESS to the murder - seen in the
> Altgens photo just feet away from the victim.
Chaney said shots came from behind him. Why would he say that,
being so close to the knoll, and your shooter there? Zapruder was on
the knoll, did he think someone was shooting from there?
> You must believe that there was nothing strange about a murder investigation
> failing to question the one medical doctor who was at both Parkland AND
> Bethesda, that evidence now shows was running the autopsy, and who was the
> personal physician to the murder victim.
You must assume he had information indicating something sinister.
> You must believe that there was nothing unusual about taking government
> property, the X-Rays and Autopsy Photos, and *GIVING* them to people with a
> solid reason to keep them private.
Assign the sinister reason of your choice.
> I could go on and on... there are so many improbable things that LNT'ers must
> pay due honor to, but I'm sure lurkers have gotten the point I'm making by now.
>
>
> >> Why not run it by a.a.jfk, and
> >> see what NcAdams says.
> >
> > What does it matter what LN say about this "evidence"?
>
> True. I really could care less about posting this in the censored group. I'm
> quite sure that most of them are very familiar with the Altgen's photo - it's
> been around, and right in everyone's face, for many years.
>
> It only illustrates yet again, what I've said so many times - that it simply
> boggles the mind to see the number of improbabilities that you must believe in
> to be a LNT'er.
How about the probablities that Oz wasn`t involved in the
assassination? Just happened to carry a long, paper covered object into
work tht day (and lied to the cops that he did)? R-i-g-h-t...
> In *this* particular case, you must ignore what your own eyes tell you.
>
> If those in the censored group wish to comment, they'll just have to come here
> where their comments will receive rebuttals appropriate to their comments.
Benspeak for tantrums and namecalling.
> And where those telling lies can be called a liar - anyone recall someone
> asserting that Hargis DID NOT mention a limo stop?
>
>
> > As an aside, I suspect the Z-film had a major impact in influencing
> >the large numbers of people who think there was a conspiracy in the
> >assassination, specifically the movement of Kennedy`s head after being
> >hit. If the purpose of the alteration was to convince people the shots
> >came from the rear, they did not
> >by and large achieve that objective.
>
> Sure they did! Despite Martin's arguments, the film was quite well sealed up -
> and very few people ever got to see it for many years. And what people *were*
> allowed to see was fairly poor copies - as even Martin will admit. The Z-Film
> was never meant for public consumption - it did it's job when the WC concluded
> that the guilty would go free.
How did this altered film help to convince so many of conspiracy?
> One of the earliest viewers of the film - a professional, stated that it was his
> opinion that there were 6-8 shots shown on the film.
Then I guess you`ll be wanting to disregard all those Dealey
wintesses who didn`t report a fusillade?
> Can't see that today! The alteration to the film did it's job.
If the purpose of the alteration was to convince people of a lone
gunman, why did it have the opposite effect?
> Eyewitnesses report the limo stopping.
>
> Can't see that today! The alteration to the film did it's job.
>
> This is why Bud won't get in the thread, and answer why Chaney's shadow is seen
> where it is - or why the distance betweeen the standing SS agents makes it clear
> that Chaney was in an *impossible* position if the Z-Film and Nix were unaltered
> and authentic.
>
> Bud simply has nothing to say... at least, until the subject gets around to the
> LNT'ers favorite mantra of no evidence.
Actually, it was Gary Combs assertion that finally there might be
some solid evidence comeing from the CT camp. I only agreed with the
"finally".
aeffects
Bud wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In article <1117625044.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Gary Combs wrote:
> > >> GUYS,
> > >> The LNT's keep saying no evidence.
> > >
> > > I wonder why.
> >
> > Because were they to *admit* that there *is* evidence, they'd have a much harder
> > time supporting their theory.
> >
> > So for the most part, and for the majority of LNT'ers, they are forced to simply
> > lie about the evidence.
>
> The truth is that CT are much more motivated to twist, misrepresent,
> misinterpret, raise suspicion, make ridiculous assumptions and distort.
> There isn`t much LN effort to counter this production, what would be
> the point? You folks just want to believe this nonsense.
For those lurking -- The Dudster has to go no further than his above
comment, it alone illustrates the typical .john lone neuter position.
When confronted: generalize, shuck and jive - weave and dodge...
What motivates the CT'er Dudster? I'll be happy to answer that for you.
"The Warren Commission Report no less, no MORE". We have no need to
"twist " that!
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1117625044.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Gary Combs wrote:
>> >> GUYS,
>> >> The LNT's keep saying no evidence.
>> >
>> > I wonder why.
>>
>>Because were they to *admit* that there *is* evidence, they'd have a much harder
>> time supporting their theory.
>>
>> So for the most part, and for the majority of LNT'ers, they are forced to
>> simply lie about the evidence.
>
> The truth is that CT are much more motivated to twist, misrepresent,
>misinterpret, raise suspicion, make ridiculous assumptions and distort.
Feel free at any time, Bud, to bring forth the evidence. Why haven't you
bothered to jump in and explain Chaney's position in the Altgen's photo, for
example?
Or provide *ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION* for the 6.5mm virtually round object in
the AP X-ray that doesn't involve a conspiracy to coverup a crime?
>There isn`t much LN effort to counter this production, what would be
>the point? You folks just want to believe this nonsense.
:) More to the point, LNT'ers *can't* refute...
>> Come on, Bud! You know this...
>
> I know with more effort by CT, they could convince themselves of
>even more suspicious things. How could it be otherwise?
Because we are constrained by the evidence.
>> >> This, if you are correct, may just he
>> >> "Rosetta Stone" for finally solid evidence.
>>
>>
>> I prefer the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray. (as the "Rosetta
>> Stone") It's the sort of solid evidence that sends LNT'ers fleeing in the
>> opposite direction. Even McAdams went running the other way after one
>> tentative post.
>
> You did a lousy job of explaining just what purpose it serves to
>advance the idea of conspiracy.
Nah, you just weren't interested in listening, Bud.
>They had large 6.5mm bullet fragments,
>found to be shot from the assassination rifle, inside the limo.
Tell us, Bud, how the conspiracy *KNEW IN ADVANCE* that investigators would be
*ABLE* to ballistically match these fragments.
They certainly failed when it came to the Tippit shooting, didn't they?
>> > Glad to see a CT admit there has been no solid evidence uncovered
>> >after 40+ years of effort.
>>
>> Ah! But there *IS*! It's almost everywhere you look in this case. But you
>> label it "unreliable", or explain it away as "anomalies".
>
> Or attribute it to wishful thinking, bias, and poor assumptions on
>the part of CT.
Just never with cites... :)
>> Sometimes even those who believe in conspiracy don't fully comprehend
>> just how *massive* the amount of evidence for conspiracy actually exists.
>
> Which, to my way of thinking makes your position so ridiculous. You
>see the hands of the conspiracy all over, in every aspect, very early
>on.
Yep... that's what the evidence shows. Even on Saturday, the FBI was already
badgering eyewitnesses.
>Moving with an
>efficiency, knowledge and purpose unheard of in human history.
Untrue. They failed. They escaped prosecution, but they failed to create a
successful coverup. I'm quite sure you know the poll numbers...
>If you
>see a picture of a cop bending down and picking something up, you think
>it must be a bullet or fragment,
Only when reporters so report it.
>and must have been quickly and
>efficently supressed, with the cop silenced.
It happened. The fact that you can't *name* those involved proves the point.
>How the fuck is just that
>small thing done?
It *was* done. Who cares to argue the methodology?
>And you have thousands of things like this, large and
>small going on.
This is the reason that LBJ stopped all other investigations, and put the
investigation into the hands of the FBI.
>> Take, for example, one simple illustration: the 40+ eyewitnesses,
>> *MEDICAL* eyewitnesses, that placed the large head wound in the
>> "occipital-parietal" region... to include, I might note, THE AUTOPSY
>> REPORT ITSELF! Then just take a look at the lateral X-ray. You don't
>> have to be a doctor to immediately note what Mantik refers to as a
>> "patch", nor do you have to do optical density measurements to discover
>> that this white patch indicates solid bone all the way across the head
>> (Was JFK a "bonehead?"), all you need is the evidence of your own eyes.
>
> What did the HSCA pathologist experts conclude?
You see? There's the problem. I don't *need* an expert to tell me what's right
in my view. Particularly when experts disagree.
And if you aren't aware of the compartmentalism that went on in the HSCA, then
perhaps you should educate yourself.
>> But to be a LNT'er, means you must IGNORE what you see, ignore what you
>> hear, ignore what eyewitnesses *said* they saw and heard.
>
> Balls, you disregard a great deal of the testimony.
Feel free to quote me doing so. My crystal ball tells me you'll refuse to do
so.
>> You must believe in many
>> improbable things, such as a bullet striking two men, a number of bones, and
>> ending up with no blood, no tissue, and in nearly pristine condition.
>
> CE 399 was shown to have been fired from the assassination rifle.
So were a hundred or so other bullets. Why don't you claim a hundred shots?
>Do
>you have a reasonable explaination to account for it`s presense at the
>hospital if not transported in those victims` bodies/clothing?
Yep. The conspirators needed a ballistically matchable bullet.
>Was the "pointed bullet" fired at these men?
Nope.
>Why was it reported to be in such
>good shape, with it`s point noticeable, not damaged or flattened?
Because it *was* in good shape. So was CE399.
>> You must believe that LHO is a magician - managing to be downstairs eating
>> lunch, but also up on the 6th floor with another person (oops, those pesky
>> eyewitnesses again!)
>
> Downstairs where? With who?
With those whom LHO identified. You must believe him to be psychic, however.
>There is a witness who put Oz in the
>second floor lunchroom around 12:15. Why didn`t Oz tell the
>investigators this in the interrogations?
Why would he? Are *YOU* constantly aware of everyone who sees you?
>Why did he lie instead?
I'm unaware of any lies provably coming from LHO.
>> You must believe that there really *were* three cartridges left at the
>> SN, even though the earliest evidence *PHOTOGRAPHS* (note the plural),
>> showed only two.
>
> What is the alternative? That all these cops and the civilian
>photographer were "gotten to" almost immediately and with such effect
>that they kept silent for 40 years? If this is the crazy shit you want
>to believe, this is the crazy shit you need to prove. Who was up on the
>6th floor of the TSBD coercing witnesses right away? How many shells
>did these *witnesses* mention in their reports?
You see? You can't remain consistent. If dozens of eyewitnesses report that
the limo slowed and stopped, you label them unreliable BASED ON THE FILM. If I
point to multiple photographs that show only *TWO* cartridges in evidence, YOU
POINT TO EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS.
You'll pick and choose, carelessly disregarding the fact that your theory can't
explain the inconsistencies... while mine explains it perfectly.
>> You must believe that a minimum of four people completely missed seeing
>> a 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray, yet managed to pick out
>> two objects *far* smaller in size.
>
> I mentioned the possibility that they turned from the x-ray to the
>skull and saw no corresponding fragment where the x-ray showed, and
>went on to other things.
They *all* made statements refuting this theory.
>That is one explaination I can imagine, but
>the actual answer might be outside my grasp with the information on
>record.
Try using Occam's Razor...
>> You must believe in the speculation that a bullet passed all the way through
>> JFK's body, from back to front - despite the evidence against it.
>
> Did they find a bullet inside of him? That alone indicates it passed
>through.
No, it does not. You make the assumption that two bullet holes *MUST* be
connected. Funny that eyewitnesses who *saw* the holes refuse to believe the WC
speculation on this.
>> You must assign no ulterior motive for the fact that the original autopsy
>> report, and many of the original notes, were burned in a fireplace - ALMOST
>>CERTAINLY *AFTER* LHO WAS KILLED, and indeed as some have done, try to move this
>> "burning" forward a day, with no evidence whatsoever, so that obvious
>> conclusions won't be drawn.
>
> Are you saying people coerced Humes to destroy evidence?
Yep.
>How was
>this accomplished, what threats did they use to make Humes comply?
Try to acquaint yourself with Dr. Humes' character, as revealed by those who
knew him. The answer might jump out and bite you.
>How did they keep him silent after the fact?
Ditto.
>> You must believe that all three cartridges were fired from the MC, even
>> though there's rather damning proof that one of them was never in the
>> chamber.
>
> The dent?
Nope.
>I read on Chad Zimmerman`s site that it is common for MC
>shells to dent on ejection with rapid working of the bolt.
Has nothing to do with the lack of a chambering mark. I've discussed this
before.
>> You must believe that there's nothing sinister about the fact that bullet
>> fragments in this case have morphed in size, shape, and weight.
>
> You must assume it is sinister. Why is that?
Well, let's do it this way... some of the fragments now weigh *MORE* than they
did in 1963. You explain it.
>> You must believe that there was nothing strange about a murder
>> investigation failing to question the closest police EYEWITNESS to the
>> murder - seen in the Altgens photo just feet away from the victim.
>
> Chaney said shots came from behind him. Why would he say that,
>being so close to the knoll, and your shooter there?
Cite his testimony.
No-one denies that shots were fired from the TSBD. Many, if not most, CT'ers
believe in multiple locations.
>Zapruder was on
>the knoll, did he think someone was shooting from there?
Yep.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I
guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me,
of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right
behind me.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these
shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me. ...
Be sure to view the rest of his testimony... you'll enjoy his quibbling...
>> You must believe that there was nothing strange about a murder investigation
>> failing to question the one medical doctor who was at both Parkland AND
>> Bethesda, that evidence now shows was running the autopsy, and who was the
>> personal physician to the murder victim.
>
> You must assume he had information indicating something sinister.
I don't *have* to assume. His personal attorney contacted Richard Sprague at
the HSCA, and stated that Burkley - As Sprague noted:"had never been interviewed
and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others
besides Oswald must have participated."
Of course, the HSCA didn't feel the need to interview Admiral Burkley to find
out what he meant.
You know, Bud, you *really should* learn what the evidence is before making such
statements... that way, you don't look silly.
>> You must believe that there was nothing unusual about taking government
>> property, the X-Rays and Autopsy Photos, and *GIVING* them to people with a
>> solid reason to keep them private.
>
> Assign the sinister reason of your choice.
Res ipsa loquitur, Bud.
>> I could go on and on... there are so many improbable things that
>> LNT'ers must pay due honor to, but I'm sure lurkers have gotten
>> the point I'm making by now.
>>
>>
>> >> Why not run it by a.a.jfk, and
>> >> see what NcAdams says.
>> >
>> > What does it matter what LN say about this "evidence"?
>>
>> True. I really could care less about posting this in the censored group.
>> I'm quite sure that most of them are very familiar with the Altgen's
>> photo - it's been around, and right in everyone's face, for many years.
>>
>> It only illustrates yet again, what I've said so many times - that it
>> simply boggles the mind to see the number of improbabilities that you
>> must believe in to be a LNT'er.
>
> How about the probablities that Oz wasn`t involved in the
>assassination?
He was... in a peripheral way. Many people were.
>Just happened to carry a long, paper covered object into
>work tht day (and lied to the cops that he did)? R-i-g-h-t...
And yet, you can't prove your statement. So what you have is merely a statement
from the "prosecution".
>> In *this* particular case, you must ignore what your own eyes tell you.
>>
>> If those in the censored group wish to comment, they'll just have to
>> come here where their comments will receive rebuttals appropriate to
>> their comments.
>
> Benspeak for tantrums and namecalling.
Is it upsetting to you that people get their just deserts? You don't have to
stick around, Bud. No-one would miss you.
>> And where those telling lies can be called a liar - anyone recall someone
>> asserting that Hargis DID NOT mention a limo stop?
>>
>>
>> > As an aside, I suspect the Z-film had a major impact in influencing
>> >the large numbers of people who think there was a conspiracy in the
>> >assassination, specifically the movement of Kennedy`s head after being
>> >hit. If the purpose of the alteration was to convince people the shots
>> >came from the rear, they did not
>> >by and large achieve that objective.
>>
>> Sure they did! Despite Martin's arguments, the film was quite well
>> sealed up - and very few people ever got to see it for many years.
>> And what people *were* allowed to see was fairly poor copies - as even
>> Martin will admit. The Z-Film was never meant for public consumption
>> - it did it's job when the WC concluded that the guilty would go free.
>
> How did this altered film help to convince so many of conspiracy?
Because it's a poor alteration. It was never meant to be disseminated.
>> One of the earliest viewers of the film - a professional, stated that
>> it was his opinion that there were 6-8 shots shown on the film.
>
> Then I guess you`ll be wanting to disregard all those Dealey
>wintesses who didn`t report a fusillade?
Better start naming them. Many earwitnesses did indeed report *EXACTLY* that.
>> Can't see that today! The alteration to the film did it's job.
>
> If the purpose of the alteration was to convince people of a lone
>gunman, why did it have the opposite effect?
It didn't. It served it's purpose. No-one ever intended for it to be widely
published.
>> Eyewitnesses report the limo stopping.
>>
>> Can't see that today! The alteration to the film did it's job.
>>
>> This is why Bud won't get in the thread, and answer why Chaney's
>> shadow is seen where it is - or why the distance betweeen the standing
>> SS agents makes it clear that Chaney was in an *impossible* position
>> if the Z-Film and Nix were unaltered and authentic.
>>
>> Bud simply has nothing to say... at least, until the subject gets around
>> to the LNT'ers favorite mantra of no evidence.
>
> Actually, it was Gary Combs assertion that finally there might be
>some solid evidence comeing from the CT camp. I only agreed with the
>"finally".
And yet, you simply have nothing to say ... you have nothing to rebut my
evidence that the Z-film was altered. And the *ONLY* entity that could have
altered it was the government... certainly not LHO.
Jerry Logan
While it's been fun exploring Ben's unique view of the world, I think he
may have trouble with Z242 which shows the left flasher of Chaney's
motor cycle just where I expect it to be. Check it out and see what you
think. You have to run the frames back and forth to see that the red of
the flasher is part of Cheney's bike, not part of the limo.
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4853.jpg
Best regards,
Jerry
Jerry Logan
From: Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Ben,
In Z242 we can see Chaney's left flasher just where I've said it should
be located. See here:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4853.jpg
I think even you can see that between Z242 and Z255 that Zapruder pans
and raises his camera slightly - dropping the flasher out of the frame.
Also, you have to run Zapruder back before the sign to see that this is
indeed the flasher, not part of the follow car.
Do you still want me to explain the other stuff or are you ready to
give?
Jerry
Ben Holmes
says...
I expect Chaney's motorcycle to be back there at 242 as well.
Why not answer the points I keep raising, and you keep ducking?
Ben Holmes
says...
Of COURSE Chaney is back there at 242... Guess what??? HE'S BEEN BACK THERE ALL
ALONG! (Prior to the limo stop.)
What happened was that when the limo came to a stop, the motocycles didn't...
You can see in the films, both Z-Film and Nix, the motorcycles overtaking the
limo. You just refuse to believe that Chaney ever did.
>I think even you can see that between Z242 and Z255 that Zapruder pans
>and raises his camera slightly - dropping the flasher out of the frame.
>
>Also, you have to run Zapruder back before the sign to see that this is
>indeed the flasher, not part of the follow car.
>
>Do you still want me to explain the other stuff or are you ready to
>give?
Sorry Jerry... what you *think* is a point of argument is nothing more than the
last point in the film that you still see Chaney... and means nothing at all.
And YES!!! I've been fairly polite about it, but that's rapidly coming to an
end... I'll start making it as clear as I do with Martin... Martin refuses to
answer my points as well.
Now, start by telling everyone what the length of Martin's shadow is.
Then tell everyone where Chaney's motorcycle is, in relation to the LIMO's
shadow.
Then explain why you think your 7 foot distance is justifiable, given the above
facts.
Then EXPLAIN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CHANEY AND THE STANDING SS AGENTS ON HIS SIDE
COMPARED TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HARGIS AND THE STANDING SS AGENTS ON *HIS*
SIDE!
Until you do, I'm going to keep pointing it out. Please respond in the next
post.
>Jerry
Robert Harris
Yes, I have to agree.
Subjectively, it doesn't look right at all, but the geometry
absolutely works.
Thank you for the correction.
Robert Harris
>or go to the research forum and see my post.
>
>As you can see from the diagram, Chaney can be quite far behind the limo
>and still allow us to see everything in the Altgens photo. The
>perspective of Altgens is very foreshortened and can make judging of
>distances difficult. So just drawing out the lines of sight for the
>right front fender and right edge of the windshield is very helpful.
>
>Of course, the motorcycle and its shadow can be located anywhere along
>the lines of sight - closer or further away from the limo. In the
>diagram I've chosen to place the front tire of the cycle 7 feet to the
>right of the right side of the limo and using lines of sight that would
>tell us that the cycle is 8 feet behind the limo. You can actually place
>the cycle and shadow anywhere on the lines of sight but the location I
>chose seemed to show just the right amount of shadow at the fender. If
>the cycle got closer to the limo, we'd have to see more of the shadow
>than we see in the photo.
>
>I'm not sure about the actual placement of the motorcycle relative to
>the limo - but I am very sure that the cycle can be very far back and
>still be in the Altgens photo just as we see it.
>
>In the diagram I've placed Altgens 12 to the left of the left front
>fender and 60 feet ahead of the fender.
>
>Best regards,
>Jerry
>>
>>
>>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Robert Harris
Well, I cannot confirm it with absolute certainty, but that does
appear to be the case.
Your point, I presume, is that Chaney was at roughly the same spot,
relative to the limo at Z242, as he was at Z255.
Ben's argument as I understand it, is that when the limo slowed down,
the motorcyble riders moved forward relative to the limo.
But, the slowdown did not begin until about Z300.
Bob Harris
>
>Best regards,
>Jerry
Ben Holmes
I'm quite sure that this is the reason Chaney ended up where he so evidently is.
Jerry has simply moved a few numbers around until something looks possible, but
the Z-Film provides a location that is nowhere *near* 7 feet away. And Jerry
STILL hasn't answered the problem with the difference in distance between Chaney
and the closest standing SS agent - compared with that same distance between
Hargis and *his* closest standing SS agent. It's beginning to appear funny that
*no* "defenders of the faith" will answer this. Surely my argument isn't *that*
strong, is it? Surely there *must* be a rebuttal!?
>But, the slowdown did not begin until about Z300.
If the Z-film has been altered, as I believe that the evidence is quite clear
about, then the frame numbers can no longer be relied on as a "timeline" of the
assassination. It's not exactly a secret, for example, that the final head shot
was almost certainly *NOT* at 313... at least, judging by the eyewitness
statements. Which, as any LNT'er, and more than a few CT'ers will tell you, are
unreliable. :)
Jerry Logan
Robert Harris
Hello Robert!
It's a very difficult photograph to understand and I've had a lot of
trouble with it just because it really, really does look like Chaney is
right beside the President. When Ben first raised the point I was very
excited just because, as you correctly noted, it would mean either that
Zapruder was altered or that there was some very serious mistake about
the location and timing of Altgens photo. But when I got out my camera
with the appropriate lens and looked at my wife standing in the street
by an appropriate vehicle I was very surprised by how much and how far
back you can see around the fender and windshield. The line-of-sight
diagram just confirmed what I saw in the viewfinder.
Best regards,
Jerry Logan
Jerry Logan
> >>Hello one more time Robert!
> >>
> >>While it's been fun exploring Ben's unique view of the world, I think he
> >>may have trouble with Z242 which shows the left flasher of Chaney's
> >>motor cycle just where I expect it to be. Check it out and see what you
> >>think. You have to run the frames back and forth to see that the red of
> >>the flasher is part of Cheney's bike, not part of the limo.
> >>
> >>http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4853.jpg
> >
> >Well, I cannot confirm it with absolute certainty, but that does
> >appear to be the case.
> >
> >Your point, I presume, is that Chaney was at roughly the same spot,
> >relative to the limo at Z242, as he was at Z255.
> >
> >Ben's argument as I understand it, is that when the limo slowed down,
> >the motorcyble riders moved forward relative to the limo.
>
> I'm quite sure that this is the reason Chaney ended up where he so evidently is.
> Jerry has simply moved a few numbers around until something looks possible, but
> the Z-Film provides a location that is nowhere *near* 7 feet away. And Jerry
> STILL hasn't answered the problem with the difference in distance between Chaney
> and the closest standing SS agent - compared with that same distance between
> Hargis and *his* closest standing SS agent. It's beginning to appear funny that
> *no* "defenders of the faith" will answer this. Surely my argument isn't *that*
> strong, is it? Surely there *must* be a rebuttal!?
Well Ben, I haven't refuted it because it's imposible to refute. Chancy
is further from Ready than Hargis is from Hill. He's actually 1.7 times
further away. So you're absolutely right. However, (and it's those silly
numbers again) that doesn't prove that Chaney is by the President. Check
the graph (there I go again) here:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4851.jpg
to see what one possible arrangement that preserves that distance ratio
would look like. So just because Chaney is further away than Hargis - it
still doesn't necessarily place Chaney where you want him to be.
In fact, if I were being really number oriented, I'd probably point out
that you've actually proven my point. The ratio would have to be 3 to 1,
not 1.7 to 1 to get Chaney where you want him to be. The photo actually
shows that Chaney can't be where you want him to be if Hargis is where
you think he is.
>
>
> >But, the slowdown did not begin until about Z300.
>
> If the Z-film has been altered, as I believe that the evidence is quite clear
> about, then the frame numbers can no longer be relied on as a "timeline" of the
> assassination. It's not exactly a secret, for example, that the final head shot
> was almost certainly *NOT* at 313... at least, judging by the eyewitness
> statements. Which, as any LNT'er, and more than a few CT'ers will tell you, are
> unreliable. :)
Yes, and Nix, Muchmore and Bronson were all altered as well because they
show the limo slowing "after" it passes Altgens. The only thing I can't
figure out is why, since they had the Bronson film in their hands, they
didn't just paint LHO into the TSBD window and be done with it.
Best regards,
Jerry
Jerry Logan
> >
> >Ben,
> >
> >In Z242 we can see Chaney's left flasher just where I've said it should
> >be located. See here:
> >
> >http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4853.jpg
>
>
> Of COURSE Chaney is back there at 242... Guess what??? HE'S BEEN BACK THERE ALL
> ALONG! (Prior to the limo stop.)
>
> What happened was that when the limo came to a stop, the motocycles didn't...
> You can see in the films, both Z-Film and Nix, the motorcycles overtaking the
> limo. You just refuse to believe that Chaney ever did.
>
>
> >I think even you can see that between Z242 and Z255 that Zapruder pans
> >and raises his camera slightly - dropping the flasher out of the frame.
> >
> >Also, you have to run Zapruder back before the sign to see that this is
> >indeed the flasher, not part of the follow car.
> >
> >Do you still want me to explain the other stuff or are you ready to
> >give?
>
> Sorry Jerry... what you *think* is a point of argument is nothing more than the
> last point in the film that you still see Chaney... and means nothing at all.
Sure, if you ignore what I said. The part aboout Zapruder raising the
camera and panning away from Chaney's location for example. Also, it
shows another half second of Chaney staying in the same location
relative to the limo.
>
> And YES!!! I've been fairly polite about it, but that's rapidly coming to an
> end... I'll start making it as clear as I do with Martin... Martin refuses to
> answer my points as well.
>
> Now, start by telling everyone what the length of Martin's shadow is.
>
> Then tell everyone where Chaney's motorcycle is, in relation to the LIMO's
> shadow.
>
> Then explain why you think your 7 foot distance is justifiable, given the above
> facts.
>
> Then EXPLAIN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CHANEY AND THE STANDING SS AGENTS ON HIS SIDE
> COMPARED TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HARGIS AND THE STANDING SS AGENTS ON *HIS*
> SIDE!
>
> Until you do, I'm going to keep pointing it out.
I rarey follow orders except from my wife. If you ask nicely I'll be
happy to tell you.
Jerry
Robert Harris
Ben,
Let me run a thought by you here.
Somebody decided to duplicate the real Z255 frame with incredible
precision. They correctly positioned Jackie's (or somebody's) gloved
hand on JFK's (or somebody's) arm. They got Kellerman exactly right.
They even turned the heads of Martin and Hargis, exactly as they were
in the original film, with Martin turn slightly more to the right than
Hargis.
But they just forgot one small detail.
They left out the cop who was sitting squarely in the center of the
legit Zapruder frame, blocking Zapruder's view of Kennedy and/or some
of the other passengers.
Do you really think that is what happened?
And how did they create this bogus frame? Was it actually frame 400,
or 135, touched up a bit and then switched to the 255 position?
Or did they hire lookalikes to sit in the limo and do a Hollywood
production?
What you are suggesting has to be technically possible, to be worth
consideration.
How might they have done it? Please be very specific.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Hey, no fair. You are asking the alterationists to use common sense.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1117667394.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1117625044.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Gary Combs wrote:
> >> >> GUYS,
> >> >> The LNT's keep saying no evidence.
> >> >
> >> > I wonder why.
> >>
> >>Because were they to *admit* that there *is* evidence, they'd have a much harder
> >> time supporting their theory.
> >>
> >> So for the most part, and for the majority of LNT'ers, they are forced to
> >> simply lie about the evidence.
> >
> > The truth is that CT are much more motivated to twist, misrepresent,
> >misinterpret, raise suspicion, make ridiculous assumptions and distort.
>
> Feel free at any time, Bud, to bring forth the evidence. Why haven't you
> bothered to jump in and explain Chaney's position in the Altgen's photo, for
> example?
Because I could care less if you feel every frame of the Z-film was
altered.
> Or provide *ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION* for the 6.5mm virtually round object in
> the AP X-ray that doesn't involve a conspiracy to coverup a crime?
Neither of us had offered a reasonable explaination for the object in
that x-ray.
> >There isn`t much LN effort to counter this production, what would be
> >the point? You folks just want to believe this nonsense.
>
>
> :) More to the point, LNT'ers *can't* refute...
View it in any warped context you desire. The motivation and desire
of LM does not match the desire and zeal of the conspiracy mongers.
There isn`t 1% of the energy expended by LN on this that CT devote.
It`s an obsession to believe this nonsense, it certainly isn`t an
obsession of mine to try and dissuade you of it. Again, the parallels
to the 9-11 conspiracy mongers is evident. Many kooks poring through
the testimony, photos, ect, looking for decrepancies to justify their
suspicions. When some books are written on the subject, interest will
be heightened, questions will be raised, suspicions offered to be built
upon, ect. And why not? If they could pull off this complex
assassination you envision, who is to say more sophisticated methods
couldn`t be employed 40 years later? That is the slippery slope you
head down when you lose the capacity to dismiss silliness out of hand.
> >> Come on, Bud! You know this...
> >
> > I know with more effort by CT, they could convince themselves of
> >even more suspicious things. How could it be otherwise?
>
>
> Because we are constrained by the evidence.
Certainly not common sense.
> >> >> This, if you are correct, may just he
> >> >> "Rosetta Stone" for finally solid evidence.
> >>
> >>
> >> I prefer the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray. (as the "Rosetta
> >> Stone") It's the sort of solid evidence that sends LNT'ers fleeing in the
> >> opposite direction. Even McAdams went running the other way after one
> >> tentative post.
> >
> > You did a lousy job of explaining just what purpose it serves to
> >advance the idea of conspiracy.
>
> Nah, you just weren't interested in listening, Bud.
I read your explaination, it just didn`t make any sense. The object
in the x-ray does nothing that isn`t established by other evidence. Why
risk fabricating what is already evident by the fragments found in the
limo? It effort to alter this evidence could only hurt their case,
could never do anything to advance it. If there was no bullets or
fragments found in the vicintity of the limo, then it might be of some
advantage, but as it was, any alteration is redundant. The caliber of
the bullets was known. That Kennedy was shot was known.
> >They had large 6.5mm bullet fragments,
> >found to be shot from the assassination rifle, inside the limo.
>
> Tell us, Bud, how the conspiracy *KNEW IN ADVANCE* that investigators would be
> *ABLE* to ballistically match these fragments.
Ah, they thought "Let`s conduct this risky forgery just in case".
Just in case people couldn`t figure out a bullet struck Kennedy in the
head?
> They certainly failed when it came to the Tippit shooting, didn't they?
They knew the caliber, didn`t they? A 6.5 fragment in the limo is as
good as a 6.5 object in the x-ray. Why risk a forgery that does nothing
that the evidence found in the limo doesn`t already establish?
> >> > Glad to see a CT admit there has been no solid evidence uncovered
> >> >after 40+ years of effort.
> >>
> >> Ah! But there *IS*! It's almost everywhere you look in this case. But you
> >> label it "unreliable", or explain it away as "anomalies".
> >
> > Or attribute it to wishful thinking, bias, and poor assumptions on
> >the part of CT.
>
> Just never with cites... :)
Me? I cite on occassion. Remember you asked where i got the idea
Chaney thought the shots came from behind? I cited. Remember you asked
me to quote some of your lies. I cited.
> >> Sometimes even those who believe in conspiracy don't fully comprehend
> >> just how *massive* the amount of evidence for conspiracy actually exists.
> >
> > Which, to my way of thinking makes your position so ridiculous. You
> >see the hands of the conspiracy all over, in every aspect, very early
> >on.
>
> Yep... that's what the evidence shows. Even on Saturday, the FBI was already
> badgering eyewitnesses.
That doesn`t cut it by a country mile. You need threats and coertion
to many, many people, all so intimidated that they keep quiet to their
grave. You have to explain the active participation of members of the
Dallas police. If there was 2 bullets in the SN, why did the people who
saw the scene say there was three? What motivation was used so early on
to get them to lie? Why are they still quiet today (the ones still
alive anyway, I know why the dead ones are quiet.)
> >Moving with an
> >efficiency, knowledge and purpose unheard of in human history.
>
> Untrue. They failed. They escaped prosecution, but they failed to create a
> successful coverup. I'm quite sure you know the poll numbers...
Does that mean a majority of people believe the silly stuff you do?
What percentage of people believe the Z-film was altered, I wonder. And
if it was falsified evidence (the altered z-film) that helped to
convince people there was a conspiracy, what good are their
conclusions?
> >If you
> >see a picture of a cop bending down and picking something up, you think
> >it must be a bullet or fragment,
>
> Only when reporters so report it.
So the reporters saw a bullet? What if they had taken a picture of
it? The conspirators fired bullets which landed within the grasp of the
media and *still* the conspiracy was unharmed. That is what I mean by
saying the conpirators moved with an efficiency, knowledge and purpose
unheard of in history.
> >and must have been quickly and
> >efficently supressed, with the cop silenced.
>
> It happened. The fact that you can't *name* those involved proves the point.
Oh, please, elaborate. Are you saying it wasn`t a real Dallas cop?
> >How the fuck is just that
> >small thing done?
>
>
> It *was* done. Who cares to argue the methodology?
The methodology to accomplish what you allege crashes down from
it`s own weight. Did *they* have someone dressed as a cop to pick up
incriminating evidence they knew would land there, or did they just
know that if any incriminating evidence was found, they could be sure
to erase it without a trace (even if photographed by the media), and
coerce all who saw said evidence to either lie about it, or keep silent
about it? Either way is silly. And this is only one small part of the
whole picture you allege.
> >And you have thousands of things like this, large and
> >small going on.
>
> This is the reason that LBJ stopped all other investigations, and put the
> investigation into the hands of the FBI.
Who should have done it? Why were the Dallas police uncovering
damning evidence against Oz in the first few hours, before the FBI even
was involved?
> >> Take, for example, one simple illustration: the 40+ eyewitnesses,
> >> *MEDICAL* eyewitnesses, that placed the large head wound in the
> >> "occipital-parietal" region... to include, I might note, THE AUTOPSY
> >> REPORT ITSELF! Then just take a look at the lateral X-ray. You don't
> >> have to be a doctor to immediately note what Mantik refers to as a
> >> "patch", nor do you have to do optical density measurements to discover
> >> that this white patch indicates solid bone all the way across the head
> >> (Was JFK a "bonehead?"), all you need is the evidence of your own eyes.
> >
> > What did the HSCA pathologist experts conclude?
>
> You see? There's the problem. I don't *need* an expert to tell me what's right
> in my view. Particularly when experts disagree.
Certainly you should disregard any experts who say anything you
don`t want to hear. I remember saying the medical testimony and
evidence is a muddle. It seems to me that bullets from any direction
can argued against using parts of the evidence. Does this mean JFK
wasn`t shot?
> And if you aren't aware of the compartmentalism that went on in the HSCA, then
> perhaps you should educate yourself.
CT hate the investigation they called for.
> >> But to be a LNT'er, means you must IGNORE what you see, ignore what you
> >> hear, ignore what eyewitnesses *said* they saw and heard.
> >
> > Balls, you disregard a great deal of the testimony.
>
>
> Feel free to quote me doing so. My crystal ball tells me you'll refuse to do
> so.
I refuse to do anything that doesn`t suit me. But I suppose you
take the witnesses at 10th and Patton at face value picking Oz out of
the line-ups as Tippit`s shooter. And I suppose you take the
incriminating things Marina related about her husband at face value
also. And the cops who interrogated Oz, you don`t doubt what they
related Oz said to them, do you?
> >> You must believe in many
> >> improbable things, such as a bullet striking two men, a number of bones, and
> >> ending up with no blood, no tissue, and in nearly pristine condition.
> >
> > CE 399 was shown to have been fired from the assassination rifle.
>
> So were a hundred or so other bullets. Why don't you claim a hundred shots?
Because I`m not a CT.
> >Do
> >you have a reasonable explaination to account for it`s presense at the
> >hospital if not transported in those victims` bodies/clothing?
>
>
> Yep. The conspirators needed a ballistically matchable bullet.
They had them in the limo. And if they are going to plant this
bullet, what use is the fabricated x-ray? In any case, is it your
position that CE399 was fired and collected to be planted prior to the
assasination, or was it created and inserted into the evidence after
the FBI had possession of the rifle?
> >Was the "pointed bullet" fired at these men?
>
> Nope.
>
> >Why was it reported to be in such
> >good shape, with it`s point noticeable, not damaged or flattened?
>
> Because it *was* in good shape. So was CE399.
>
>
> >> You must believe that LHO is a magician - managing to be downstairs eating
> >> lunch, but also up on the 6th floor with another person (oops, those pesky
> >> eyewitnesses again!)
> >
> > Downstairs where? With who?
>
> With those whom LHO identified. You must believe him to be psychic, however.
OMG! You don`t buy into that lame "Oswald had an alibi because he
mentioned Jarman and Norman being together". He told the cops he ate
with those guys. He didn`t.
> >There is a witness who put Oz in the
> >second floor lunchroom around 12:15. Why didn`t Oz tell the
> >investigators this in the interrogations?
>
> Why would he? Are *YOU* constantly aware of everyone who sees you?
Did he tell invetigators he was eating in the second floor
lunchroom? With who did he tell them he was eating?
> >Why did he lie instead?
>
>
> I'm unaware of any lies provably coming from LHO.
Because you are a CT you must believe the witneses are lying or
mistaken.
> >> You must believe that there really *were* three cartridges left at the
> >> SN, even though the earliest evidence *PHOTOGRAPHS* (note the plural),
> >> showed only two.
> >
> > What is the alternative? That all these cops and the civilian
> >photographer were "gotten to" almost immediately and with such effect
> >that they kept silent for 40 years? If this is the crazy shit you want
> >to believe, this is the crazy shit you need to prove. Who was up on the
> >6th floor of the TSBD coercing witnesses right away? How many shells
> >did these *witnesses* mention in their reports?
>
> You see? You can't remain consistent. If dozens of eyewitnesses report that
> the limo slowed and stopped, you label them unreliable BASED ON THE FILM. If I
> point to multiple photographs that show only *TWO* cartridges in evidence, YOU
> POINT TO EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS.
You are unaware of photos that show three cartridges? Try here...
http//mcadams.posc.mu.edu/round.htm
> You'll pick and choose, carelessly disregarding the fact that your theory can't
> explain the inconsistencies... while mine explains it perfectly.
Explain all the witnesses saying there was three shells in the SN,
when you say there were only two.
>
> >> You must believe that a minimum of four people completely missed seeing
> >> a 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray, yet managed to pick out
> >> two objects *far* smaller in size.
> >
> > I mentioned the possibility that they turned from the x-ray to the
> >skull and saw no corresponding fragment where the x-ray showed, and
> >went on to other things.
>
>
> They *all* made statements refuting this theory.
They all said they hadn`t seen it years and years later.
> >That is one explaination I can imagine, but
> >the actual answer might be outside my grasp with the information on
> >record.
>
>
> Try using Occam's Razor...
That doesn`t help supply information.
> >> You must believe in the speculation that a bullet passed all the way through
> >> JFK's body, from back to front - despite the evidence against it.
> >
> > Did they find a bullet inside of him? That alone indicates it passed
> >through.
>
>
> No, it does not. You make the assumption that two bullet holes *MUST* be
> connected. Funny that eyewitnesses who *saw* the holes refuse to believe the WC
> speculation on this.
Dispute all, dispute often. Dispute every wound, and put shooters in
every crevice. Heres to 40 more years of the same, a search for the
truth CT style.
> >> You must assign no ulterior motive for the fact that the original autopsy
> >> report, and many of the original notes, were burned in a fireplace - ALMOST
> >>CERTAINLY *AFTER* LHO WAS KILLED, and indeed as some have done, try to move this
> >> "burning" forward a day, with no evidence whatsoever, so that obvious
> >> conclusions won't be drawn.
> >
> > Are you saying people coerced Humes to destroy evidence?
>
> Yep.
>
> >How was
> >this accomplished, what threats did they use to make Humes comply?
>
> Try to acquaint yourself with Dr. Humes' character, as revealed by those who
> knew him. The answer might jump out and bite you.
Can`t say, huh? Only one of many you claim were "gotten to".
> >How did they keep him silent after the fact?
>
>
> Ditto.
>
>
> >> You must believe that all three cartridges were fired from the MC, even
> >> though there's rather damning proof that one of them was never in the
> >> chamber.
> >
> > The dent?
>
> Nope.
>
> >I read on Chad Zimmerman`s site that it is common for MC
> >shells to dent on ejection with rapid working of the bolt.
>
>
> Has nothing to do with the lack of a chambering mark. I've discussed this
> before.
So, whats our story so far? What is the advantage for the
conspirators to make it appear as if three shots were fired from the
TSBD? Do you think any were? They fire two from there, and stage one,
for what purpose? C`mon, if you want to replace the WC version, what do
you have going on in the SN at 12:30?
> >> You must believe that there's nothing sinister about the fact that bullet
> >> fragments in this case have morphed in size, shape, and weight.
> >
> > You must assume it is sinister. Why is that?
>
> Well, let's do it this way... some of the fragments now weigh *MORE* than they
> did in 1963. You explain it.
Obviously the conpirators replaced the original fragments with
heavier ones.
I surprised you couldn`t figure that one out on your own. Busy, busy
conspirators couldn`t leave one piece of evidence alone, had to tamper
with every bit of it. A small army involved, running to and fro,
sealing this case up so tight you need to micro-analyze the shadows in
the Z-film to make your case.
> >> You must believe that there was nothing strange about a murder
> >> investigation failing to question the closest police EYEWITNESS to the
> >> murder - seen in the Altgens photo just feet away from the victim.
> >
> > Chaney said shots came from behind him. Why would he say that,
> >being so close to the knoll, and your shooter there?
>
> Cite his testimony.
Did that the other day. You blew it off, on what grounds I can only
guess.
> No-one denies that shots were fired from the TSBD. Many, if not most, CT'ers
> believe in multiple locations.
Not indicated by the bulk of the witnesses.
> >Zapruder was on
> >the knoll, did he think someone was shooting from there?
>
> Yep.
>
> Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I
> guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me,
> of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right
> behind me.
> Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these
> shots came?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me. ...
>
> Be sure to view the rest of his testimony... you'll enjoy his quibbling...
>
> >> You must believe that there was nothing strange about a murder investigation
> >> failing to question the one medical doctor who was at both Parkland AND
> >> Bethesda, that evidence now shows was running the autopsy, and who was the
> >> personal physician to the murder victim.
> >
> > You must assume he had information indicating something sinister.
>
> I don't *have* to assume. His personal attorney contacted Richard Sprague at
> the HSCA, and stated that Burkley - As Sprague noted:"had never been interviewed
> and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others
> besides Oswald must have participated."
So, he has this important information that he keeps to himself until
the HSCA, and then when they didn`t express intrest, keeps it to
himself. You might think a CT author or two might have approached him,
that seems the kind of thing they`d be interested in hearing.
> Of course, the HSCA didn't feel the need to interview Admiral Burkley to find
> out what he meant.
>
> You know, Bud, you *really should* learn what the evidence is before making such
> statements... that way, you don't look silly.
I don`t think Burkley had information that could only be divulged at
one point in time, in one particular forum.
> >> You must believe that there was nothing unusual about taking government
> >> property, the X-Rays and Autopsy Photos, and *GIVING* them to people with a
> >> solid reason to keep them private.
> >
> > Assign the sinister reason of your choice.
>
>
> Res ipsa loquitur, Bud.
No liquor for me, thanks.
> >> I could go on and on... there are so many improbable things that
> >> LNT'ers must pay due honor to, but I'm sure lurkers have gotten
> >> the point I'm making by now.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Why not run it by a.a.jfk, and
> >> >> see what NcAdams says.
> >> >
> >> > What does it matter what LN say about this "evidence"?
> >>
> >> True. I really could care less about posting this in the censored group.
> >> I'm quite sure that most of them are very familiar with the Altgen's
> >> photo - it's been around, and right in everyone's face, for many years.
> >>
> >> It only illustrates yet again, what I've said so many times - that it
> >> simply boggles the mind to see the number of improbabilities that you
> >> must believe in to be a LNT'er.
> >
> > How about the probablities that Oz wasn`t involved in the
> >assassination?
>
> He was... in a peripheral way. Many people were.
>
> >Just happened to carry a long, paper covered object into
> >work tht day (and lied to the cops that he did)? R-i-g-h-t...
>
> And yet, you can't prove your statement. So what you have is merely a statement
> from the "prosecution".
If I was a CT, I guess I would disregard the witnesses who saw him
with such a bag, and disregard the cops who said he denied carrying a
long paper bag.
> >> In *this* particular case, you must ignore what your own eyes tell you.
> >>
> >> If those in the censored group wish to comment, they'll just have to
> >> come here where their comments will receive rebuttals appropriate to
> >> their comments.
> >
> > Benspeak for tantrums and namecalling.
>
> Is it upsetting to you that people get their just deserts? You don't have to
> stick around, Bud. No-one would miss you.
<snicker> You wish it were that easy.
> >> And where those telling lies can be called a liar - anyone recall someone
> >> asserting that Hargis DID NOT mention a limo stop?
> >>
> >>
> >> > As an aside, I suspect the Z-film had a major impact in influencing
> >> >the large numbers of people who think there was a conspiracy in the
> >> >assassination, specifically the movement of Kennedy`s head after being
> >> >hit. If the purpose of the alteration was to convince people the shots
> >> >came from the rear, they did not
> >> >by and large achieve that objective.
> >>
> >> Sure they did! Despite Martin's arguments, the film was quite well
> >> sealed up - and very few people ever got to see it for many years.
> >> And what people *were* allowed to see was fairly poor copies - as even
> >> Martin will admit. The Z-Film was never meant for public consumption
> >> - it did it's job when the WC concluded that the guilty would go free.
> >
> > How did this altered film help to convince so many of conspiracy?
>
>
> Because it's a poor alteration. It was never meant to be disseminated.
>
>
> >> One of the earliest viewers of the film - a professional, stated that
> >> it was his opinion that there were 6-8 shots shown on the film.
> >
> > Then I guess you`ll be wanting to disregard all those Dealey
> >wintesses who didn`t report a fusillade?
>
>
> Better start naming them. Many earwitnesses did indeed report *EXACTLY* that.
Well, how can this be? How can the witnesses, those bastions of
realiability, give differing accounts? Shouldn`t they all say the same,
why the differing accounts?
> >> Can't see that today! The alteration to the film did it's job.
> >
> > If the purpose of the alteration was to convince people of a lone
> >gunman, why did it have the opposite effect?
>
> It didn't. It served it's purpose. No-one ever intended for it to be widely
> published.
>
>
> >> Eyewitnesses report the limo stopping.
> >>
> >> Can't see that today! The alteration to the film did it's job.
> >>
> >> This is why Bud won't get in the thread, and answer why Chaney's
> >> shadow is seen where it is - or why the distance betweeen the standing
> >> SS agents makes it clear that Chaney was in an *impossible* position
> >> if the Z-Film and Nix were unaltered and authentic.
> >>
> >> Bud simply has nothing to say... at least, until the subject gets around
> >> to the LNT'ers favorite mantra of no evidence.
> >
> > Actually, it was Gary Combs assertion that finally there might be
> >some solid evidence comeing from the CT camp. I only agreed with the
> >"finally".
>
> And yet, you simply have nothing to say ... you have nothing to rebut my
> evidence that the Z-film was altered. And the *ONLY* entity that could have
> altered it was the government... certainly not LHO.
Let Jerry go blind staring at Z-film for hours trying to counter
your suspicions. I look forward to his efforts being rewarded by a
stream of insults from you. Heck, I can trade insults without
micro-analyzing your talking points.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>In article <d7o9h...@drn.newsguy.com>, you say...
>> >>Hello one more time Robert!
>> >>
>> >>While it's been fun exploring Ben's unique view of the world, I think he
>> >>may have trouble with Z242 which shows the left flasher of Chaney's
>> >>motor cycle just where I expect it to be. Check it out and see what you
>> >>think. You have to run the frames back and forth to see that the red of
>> >>the flasher is part of Cheney's bike, not part of the limo.
>> >>
>> >>http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4853.jpg
>> >
>> >Well, I cannot confirm it with absolute certainty, but that does
>> >appear to be the case.
>> >
>> >Your point, I presume, is that Chaney was at roughly the same spot,
>> >relative to the limo at Z242, as he was at Z255.
>> >
>> >Ben's argument as I understand it, is that when the limo slowed down,
>> >the motorcyble riders moved forward relative to the limo.
>>
>> I'm quite sure that this is the reason Chaney ended up where he so
>> evidently is. Jerry has simply moved a few numbers around until something
>> looks possible, but the Z-Film provides a location that is nowhere *near*
>> 7 feet away. And Jerry STILL hasn't answered the problem with the
>> difference in distance between Chaney and the closest standing SS agent
>> - compared with that same distance between Hargis and *his* closest
>> standing SS agent. It's beginning to appear funny that *no* "defenders
>> of the faith" will answer this. Surely my argument isn't *that*
>> strong, is it? Surely there *must* be a rebuttal!?
>
>Well Ben, I haven't refuted it because it's imposible to refute.
And yet... you'll do your best to do precisely that below, right?
>Chancy
>is further from Ready than Hargis is from Hill. He's actually 1.7 times
>further away.
Better recheck your math.
>So you're absolutely right. However, (and it's those silly
>numbers again) that doesn't prove that Chaney is by the President. Check
>the graph (there I go again) here:
>
>http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4851.jpg
>
>to see what one possible arrangement that preserves that distance ratio
>would look like. So just because Chaney is further away than Hargis - it
>still doesn't necessarily place Chaney where you want him to be.
And yet - a simple photograph (actually two) would prove your point beyond all
doubt.
>In fact, if I were being really number oriented, I'd probably point out
>that you've actually proven my point. The ratio would have to be 3 to 1,
>not 1.7 to 1 to get Chaney where you want him to be.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just a hair
less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm (again,
just a hair less...)
So if a 3 to 1 ratio proves my point - you'd better start confessing your error
right now!
>The photo actually shows that Chaney can't be where you want him to be if
>Hargis is where you think he is.
ROTFLMAO!!! Now I'm "proving your point"!!
You're a coward, Jerry. I've waited far too long for you to actually respond to
my rebuttals, and you have the same attitude that Martin has... ignore it, and
maybe it'll go away - make a mistake and just drop it.
But anyone can measure the shadows, anyone with a normal level IQ can, given a
few measurements known - tell that your silly theory is just that.
This is why you keep ducking my simple questions.
>> >But, the slowdown did not begin until about Z300.
>>
>> If the Z-film has been altered, as I believe that the evidence is quite
>> clear about, then the frame numbers can no longer be relied on as
>> a "timeline" of the assassination. It's not exactly a secret, for
>> example, that the final head shot was almost certainly *NOT* at 313...
>> at least, judging by the eyewitness statements. Which, as any LNT'er,
>> and more than a few CT'ers will tell you, are unreliable. :)
>
>Yes, and Nix, Muchmore and Bronson were all altered as well because they
>show the limo slowing "after" it passes Altgens.
How do you know this?
Perhaps you're in the boat of "all eyewitnesses are unreliable" too. Say hi to
Martin for me!
>The only thing I can't
>figure out is why, since they had the Bronson film in their hands, they
>didn't just paint LHO into the TSBD window and be done with it.
They did. But the forger put a Cuban in the window, so they had to destroy the
negative. :)
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>In article <d7n3m...@drn.newsguy.com>, bnho...@rain.org says...
>> >
>> >Ben,
>> >
>> >In Z242 we can see Chaney's left flasher just where I've said it should
>> >be located. See here:
>> >
>> >http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4853.jpg
>>
>>
>> Of COURSE Chaney is back there at 242... Guess what??? HE'S BEEN BACK
>> THERE ALL ALONG! (Prior to the limo stop.)
>>
>> What happened was that when the limo came to a stop, the motocycles
>> didn't... You can see in the films, both Z-Film and Nix, the motorcycles
>> overtaking the limo. You just refuse to believe that Chaney ever did.
>>
>>
>> >I think even you can see that between Z242 and Z255 that Zapruder pans
>> >and raises his camera slightly - dropping the flasher out of the frame.
>> >
>> >Also, you have to run Zapruder back before the sign to see that this is
>> >indeed the flasher, not part of the follow car.
>> >
>> >Do you still want me to explain the other stuff or are you ready to
>> >give?
>>
>> Sorry Jerry... what you *think* is a point of argument is nothing more
>> than the last point in the film that you still see Chaney... and means
>> nothing at all.
>
>Sure, if you ignore what I said. The part aboout Zapruder raising the
>camera and panning away from Chaney's location for example. Also, it
>shows another half second of Chaney staying in the same location
>relative to the limo.
It *DOESN'T CONTRADICT WHAT I'VE SAID*, Jerry! Can't you understand that? I
AGREE THAT ALL KNOWN FILMS THAT SHOW CHANEY DO NOT SHOW HIM OTHER THAN WHERE
HE'S BEEN ALL ALONG!
Happy?
And yet, you haven't proven *anything at all*.
>> And YES!!! I've been fairly polite about it, but that's rapidly coming
>> to an end... I'll start making it as clear as I do with Martin... Martin
>> refuses to answer my points as well.
>>
>> Now, start by telling everyone what the length of Martin's shadow is.
No response. Jerry, you're a yellow coward.
>> Then tell everyone where Chaney's motorcycle is, in relation to the LIMO's
>> shadow.
Any lurker can take a look and answer the question - Jerry won't. If Jerry did,
it would make nonsense of his pretty diagram.
>> Then explain why you think your 7 foot distance is justifiable, given
>> the above facts.
Jerry won't answer - he's turned cowardly...
>> Then EXPLAIN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CHANEY AND THE STANDING SS AGENTS ON
>> HIS SIDE COMPARED TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HARGIS AND THE STANDING SS
>> AGENTS ON *HIS* SIDE!
ROTFLMAO!!! Thankyou Jerry... you *did* answer this one. You just have no clue
...
Thankyou for arguing on my behalf. You may go back to ducking my questions now.
>> Until you do, I'm going to keep pointing it out.
>
>I rarey follow orders except from my wife. If you ask nicely I'll be
>happy to tell you.
You've already *stated* that you would. You're a coward.
A simple answer from you would reveal your reconstruction to be a fraud.
>Jerry
Ben Holmes
Why duplicate it? They had the film... they probably had more than one film.
>They correctly positioned Jackie's (or somebody's) gloved
>hand on JFK's (or somebody's) arm. They got Kellerman exactly right.
>They even turned the heads of Martin and Hargis, exactly as they were
>in the original film, with Martin turn slightly more to the right than
>Hargis.
>
>But they just forgot one small detail.
>
>They left out the cop who was sitting squarely in the center of the
>legit Zapruder frame, blocking Zapruder's view of Kennedy and/or some
>of the other passengers.
>
>Do you really think that is what happened?
Nope.
But then again, I never feel the need to offer support to theories concocted by
others who imply that it's the only possible solution.
Nor do I find it difficult to believe that Chaney isn't found in frames that no
longer grace the Z-film.
>And how did they create this bogus frame?
Probably the same way they created many others.
Those who are much more informed on film, and how to manipulate it, have gone
into excruciating detail. I don't find anything refutable in what they've said.
>Was it actually frame 400,
>or 135, touched up a bit and then switched to the 255 position?
No, I don't believe so... I suspect that you'll just have to play with your own
strawman.
>Or did they hire lookalikes to sit in the limo and do a Hollywood
>production?
Flog it yourself...
>What you are suggesting has to be technically possible, to be worth
>consideration.
Ah! Another believer in ET!
Removing the limo stop wasn't even mildly troublesome. Just how difficult do
you suppose it is to remove frames?
>How might they have done it? Please be very specific.
I'll trade ya. I will go into an explicit and detailed description of what was
done, but you'll offer something first. A detailed and explicit defense for Tai
Otoshi, along with the reasoning for all actions.
I can spend the time to condense and quote out of books you no doubt have on
your bookshelf, and *you* can spend the time to condense and quote out of books
on Judo that I certainly have on *my* bookshelf. I'll even be kind enough to
offer suggestions for source material, if you need any. Go to
http://www.bestjudo.com and do a search on Tai Otoshi.
That way, the time I waste is duplicated by the time *you* waste.
>Robert Harris
Surely you're not another believer in the LNT'er adage that all eyewitnesses are
unreliable, are you?
Ben Holmes
Certainly no less fair than asking the "defenders of the faith" to actually
discuss the evidence.
Common sense, when viewing the Altgen's photo - is *PRECISELY* what you can't
allow.
Jerry Logan
Better recheck your math.
ROTFLMAO!!!
For those lurkers who might believe that Ben is actually onto something
I'd like to point out that Ben has made the same mistake he made in an
earlier post - he's measuring distances by laying a ruler across the
photo and saying that those measurements represent the actual distances
and proportions of the real world. I've already pointed out, for
example, that if you simply lay a ruler over the limo in the picture it
measures 7 units wide and 4 units long. Even though the limo is really 3
times longer than it it is wide; measuring from the picture would tell
you that the limo is almost twice as wide as it is long. Following Ben's
procedure is sure to yield false results if your concerned about
accurate measure of real distance and proportion.
If you just lay a ruler over the photo my numbers are not the same as
Ben's because his numbers are wildly inaccurate. I computed my
proportions by analyzing the geometry of the positions of the cycles and
limos with the assumption that there is a triangle formed between each
motorcycle officer, the respective SS agent on the running board and
Altgens.
When I do this I get a 1.7 to 1 real proportion, in exactly the same way
as I get a 3 to 1 real proportion for the limo, not by measuring it on
the photo but by looking at the relationships in an accurately scaled
diagram.
If someone has some sincere questions I''m more than happy answer them
or redo the diagrams if there's more accurate information that should be
in them. I'm not trying to win a debate, I really want to know what
happened so I'm completely open to any honest exchange of ideas.
That said, I'm done with Ben. We're in different worlds. Maybe it's
because he went to charm school and I didn't.
Jerry
Jerry Logan
Just to show I'm not leaving angry I present the following pictures at
the new online Penn Jones archive in case you haven't seen them. I think
they show that someone was thinking along the same lines as you.
http://www3.baylor.edu/Library/BCPM/JFK/Photos/p59.jpg
http://www3.baylor.edu/Library/BCPM/JFK/Photos/p60.jpg
The whole archive looks like it might be very interesting when
completed.
http://www3.baylor.edu/Library/BCPM/JFK/JFK.htm
Many thanks to Don Roberdeau for his posting.
Jerry
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben,
>
>Just to show I'm not leaving angry I present the following pictures at
>the new online Penn Jones archive in case you haven't seen them. I think
>they show that someone was thinking along the same lines as you.
I'm not presenting anything original or new. This is old material. Which makes
it all the more interesting that you refuse to answer my points concerning it.
Perhaps we should check in with the censored group to see if anyone there can
actually *respond* to this rather damning evidence against the authenticity of
the Z-film
Ben Holmes
Actually, Jerry can't point to any example of this. It appears that he, just
like Martin and Tony, is willing to simply invent what he needs for his
argument.
But when you're forced to lie to make a point, have you really done anything?
>I've already pointed out, for
>example, that if you simply lay a ruler over the limo in the picture it
>measures 7 units wide and 4 units long. Even though the limo is really 3
>times longer than it it is wide; measuring from the picture would tell
>you that the limo is almost twice as wide as it is long. Following Ben's
>procedure is sure to yield false results if your concerned about
>accurate measure of real distance and proportion.
What Jerry STILL isn't going to answer is why Chaney is so far away from the
nearest standing SS agent. "Foreshortening" isn't going to get the job done.
Nor is any amount of doodling on graph paper.
>If you just lay a ruler over the photo my numbers are not the same as
>Ben's because his numbers are wildly inaccurate.
The number mean nothing, they quite *obviously* depend on the size of the
photograph... the PROPORTIONS don't change. And both you and I were talking
about the proportions.
Hoist by your own words, Coward!
>I computed my
>proportions by analyzing the geometry of the positions of the cycles and
>limos with the assumption that there is a triangle formed between each
>motorcycle officer, the respective SS agent on the running board and
>Altgens.
>
>When I do this I get a 1.7 to 1 real proportion, in exactly the same way
>as I get a 3 to 1 real proportion for the limo, not by measuring it on
>the photo but by looking at the relationships in an accurately scaled
>diagram.
Yep... by making assumptions, then creating the math to 'prove' those
assumptions. Your logic is impeccable.
But proving what you want to prove by assuming the positions that you are
supposed to be proving simply illustrates that you don't know what you're doing.
(Or possibly, that you *do* - and are simply dishonest about it)
Is this why you refuse to answer the points I've raised?
Once again, why is Chaney's distance so dramatically different than Hargis'?
(By that 3 to 1 proportion, in fact.)
Why won't you tell us the length of Martin's shadow? It doesn't need to be to
the fraction of an inch, I'll be happy to have you answer to the nearest half a
foot.
You've *promised* to answer these questions, then you duck and run... why is
that, Jerry?
>If someone has some sincere questions I''m more than happy answer them
Just as long as they aren't questions that Jerry has been ducking for a week
now.
Coward!
>or redo the diagrams if there's more accurate information that should be
>in them. I'm not trying to win a debate, I really want to know what
>happened so I'm completely open to any honest exchange of ideas.
No, you aren't. If you *were*, you'd answer the points and questions I raised.
Or at *least* admit that you got nailed by your own proportion argument!! LOL!
>That said, I'm done with Ben.
Of course you are! You ducked and avoided my questions as long as you could...
but now that I'm DEMANDING answers, you'll have to do like Martin, and run away.
I'm only demanding what YOU YOURSELF OFFERED TO GIVE. So that makes you a liar
as well.
>We're in different worlds. Maybe it's
>because he went to charm school and I didn't.
Nah, it's merely that I have a tad more rigorous honesty. I won't tell people
that I'll answer questions, then refuse to do so.
You've been outed, Jerry, by your *own* actions. Don't try laying the blame on
me.
>Jerry
vstevenv
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:d7qlt...@drn.newsguy.com...
quote on
Mr. Ben says....
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
a hair less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again,just a hair less...)"
quote off
> But when you're forced to lie to make a point, have you really done
> anything?
You pose a question that you should answer for yourself.
At any rate, please tell us Mr. Ben, how exactly did you come up with that 2
and 5 3/4cm figures?
aeffects
I think your being a bit silly, no?
> What you are suggesting has to be technically possible, to be worth
> consideration.
Ah.... the magic words; technically possible! Does this mean your ready
to discuss, film alteration via optical film printing techniques known
and available during the years of 1963-64? Earlier?
By all means please tell me who might be determining the "worth
consideration"? Roland Zavada? Yourself? Gary Mack? Bill Miller? Craig
Lamson? Joe Durnavitch and the rest of the GANG -- Dr. Josiah Thompson?
Martin Shackelford? Tony Marsh? Hey, how about dusting off, Bradford --
none of them [with the exception of Roland Zavada, and he because of
KODAK employment] were even AWARE of the art craft, read: what can and
can't be done. To quote Lynwood Dunn: anything, ANYTHING is possible in
optical film printing. They know squat about what IS and what ISN'T
possible when it comes to optical film printing.
How do you rate in the optical film printing knowledge column? Save me
some time, read Raymond Fieldings; The Technique of Special Effects
Cinematography, Library of Congress Catalog Card 64-8116. Very
important this edition, the 1965 edition - not the two later editions
> How might they have done it? Please be very specific.
>
Let us ALL here your qualifications in determining, who is and who
isn't being specific!
-- I've waited 3 years for the Lone Neuter's to find a voice regarding
this subject -- the best so far has been a 8-10 'optical film printing
challedged' CTer's, whom have invested half a liftime in the *alledged*
in-camera original, currently housed at NARA.
David Healy
Bud
I tried to warn you that you were dealing with a lunatic, Jerry. I
thought it would take more than a week before the real Ben emerged, but
the ravages of too many judo falls coupled with reading too many
assassination conspiracy books have taken it`s toll on poor Ben. I fear
he is losing patience with the cowards and liars in this world, I`m
seeing a clocktower in his future.
> Jerry
Jerry Logan
sirs...@fast.net says...
> If someone has some sincere questions I''m more than happy answer them
> > or redo the diagrams if there's more accurate information that should be
> > in them. I'm not trying to win a debate, I really want to know what
> > happened so I'm completely open to any honest exchange of ideas.
> >
> > That said, I'm done with Ben. We're in different worlds. Maybe it's
> > because he went to charm school and I didn't.
>
> I tried to warn you that you were dealing with a lunatic, Jerry. I
> thought it would take more than a week before the real Ben emerged, but
> the ravages of too many judo falls coupled with reading too many
> assassination conspiracy books have taken it`s toll on poor Ben. I fear
> he is losing patience with the cowards and liars in this world, I`m
> seeing a clocktower in his future.
>
>
> > Jerry
>
>
pool on when Ben would find his way into my kill file and if so, did you
win it?
Ben Holmes
I'm *always* capable of answering *that* question. You should consider that
it's almost always me that's *asking* the question, and usually when people have
just been caught in a *provable* lie.
>At any rate, please tell us Mr. Ben, how exactly did you come up with that 2
>and 5 3/4cm figures?
The precise *measurements* would depend on either your screen diminsions, or on
the book that you drew the photo from.
The *proportions* were under discussion however. Did you miss that?
Can you do the basic math to tell me what the proportion is between the Hargis
measurement and the Chaney measurement? I'd *really* be interested in hearing
your answer. I *KNOW* that Jerry won't answer this... will you be honest enough
to answer?
And can you illustrate that this proportion *changes* depending on what version
of the photo you draw the measurements from? A yes or no will be sufficient,
but I'll be happy to listen to any prolonged argument on the point.
For if you can't - you've illustrated your logic ability, as well as your
reading ability.
For if you'd bothered to read just a *little* bit further, you'd have come to
the section in THIS VERY POST, where I stated quite clearly:
>> The number mean nothing, they quite *obviously* depend on the size of the
>> photograph... the PROPORTIONS don't change. And both you and I were
>> talking about the proportions.
Did you miss this? Did you fail to understand it?
I can't exactly apologize for not making it clear enough - IT WASN'T MY POINT TO
MAKE. You'll have to talk to Jerry.
Now, if you cannot illustrate that the proportions *change*, then have you made
a point at all? (Other than your failure to understand what was under
discussion)
Ben Holmes
Plenty of *facts* to deal with in this post, and ad hominem is all that Bud can
handle.
>> Jerry
Ben Holmes
I'm *always* capable of answering *that* question. You should consider that
it's almost always me that's *asking* the question, and usually when people have
just been caught in a *provable* lie.
>At any rate, please tell us Mr. Ben, how exactly did you come up with that 2
>and 5 3/4cm figures?
The precise *measurements* would depend on either your screen diminsions, or on
the book that you drew the photo from.
The *proportions* were under discussion however. Did you miss that?
Can you do the basic math to tell me what the proportion is between the Hargis
measurement and the Chaney measurement? I'd *really* be interested in hearing
your answer. I *KNOW* that Jerry won't answer this... will you be honest enough
to answer?
And can you illustrate that this proportion *changes* depending on what version
of the photo you draw the measurements from? A yes or no will be sufficient,
but I'll be happy to listen to any prolonged argument on the point.
For if you can't - you've illustrated your logic ability, as well as your
reading ability.
For if you'd bothered to read just a *little* bit further, you'd have come to
the section in THIS VERY POST, where I stated quite clearly:
>> The number mean nothing, they quite *obviously* depend on the size of the
>> photograph... the PROPORTIONS don't change. And both you and I were
>> talking about the proportions.
Did you miss this? Did you fail to understand it?
I can't exactly apologize for not making it clear enough - IT WASN'T MY POINT TO
MAKE. You'll have to talk to Jerry.
Now, if you cannot illustrate that the proportions *change*, then have you made
a point at all? (Other than your failure to understand what was under
discussion)
Ben Holmes
says...
If you can't remain honest to your *own* promises, how do you develop character?
A question for you to ponder, Jerry... as you remember your promise to answer my
points, before ducking and running forever.
Bud
No formal poll I know of, but I had a firm idea that Ben couldn`t
restrain himself for longer than two weeks. He seemed to be in a hurry
to blow up on you, maybe because you showed him to be wrong on the
"blacks east of the sign" issue he raised.
Bud
Go with what you know I always say. I think it`s at least as
important to understand the person presenting the *facts*, as I see the
human element as the cause of most of the difficulties in this case.
There has been tens of thousands of hours spent looking at the Z-Film
by CT, with the desire to find difficulties. It might take much more
time than that to uncover the cause of these difficulties and to
explain them. Put me in for ten minutes.
> >> Jerry
Brokedad
the photographic evidence of the assassination.
In regards this topic, Mr. Altgens was not standing out in the street,
and his camera bag was considerably farther back on the grass.
Tom
Ben Holmes
Actually, unlike Jerry, Martin, Tony, and others, it never bothers me to change
my opinion when better facts come to light.
I'm not afraid to say "I'm wrong" and move on. Jerry, for example, thought that
he could convince me with some diagrams, and probably never had any intent to
respond to the points that make his reconstruction improbable. Martin got
caught making the dumb mistake of reading just far enough into an eyewitness
statement to see what he *wanted* to see. Tony tried to mix up two days, and
got nailed.
Now Bud, will you agree that Jerry had stated that he *would* answer my points I
raised?
And what would *YOU* call it when someone refuses to do what they said they
would?
Ben Holmes
vstevenv
I'll reserve comment on this for the time being.
>>At any rate, please tell us Mr. Ben, how exactly did you come up with that
>>2
>>and 5 3/4cm figures?
>
> The precise *measurements* would depend on either your screen diminsions,
> or on
> the book that you drew the photo from.
Wow! What a revelation.
But you still did not answer my question. Why?
You claim my reading comprehension is faulty. Lets review.
Jerry said...
quote on
"I'd like to point out that Ben has made the same mistake he made in an
earlier post - he's measuring distances by laying a ruler across the
photo and saying that those measurements represent the actual distances
and proportions of the real world.
quote off"
Ben replied
quote on
"Actually, Jerry can't point to any example of this. It appears that he,
just like Martin and Tony, is willing to simply invent what he needs for
his
argument."
As I have all ready pointed out, you believe my reading comprehension needs
work. Maybe you are correct however, this sounds like you are stating Jerry
is a liar.
Hence Steve pointed out
quote on
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
a hair less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again,just a hair less...)"
quote off
This is/was your exact words Mr. Ben.
Now I will ask you one more time...
Please tell us Mr. Ben, how exactly did you come up with that 2
and 5 3/4cm figures?
Did you put a linear scale across this picture, exactly what Jerry has
claimed? If not, how did you come up with these figures?
Now the lurkers will see if you really do have the balls to admit you err as
you claimed beginning this post.
> The *proportions* were under discussion however. Did you miss that?
I didn't think so. But I will admit that I thought the point of the
conversation was that you do not see the motorcycle in the Z film as you
believe it to be shown in the Altgens photo. Hence, you have proven some
kind of Z film alteration.You do cover a great deal of different points in
one thread Mr. Ben. I may have missed something. Although I doubt it myself.
> Can you do the basic math to tell me what the proportion is between the
> Hargis
> measurement and the Chaney measurement?
Photogammetry is not basic math. If fact it is quite complex. If you would
like to be educated in that area, just ask, and I will be glad to point you
to a site that discusses it in exasperating detail.
>I'd *really* be interested in hearing
> your answer.
I don't believe you. But I will tell you this. I give you my word that I
will never try to teach you how to properly deliver a Judo chop. In return,
I will strongly suggest that *you* should not attempt to teach me about
foreshortened views in 2D.
>I *KNOW* that Jerry won't answer this... will you be honest enough
> to answer?
I can't speak for Jerry. As for myself, I will be happy to go much further
than Jerry did with his 2D graphics to help you understand what you are
really seeing in said photo.
> And can you illustrate that this proportion *changes* depending on what
> version
> of the photo you draw the measurements from?
You can't deduce anything from taking linear measurements on 2D drawings in
the manner you have been suggesting.
As for proportions changing, you are both correct and incorrect. The
proportions do not change in different size photographs. This comment takes
the notion that each photograph is sized symmetrically. In other words. the
proportions of a photo the measure 2x4 is exactly the same as a photo that
is 4x8. The larger photo is exactly 2x the size of the smaller. Conversely,
the proportions of a photo 2x4 are different than a photo 2x6.
As usual, this leaves us all wondering what exactly you are talking about
Mr. Ben.
Heaven forbid if someone would think that you can deduce a 2cm measurement
from a helmet to an arm without the use of a linear scale.
>A yes or no will be sufficient,
> but I'll be happy to listen to any prolonged argument on the point.
Yes
> For if you can't - you've illustrated your logic ability, as well as your
> reading ability.
If you truly want to learn, I will be willing to help you. If you want to
turn this discussion into the *yellow coward* routine, I will do like the
rest of the lurkers and sit back and simply LOL at you misconceptions.
> For if you'd bothered to read just a *little* bit further, you'd have come
> to
> the section in THIS VERY POST, where I stated quite clearly:
>
>>> The number mean nothing, they quite *obviously* depend on the size of
>>> the
>>> photograph... the PROPORTIONS don't change. And both you and I were
>>> talking about the proportions.
>
> Did you miss this?
No I did not miss your comment.
> Did you fail to understand it?
Yes, I fail to understand it as you present it.
In fairness to myself, it has been claimed (and I agree with them) by
others, on more than several occasions that you tend to speak/write in
*code*.
Do you mean proportions between several photos of different sizes? Or, do
you mean the proportions of different objects in the same photograph?
Please explain yourself because one of the above questions is totally
correct and the other is demonstrably incorrect.
> I can't exactly apologize for not making it clear enough - IT WASN'T MY
> POINT TO
> MAKE. You'll have to talk to Jerry.
>
>
> Now, if you cannot illustrate that the proportions *change*, then have you
> made
> a point at all?
The point?
Jerry said you was in error trying to use a scale to physically measure on a
2D photo. He is absolutely correct on this matter.
Your retort was...
"Actually, Jerry can't point to any example of this."
Maybe Jerry decided not to "point to any example". But I did....
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
a hair less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again,just a hair less...)"
Now Mr. Ben are you going to honestly tell us how you came about those
numbers? Or are you going to try to confuse the "point" with nonsense that
you were really talking about something else and I am just dumb?
(Other than your failure to understand what was under
> discussion)
Z film alteration. As the subject header suggests. No?
Ben Holmes
LOL!!! Smart of you to do so... since if you'd bother to admit it, I've
answered your question even before you *asked* it. I made it quite clear that I
was discussing WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP - the proportions.
>>>At any rate, please tell us Mr. Ben, how exactly did you come up with that
>>>2 and 5 3/4cm figures?
>>
>> The precise *measurements* would depend on either your screen diminsions,
>> or on the book that you drew the photo from.
>
>Wow! What a revelation.
>
>But you still did not answer my question. Why?
Because only someone of an IQ lower than that needed to *read* this would
understand that I'm talking about putting a ruler to the screen?
>You claim my reading comprehension is faulty. Lets review.
It is. You CLEARLY missed what I said in this very post... AS I ILLUSTRATED!
>Jerry said...
>
>quote on
>"I'd like to point out that Ben has made the same mistake he made in an
>earlier post - he's measuring distances by laying a ruler across the
>photo and saying that those measurements represent the actual distances
>and proportions of the real world.
>quote off"
>
>Ben replied
>quote on
>"Actually, Jerry can't point to any example of this. It appears that he,
> just like Martin and Tony, is willing to simply invent what he needs for
>his argument."
>
>As I have all ready pointed out, you believe my reading comprehension needs
>work. Maybe you are correct however, this sounds like you are stating Jerry
>is a liar.
Yep. Neither Jerry, nor yourself, will be able to point to any statement of
mine, AND QUOTE IT, where I state "those measurements represent the actual
distances and proportions of the real world."
Proportions, yes... when perspective is taken into account. But distances? The
stupidity required to even suggest this is beyond belief!
When people are forced to lie about what I've been quite clearly stating, it
merely means that they don't have anything *real* to debate.
Now, either QUOTE me stating that measured distances are identical to real life
distances, or go away.
>Hence Steve pointed out
Steve didn't "point this out". The following are *my* words.
>quote on
>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
>a hair less, actually)
>
>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>(again,just a hair less...)"
>quote off
>
>This is/was your exact words Mr. Ben.
Yep. They are. Good of you to QUOTE them. It's pretty much all I ask of
people who don't like what I say.
That you apparently think such measurements mean the actual real life
measurements is so silly that you must be mentally challenged.
Particularly when it was clear from the beginning that PROPORTIONS are what is
under discussion. I didn't even bring it up, Jerry did...
>Now I will ask you one more time...
>Please tell us Mr. Ben, how exactly did you come up with that 2
>and 5 3/4cm figures?
As I clearly implied. Does it shock you that someone would dare use a ruler on
a photo?
>Did you put a linear scale across this picture, exactly what Jerry has
>claimed? If not, how did you come up with these figures?
Yep... put a ruler to the screen. Do you have some esoteric method of
determining proportions that *don't* require any underlying measurements?
>Now the lurkers will see if you really do have the balls to admit you err as
>you claimed beginning this post.
It's not an error. Nor can you point out *why* it would be an error.
Feel free to provide an example of a "proportion" that does not need any
underlying data to originally define it.
My crystal ball tells me that you will refuse to do so.
>> The *proportions* were under discussion however. Did you miss that?
>
>
>I didn't think so.
You quite clearly did. You even claim that proportions can change depending on
the size of the photo. Rather a stupid claim, but I'll enjoy seeing you try to
support it.
>But I will admit that I thought the point of the
>conversation was that you do not see the motorcycle in the Z film as you
>believe it to be shown in the Altgens photo. Hence, you have proven some
>kind of Z film alteration.You do cover a great deal of different points in
>one thread Mr. Ben. I may have missed something. Although I doubt it myself.
Sooner or later you're going to be forced to the conclusion that proportions
CANNOT BE JUDGED without underlying measurements. Quite clearly, perspective
must be taken into account, since you're dealing with a 3 dimensional topic
using 2 dimensional data.
But I DEFY you to show any "error" on my part to illustrate that the proportions
that Jerry asserted ARE EXACTLY WHAT ARE SEEN IN THE ALTGEN'S PHOTO!
They aren't my claims. I don't support Jerry's silly claim that the proportion
must be 3 to 1 to put Chaney where the Altgen's photo clearly puts him. Jerry's
thesis is too simple-minded. But it's simple to show that this is the actual
proportion seen in the Altgen's photo.
For if Chaney is where Jerry tries to put him, any error due to perspective is
minor.
And if Chaney is where *I* put him, and indeed, virtually anyone who simply
*looks* at the photo puts him, then perspective would make a very large
difference between what could be measured, and what reality was. As a simple
example, measure the distance between the limo's driver side flag, and the
standing SS agent directly in line with it. Virtually no measurement at all,
right? Illustrating that the flag is virtually touching that SS agent? Of
course not. Rather silly, wouldn't you say? But fairly good proportions CAN be
made of Hargis and Martin's distance from the followup limo - BECAUSE
PERSPECTIVE IS NOT AN ISSUE.
>> Can you do the basic math to tell me what the proportion is between the
>> Hargis measurement and the Chaney measurement?
>
>Photogammetry is not basic math.
Can't answer a simple question, can you?
If *YOU* put Chaney in the same relative position on his side of the followup
limo as Hargis is, THEN YOU MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE APPARENT
DISTANCES.
This really isn't rocket science, and you can't toss out words you don't
understand to try to snow me.
Jerry made the error of spouting off the proportions he found, why can't you do
the same? Don't you have a brain?
>If fact it is quite complex.
Not if Chaney is where you claim him to be. The error due to the angle of
perspective would be relatively minor.
>If you would
>like to be educated in that area, just ask, and I will be glad to point you
>to a site that discusses it in exasperating detail.
You can't escape your predicament so easily. Why am I capable of doing
something that you can't do?
Or, just as I pointed out to Jerry, just take a photo that duplicates what you
think you see in this photo. That would shut me up!!
>>I'd *really* be interested in hearing
>> your answer.
>
>I don't believe you. But I will tell you this. I give you my word that I
>will never try to teach you how to properly deliver a Judo chop. In return,
>I will strongly suggest that *you* should not attempt to teach me about
>foreshortened views in 2D.
LOL!! I rather suspected that you wouldn't offer an opinion. Now, just so you
aren't seen as biased in this issue, are you going to post a message to Jerry,
decrying HIS proportion argument?
We both did it, I merely came up with a result you don't like.
>>I *KNOW* that Jerry won't answer this... will you be honest enough
>> to answer?
>
>I can't speak for Jerry. As for myself, I will be happy to go much further
>than Jerry did with his 2D graphics to help you understand what you are
>really seeing in said photo.
There's a simple way to do it. TELL EVERYONE HERE WHY THE APPARENT DISTANCE IS
SO DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT.
Or simply duplicate the photo.
Jerry was unwilling to do so, yet you assert that you'll go further than Jerry,
but you refuse to take two measurements, and tell me what the proportion between
them is.
Sorta makes you a liar before you even try, doesn't it?
You want to go further than Jerry... EXPLAIN THE APPARENT DIFFERENCE IN
DISTANCE.
Or run away like Jerry and Martin.
>> And can you illustrate that this proportion *changes* depending on what
>> version of the photo you draw the measurements from?
>
>You can't deduce anything from taking linear measurements on 2D drawings in
>the manner you have been suggesting.
Of course you can. But you didn't answer the question, did you? Once again,
"And can you illustrate that this proportion *changes* depending on what version
of the photo you draw the measurements from?"
Come on, Steven, you accused me of not knowing what I was doing when I made a
simple measurement.
>As for proportions changing, you are both correct and incorrect. The
>proportions do not change in different size photographs. This comment takes
>the notion that each photograph is sized symmetrically. In other words. the
>proportions of a photo the measure 2x4 is exactly the same as a photo that
>is 4x8. The larger photo is exactly 2x the size of the smaller. Conversely,
>the proportions of a photo 2x4 are different than a photo 2x6.
Bravo! You argue that I'm correct, then you argue that I'm incorrect, and offer
supporting argument ONLY for the "correct" statement.
You said: "As for proportions changing, you are both correct and incorrect."
PROVIDE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THE PROPORTIONS CHANGING DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF
THE PHOTOGRAPH.
If you can't support your own statements, it makes your whole argument rather
silly, doesn't it?
>As usual, this leaves us all wondering what exactly you are talking about
>Mr. Ben.
I've been completely clear. You've missed my meaning, and it's rather clearly
stated.
The Z-Film has been altered, as it doesn't show what the Altgen's photo CLEARLY
shows.
You can't explain the Altgens photo in your terms, nor can you duplicate it.
All you can do is try steering people to an "answer" you don't understand
yourself.
Why not be honest, and simply assert that you don't understand why Chaney
appears to be where you believe he is not?
>Heaven forbid if someone would think that you can deduce a 2cm measurement
>from a helmet to an arm without the use of a linear scale.
Ruler, plastic, "Westcott", Model R405-12, Made in China, purchased at Staples
Office Supplies. Convenient hole on one end - so that you can hang it up.
Works great, has inches on one edge, and centimeters on the other edge.
Feel free to mention to Staples that I sent ya...
>>A yes or no will be sufficient,
>> but I'll be happy to listen to any prolonged argument on the point.
>
>Yes
Okay... you state that you CAN illustrate that this proportion *changes*
depending on what version of the photo you draw the measurements from?
I'll call you a liar.
>> For if you can't - you've illustrated your logic ability, as well as your
>> reading ability.
>
>If you truly want to learn, I will be willing to help you. If you want to
>turn this discussion into the *yellow coward* routine, I will do like the
>rest of the lurkers and sit back and simply LOL at you misconceptions.
ROTFLMAO!!!
You claim that proportions can change depending on the size of the photo.
That's as assinine and stupid a statement as is possible to make.
I predict that you ARE a coward, and will refuse to provide any examples.
I predict that you'll use this to self-righteously run away, refusing to support
your silly and stupid statements.
Just as Jerry and Martin have done.
>> For if you'd bothered to read just a *little* bit further, you'd have come
>> to
>> the section in THIS VERY POST, where I stated quite clearly:
>>
>>>> The number mean nothing, they quite *obviously* depend on the size of
>>>> the photograph... the PROPORTIONS don't change. And both you and I were
>>>> talking about the proportions.
>>
>> Did you miss this?
>
>No I did not miss your comment.
Then why are you questioning my measuring of a photo? Are you so stupid as to
believe that proportions can be judged without any underlying measurement data?
Can you provide a single example of defining a proportion WITHOUT any measuring
data?
>> Did you fail to understand it?
>
>Yes, I fail to understand it as you present it.
Clearly.
>In fairness to myself, it has been claimed (and I agree with them) by
>others, on more than several occasions that you tend to speak/write in
>*code*.
Point to any issue that cannot be clearly understood by anyone else.
Point to any statement I made, QUOTE that statement, that has left ideas that
have not been explained.
And, far from speaking in "code", I'm quite more often referred to as being
rather blunt in speech. I'm not afraid to call a liar a liar.
>Do you mean proportions between several photos of different sizes? Or, do
>you mean the proportions of different objects in the same photograph?
What was unclear about this statement?
************************************************************
>> Can you do the basic math to tell me what the proportion is between the
>> Hargis measurement and the Chaney measurement?
>> And can you illustrate that this proportion *changes* depending on what
>> version of the photo you draw the measurements from?
************************************************************
This is really quite simple. Take one measurement - between Hargis and his
closest standing SS agent.
Now take a second measurement - between Chaney and *his* closest standing SS
agent.
They aren't the same, obviously.
Since they are not the same, you can easily deduce (or even use grade school
math!) that the proportion of one measurement to the other measurement (even
though you've cowardly refused to do so) is almost 3 to 1.
Now, you've argued that this proportion can change if you use a different photo.
One that's printed larger or smaller than the screen view I used.
Yet you refuse to provide an example.
What's unclear about this? Only someone who is trying to find error where there
is none is going to pretend to be confused about this.
>Please explain yourself because one of the above questions is totally
>correct and the other is demonstrably incorrect.
Yep... the statement *I* ALREADY MADE is "totally correct".
In fact, you can't QUOTE a statement I've made that is *NOT* correct, or
supported by the evidence.
>> I can't exactly apologize for not making it clear enough - IT WASN'T MY
>> POINT TO MAKE. You'll have to talk to Jerry.
>>
>>
>> Now, if you cannot illustrate that the proportions *change*, then have you
>> made a point at all?
>
>The point?
>
>Jerry said you was in error trying to use a scale to physically measure on a
>2D photo. He is absolutely correct on this matter.
The statement that you cannot use a scale to physically measure the distance on
a 2D photo AND ASSUME THAT IT REPRESENTS THE ACTUAL REAL-LIFE MEASUREMENT is
correct. But the idea that you cannot physically measure a photo is silly.
It's done all the time. Astronomy, as merely one example, does most of their
work nowadays on photographs.
I defy you to produce any statement that I've made where I assert that you CAN
make measurements on a photo AND ASSERT THAT THEY ARE IDENTICAL TO THE REAL LIFE
MEASUREMENTS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH IS A REPRESENTATION OF.
My crystal ball tell me that you'll refuse to do so. Or, more accurately,
*can't*.
>Your retort was...
>"Actually, Jerry can't point to any example of this."
Yep... Jerry can't quote me saying this, and neither can you.
That's why I've always insisted that people QUOTE my statements - it makes it
far more difficult to assert things that I've never said.
>Maybe Jerry decided not to "point to any example". But I did....
No, you didn't. You rather stupidly *thought* you had.
>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
>a hair less, actually)
>
>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>(again,just a hair less...)"
You're worse than a fool if you thought I meant to understand that Hargis was 2
centimeters away from the standing SS agent.
Why do you show the world such stupidities?
I've already made it crystal clear, even in that post, that the *PROPORTIONS*
are what I'm referring to. Particularly since I WAS RESPONDING TO A POINT
BROUGHT UP BY JERRY.
And even someone as stupid as you can't produce a proportion without a
measurement.
>Now Mr. Ben are you going to honestly tell us how you came about those
>numbers?
It's called a ruler. It seems that with the truly dumb, you can't merely imply
what most people will immediately understand.
>Or are you going to try to confuse the "point" with nonsense that
>you were really talking about something else and I am just dumb?
You ARE dumb. Only the truly stupid would think for even an instant that I'm
claiming that Hargis' helmet was a mere 2 centimeters away from the standing SS
agent at Dealey Plaza that day.
>>(Other than your failure to understand what was under
>> discussion)
>
>Z film alteration. As the subject header suggests. No?
Yep.
But you have dropped to the sheer stupidity of suggesting that proportions can
be obtained without measurements, and that proportions CHANGE depending on the
size of the photograph.
Even Bud doesn't sink to this level.
Congratulations! You've reached a sheer level of stupidity that Tony and Bud
can only dream of!
vstevenv
>>
>>The point?
>>
>>Jerry said you was in error trying to use a scale to physically measure on
>>a
>>2D photo. He is absolutely correct on this matter.
>
>
> The statement that you cannot use a scale to physically measure the
> distance on
> a 2D photo AND ASSUME THAT IT REPRESENTS THE ACTUAL REAL-LIFE MEASUREMENT
> is
> correct.
How does this go? Oh yeah...flog your own dead horse. Did I say this
correctly?
>But the idea that you cannot physically measure a photo is silly.
Need proof? Just ask me Mr. Ben.
............. Yikes!
I came back to proof read my post.
I am correct. you choose to employ your "liar,coward,yellow coward,child
molester" antics rather than discuss the issue. Again, I can not speak for
Mr. Jerry. However, I feel he put you in his kill basket because you are the
liar.
> It's done all the time. Astronomy, as merely one example, does most of
> their
> work nowadays on photographs.
You are speaking way out of your expertise Mr. Ben
>
> I defy you to produce any statement that I've made where I assert that you
> CAN
OK...
you said...
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
hair (less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again, just a hair less...)"
You are wrong Mr. Ben and Mr. Jerry has tried to show you your error.
> make measurements on a photo AND ASSERT THAT THEY ARE IDENTICAL TO THE
> REAL LIFE
> MEASUREMENTS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH IS A REPRESENTATION OF.
>
> My crystal ball tell me that you'll refuse to do so. Or, more accurately,
> *can't*.
Fuck your stupid ball. I asked you if you wanted to be educated on this
topic. You choose to do you "silly shit": Hence, no one will debate JACK
SHIT WITH YOU. The dumb ass that you are, you will not see the truth in my
statement.
Once upon a time there was a ruler in Iraq.
You need a ruler Mr. Ben?
It seems that with the truly dumb, you can't merely imply
> what most people will immediately understand.
>
>
>>Or are you going to try to confuse the "point" with nonsense that
>>you were really talking about something else and I am just dumb?
>
>
> You ARE dumb.
One day I hope to be dumb enough to take a linear scale to a photograph and
deduce the things you claim.
Only the truly stupid would think for even an instant that I'm
> claiming that Hargis' helmet was a mere 2 centimeters away from the
> standing SS
> agent at Dealey Plaza that day.
>
>
>>>(Other than your failure to understand what was under
>>> discussion)
>>
>>Z film alteration. As the subject header suggests. No?
>
> Yep.
>
> But you have dropped to the sheer stupidity of suggesting that proportions
> can
> be obtained without measurements, and that proportions CHANGE depending on
> the
> size of the photograph.
Stick to what you know Mr. Ben.
You have been proven wrong. Not a bad thing, sir. Just fess up and move
along..or not
> Even Bud doesn't sink to this level.
Bud who? I don't think anyone by the name "Bud" has ever called me "yellow
coward" Have you, Mr. Ben?
Ben Holmes
>
>
>
>>>The point?
>>>
>>>Jerry said you was in error trying to use a scale to physically measure on
>>>a 2D photo. He is absolutely correct on this matter.
>>
>>
>> The statement that you cannot use a scale to physically measure the
>> distance on a 2D photo AND ASSUME THAT IT REPRESENTS THE ACTUAL
>> REAL-LIFE MEASUREMENT is correct.
>
>How does this go? Oh yeah...flog your own dead horse. Did I say this
>correctly?
Why? Do you really believe that it's impossible to physically measure distances
on a 2D photo?
It's done all the time... I'd look pretty stupid denying the obvious...
If you want to deny it, feel free.
> >But the idea that you cannot physically measure a photo is silly.
>
>Need proof? Just ask me Mr. Ben.
Nope, no need to ask me. Most people are within reach of some sort of photo.
And ruler. Put the two together. No need to ask me if it's possible.
You can even find good examples of making physical measurements of a photo on
the Internet. Here, for example, is what is presumably North Carolina State
University's website:
http://www.ncsu.edu/sciencejunction/station/experiments/earthkam/simulation/ekamphotos.html
Going to tell the university that measuring photos is not possible?
>............. Yikes!
>
>I came back to proof read my post.
>
>I am correct. you choose to employ your "liar,coward,yellow coward,child
>molester" antics rather than discuss the issue. Again, I can not speak for
>Mr. Jerry. However, I feel he put you in his kill basket because you are the
>liar.
And yet, you can't quote a single instance where I FAILED to completely answer
each and every question.
Makes you the liar, doesn't it?
But you've snipped it up so that people can't tell. That's okay, any lurker who
suspects that you're not telling the truth again can go back to the previous
post, and note that I *did*, in fact, answer every question.
>> It's done all the time. Astronomy, as merely one example, does most of
>> their work nowadays on photographs.
>
>You are speaking way out of your expertise Mr. Ben
So you presume. Either dispute it, and be ready to provide a cite, or accept
the obvious.
Anyone who doubts the accuracy of my statement will have no problem verifying it
with simple Google searches.
But my crystal ball tells me that *YOU'LL* refuse to support your implied
contradiction.
>> I defy you to produce any statement that I've made where I assert that you
>> CAN
>
>OK...
>you said...
>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
> hair (less, actually)
Yep... it's true. Anyone who has a ruler, and the same photo that I had, can
*DUPLICATE* what I did, and come up with the same measurement.
>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>(again, just a hair less...)"
Ditto... still true.
>You are wrong Mr. Ben and Mr. Jerry has tried to show you your error.
How can I be wrong? People put ruler to photos quite often. It's really not as
impossible as you apparently believe it is. Try it for yourself!
"Mr. Jerry" went running away when I pointed out that BASED ON HIS OWN REPORTED
PROPORTION ARGUMENT, he had just proved that Altgens photographed Chaney right
where he obviously is.
Even you refuse to admit the simple fact that the proportions measured are
pretty close to 3 to 1.
Even *YOU*, as stupid as you apparently are, can put a ruler to a photograph.
(Although I'm beginning to wonder...)
And for the purposes that *I* did it, you can't dispute.
>> make measurements on a photo AND ASSERT THAT THEY ARE IDENTICAL TO THE
>> REAL LIFE MEASUREMENTS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH IS A REPRESENTATION OF.
>>
>> My crystal ball tell me that you'll refuse to do so. Or, more accurately,
>> *can't*.
>
>Fuck your stupid ball.
Yep... my crystal ball was accurate. But this *is* what you and Jerry have
accused me of saying... you are just unable to quote me doing so. Why is that,
Steven? Cat got your tongue?
>I asked you if you wanted to be educated on this
>topic. You choose to do you "silly shit": Hence, no one will debate JACK
>SHIT WITH YOU. The dumb ass that you are, you will not see the truth in my
>statement.
ROTFLMAO!! When you are unwilling to quote me saying what you imply that I've
said, it would appear that YOU are the one in need of "education", not I.
Don't you feel silly now?
Nope. Already have one. If you'd read my post, it would have been clear even
to you.
Does stupidity come easy to you? Or are you merely emulating Bud?
>>It seems that with the truly dumb, you can't merely imply
>> what most people will immediately understand.
>>
>>
>>>Or are you going to try to confuse the "point" with nonsense that
>>>you were really talking about something else and I am just dumb?
>>
>>
>> You ARE dumb.
>
>One day I hope to be dumb enough to take a linear scale to a photograph and
>deduce the things you claim.
You don't know how to take measurements, and deduce the proportions that they
are relative to each other?
Well, come to think of it, you refused to respond to that question, so perhaps
your grade school math didn't prepare you for such a simple task.
Of course, as most lurkers have no doubt noticed by now, what *I* deduced, and
what you and Jerry are asserting I deduced, are two different things. I
challenged Jerry to quote any such statement, I challenged YOU to quote any such
statement.
And considering that it was a *RESPONSE* to a post of Jerry's, one could wonder
why you feel there's any error on my part. No-one has been brave enough to
defend Jerry's silly assertion on proportion yet...
Rather silent on that issue...
>> Only the truly stupid would think for even an instant that I'm
>> claiming that Hargis' helmet was a mere 2 centimeters away from the
>> standing SS agent at Dealey Plaza that day.
What!!! No comment???
>>>>(Other than your failure to understand what was under
>>>> discussion)
>>>
>>>Z film alteration. As the subject header suggests. No?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> But you have dropped to the sheer stupidity of suggesting that proportions
>> can be obtained without measurements, and that proportions CHANGE depending
>> on the size of the photograph.
>
>Stick to what you know Mr. Ben.
That you said it is indisputable. That you will refuse to support it is what my
crystal ball is telling me.
>You have been proven wrong. Not a bad thing, sir. Just fess up and move
>along..or not
Proven wrong on what???
You're too cowardly to quote any such statement, and support it.
>> Even Bud doesn't sink to this level.
>
>Bud who? I don't think anyone by the name "Bud" has ever called me "yellow
>coward" Have you, Mr. Ben?
I only refer to cowards as "yellow cowards".
Why do you have such an inability to QUOTE any error by me?
Why do you refuse to support your assertion that proportions can be different
on different sized photographs?
vstevenv
> In article <O_udnQ2kzug...@comcast.com>, vstevenv says...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>The point?
>>>>
>>>>Jerry said you was in error trying to use a scale to physically measure
>>>>on
>>>>a 2D photo. He is absolutely correct on this matter.
>>>
>>>
>>> The statement that you cannot use a scale to physically measure the
>>> distance on a 2D photo AND ASSUME THAT IT REPRESENTS THE ACTUAL
>>> REAL-LIFE MEASUREMENT is correct.
>>
>>How does this go? Oh yeah...flog your own dead horse. Did I say this
>>correctly?
>
> Why?
'Cause I said so.
>Do you really believe that it's impossible to physically measure distances
> on a 2D photo?
Mr. Ben, You be silly if you think I would debate you in *any* subject
without bringing a full clip.
So, as you twist,wiggle,and squirm, I said you can not physically measure
distances in a 2D photo in the manner you claim. Jerry said the same thing
(in essence) also. Do you choose to call me a liar or, shall I dig up my
original statement and prove you wrong?
> It's done all the time... I'd look pretty stupid denying the obvious...
The problem exists that you are clueless as to how it is done. It is you,
kind sir, that wants to deny the obvious.
> If you want to deny it, feel free.
Thank you Mr. Ben for allowing me to point out the errors in your way. It
would really piss me off to get a Judo chop because I point you in the
correct direction.
>> >But the idea that you cannot physically measure a photo is silly.
>>
>>Need proof? Just ask me Mr. Ben.
>
>
> Nope, no need to ask me.
I was not asking you. I asked you to ask me. Are you confused?
>Most people are within reach of some sort of photo.
> And ruler. Put the two together. No need to ask me if it's possible.
LOL
> You can even find good examples of making physical measurements of a photo
> on
> the Internet. Here, for example, is what is presumably North Carolina
> State
> University's website:
>
> http://www.ncsu.edu/sciencejunction/station/experiments/earthkam/simulation/ekamphotos.html
>
> Going to tell the university that measuring photos is not possible?
Ha ha ha . You are funny Mr. Ben. I can surmise that from your link that you
can take a linear scale and deduce that the motorcycle is alongside the
limo?
>>............. Yikes!
>>
>>I came back to proof read my post.
>>
>>I am correct. you choose to employ your "liar,coward,yellow coward,child
>>molester" antics rather than discuss the issue. Again, I can not speak for
>>Mr. Jerry. However, I feel he put you in his kill basket because you are
>>the
>>liar.
>
> And yet, you can't quote a single instance where I FAILED to completely
> answer
> each and every question.
Oh no?
Try this on for size Mr. Ben........
you said...
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
hair (less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again, just a hair less...)"
I asked, and I will ask again...
How did you deduce the 2 and 5cm measurements if you did not use a linear
scale across your 2D picture?
Simple question that you refuse to answer Mr. Ben.
> Makes you the liar, doesn't it?
Did you really think you would scare me away with your name calling
nonsense.
It is myself, VSTEVENV, that has called you on the carpet. You called Jerry
a liar. Your *infamous* lurkers really do read the posts in here. You called
Jerry a liar. And I have undoubtedly proven that it was you, you Mr. Ben,
that lied. You have been caught. I expect you will not fess up to your lie
because you are a coward, a yellow belly, in fact I think you are a child
molester.
Fuck you Mr. Ben.
Scumbag.
> But you've snipped it up so that people can't tell. That's okay, any
> lurker who
> suspects that you're not telling the truth again can go back to the
> previous
> post, and note that I *did*, in fact, answer every question.
...Not only do you lie, you are a pig fucker.
I asked you one simple question. You refused to answer that question because
it would directly point to yourself in a lie regarding Mr. Jerry.
Want me to "google it up' YET AGAIN?
You lied.
Tell us again Mr. Ben...
"How exactly did you derive that 2 and 5 3/4cm measurements?"
The obvious answer......
Like Mr. Jerry said....
YOU ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO PUT A "RULER" ACROSS A 2D PICTURE TO PROVE Z FILM
ALTERATION.
>>> It's done all the time. Astronomy, as merely one example, does most of
>>> their work nowadays on photographs.
>>
>>You are speaking way out of your expertise Mr. Ben
>
>
> So you presume. Either dispute it, and be ready to provide a cite, or
> accept
> the obvious.
Mr. Ben, the obvious is that you are speaking well out of your league. Your
lurkers know this.
Go away or provide more humor for them. Your choice.
>
> Anyone who doubts the accuracy of my statement will have no problem
> verifying it
> with simple Google searches.
cite them Mr. Ben or I will. You lied about Mr. Jerry. That is a fact.
Please sir, don't make me embarrass yourself ..again.
>
> But my crystal ball tells me that *YOU'LL* refuse to support your implied
> contradiction.
My "google ball" can prove you the liar that you are. Nothing mysterious
about that fact!
>>> I defy you to produce any statement that I've made where I assert that
>>> you
>>> CAN
>>
>>OK...
>>you said...
>>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
>> hair (less, actually)
>
>
> Yep... it's true. Anyone who has a ruler, and the same photo that I had,
> can
> *DUPLICATE* what I did, and come up with the same measurement.
I suspect that no one is stupid enough to try it. (excluding yourself)
Furthermore, I know of no researcher that is stupid enough to claim that the
z film is not authentic because a motorcycle is along side of the limo
according to the Altgens photo.
You do not know when to shut the fuck up Mr. Ben. Your stupidness becomes
more evident every time you respond.
>>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>>(again, just a hair less...)"
>
> Ditto... still true.
Ditto..still a jackass.
>
>>You are wrong Mr. Ben and Mr. Jerry has tried to show you your error.
>
> How can I be wrong?
Pay attention Mr. Ben! I..We... have been fruitlessly try to explain that to
you.
>People put ruler to photos quite often. It's really not as
> impossible as you apparently believe it is. Try it for yourself!
Not only will I not try it, I will also not try to find out what happens
when you play in traffic. Know why I won't try either of these Mr. Ben?
> "Mr. Jerry" went running away when I pointed out that BASED ON HIS OWN
> REPORTED
> PROPORTION ARGUMENT, he had just proved that Altgens photographed Chaney
> right
> where he obviously is.
>
> Even you refuse to admit the simple fact that the proportions measured are
> pretty close to 3 to 1.
>
> Even *YOU*, as stupid as you apparently are, can put a ruler to a
> photograph.
> (Although I'm beginning to wonder...)
Keep wondering Mr. Ben. Or ask, and like I said, I will patiently teach you
why......If that is at all possible.
> And for the purposes that *I* did it, you can't dispute.
Dispute? No I can't dispute your stupidity. Now sir, ask me nicely and I
will teach you why or, forever be stupid in this matter.
>>> make measurements on a photo AND ASSERT THAT THEY ARE IDENTICAL TO THE
>>> REAL LIFE MEASUREMENTS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH IS A REPRESENTATION OF.
>>>
>>> My crystal ball tell me that you'll refuse to do so. Or, more
>>> accurately,
>>> *can't*.
>>
>>Fuck your stupid ball.
>
> Yep... my crystal ball was accurate. But this *is* what you and Jerry
> have
> accused me of saying... you are just unable to quote me doing so. Why is
> that,
> Steven? Cat got your tongue?
Your crystal ball is stuck in your craw.
Now Mr. Ben, we can continue calling each other derogatory names or you can
ask for help what you are obviously clueless. You choice Mr. Ben. My offer.
>
>>I asked you if you wanted to be educated on this
>>topic. You choose to do you "silly shit": Hence, no one will debate JACK
>>SHIT WITH YOU. The dumb ass that you are, you will not see the truth in my
>>statement.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!! When you are unwilling to quote me saying what you imply that
> I've
> said, it would appear that YOU are the one in need of "education", not I.
quote on
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
hair (less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again, just a hair less...)"
quote off
> Don't you feel silly now?
I am not feeling as silly as you should be right about now.
There are other rulers still left in this world. Need one? Or would you like
to continue to challenge me and my expertise in foreshortened views?
>>>It seems that with the truly dumb, you can't merely imply
>>> what most people will immediately understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Or are you going to try to confuse the "point" with nonsense that
>>>>you were really talking about something else and I am just dumb?
>>>
>>>
>>> You ARE dumb.
>>
>>One day I hope to be dumb enough to take a linear scale to a photograph
>>and
>>deduce the things you claim.
>
>
> You don't know how to take measurements, and deduce the proportions that
> they
> are relative to each other?
Once upon a time, I passed my oldest daughter across the Thanksgiving table,
with one hand, to her grandmother. I can only wish that I had a picture of
that so you could measure and tell all of us what the proportions of my
child vs. said turkey bird.
> Well, come to think of it, you refused to respond to that question, so
> perhaps
> your grade school math didn't prepare you for such a simple task.
Did you think of this all of a sudden or, did this come to you in a dream?
> Of course, as most lurkers have no doubt noticed by now, what *I* deduced,
> and
> what you and Jerry are asserting I deduced, are two different things.
hahahahaha
quote on
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
hair (less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again, just a hair less...)"
quote off
Jerry and myself are stupid Mr. Ben. You are the smart one.
>I challenged Jerry to quote any such statement, I challenged YOU to quote
>any such
> statement.
I am getting bored Mr. Ben.
quote on
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
hair (less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again, just a hair less...)"
quote off
> And considering that it was a *RESPONSE* to a post of Jerry's, one could
> wonder
> why you feel there's any error on my part. No-one has been brave enough
> to
> defend Jerry's silly assertion on proportion yet...
>
> Rather silent on that issue...
He has stated he put you in his kill folder. I am disappointed he did so. He
was providing the lurkers with so much entertainment on your expense.
******Mr Jerry, sir.*******
If you are out there, please, *unkill* Mr. Ben. You have a great sense of
humor. I lurk and indeed appreciate your responses to Mr. Ben.
KUDOS sir
>
>>> Only the truly stupid would think for even an instant that I'm
>>> claiming that Hargis' helmet was a mere 2 centimeters away from the
>>> standing SS agent at Dealey Plaza that day.
>
>
> What!!! No comment???
Did you check your magic q ball Mr. Ben? I don't see any (<<<<) to your
comment. What does your 8 ball say?
>>>>>(Other than your failure to understand what was under
>>>>> discussion)
>>>>
>>>>Z film alteration. As the subject header suggests. No?
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> But you have dropped to the sheer stupidity of suggesting that
>>> proportions
>>> can be obtained without measurements, and that proportions CHANGE
>>> depending
>>> on the size of the photograph.
>>
>>Stick to what you know Mr. Ben.
>
> That you said it is indisputable. That you will refuse to support it is
> what my
> crystal ball is telling me.
EUREKA!!!!!
JFK MURDER MYSTERY..CASE CLOSED!!!!!!
Folks I have finally solved the mystery! Yes me..VSTEVENV!!!!
wooooo hooooo
Here is what happened. Mr. Holmes was on the roof of the depository. Now you
can see him there! Take out your yard stick. He is proportionally the same
size as one of them pigeons in the Altgens photo.
Why was he there you ask?
Glad you asked.
He was polishing his crystal ball. It slipped out of his fingers. It dropped
down and hit poor 'ole Oz's scope (hence scope misaligned) whilst he was
having a smoke in the 6th floor smokers nook.
It ricochet right, left, up, right, down, sideways, and left again. (hence
the cracking of 18 gumption bullet noises)
Sure enough, it hit our beloved President smack between the eyes. ( hence we
now have a 6.5mm virtually round object in the x-ray)
All this time we wondered what the hell that damn object was!
It is nimrod's crystal ball!!!!!!
>
>>You have been proven wrong. Not a bad thing, sir. Just fess up and move
>>along..or not
>
>
> Proven wrong on what???
2 and 5 3/4 cm measurements on a 2D photo. and calling Mr. Jerry a liar.
> You're too cowardly to quote any such statement, and support it.
Oy vey.....
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
hair (less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again, just a hair less...)"
ho hummmm
>>> Even Bud doesn't sink to this level.
>>
>>Bud who? I don't think anyone by the name "Bud" has ever called me
>>"yellow
>>coward" Have you, Mr. Ben?
>
>
> I only refer to cowards as "yellow cowards".
Are you kidding me here or are you telling the truth? (Getting hard to tell
the difference with you Mr. Ben,)
> Why do you have such an inability to QUOTE any error by me?
Check this out Mr. Ben...
quote on
"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
hair (less, actually)
And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
(again, just a hair less...)"
quote off
Not as hard as you suggested Mr. Ben.
> Why do you refuse to support your assertion that proportions can be
> different
> on different sized photographs?
Never said that at all Mr. Ben. Are you now becoming reading impaired or are
you desperately grasping for straws?
Robert Harris
If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
Please be specific.
And why did they choose to remove the image of Chaney?
Robert Harris
aeffects
Might want to take a peek at Jim Fetzer's last JFK book, if that
doesn't do it for you, from what I've been told; DVD's covering ALL
presenters at the Univ. of Minn 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium will be
out in less than two months...
Chose to remove Chaney? Hey I haven't a clue -- could of been nothing
more than: Zapruder's lens was not at full zoom as he stated it was,
he then zoomed in all the way (and titled up) as the limo came down Elm
St. -OR- the zoom process could of been accomplished on a simple
optical printer at "required frames"... The choice is whomever's
Once it became possible to get the 8mm Zapruder film to 35mm, ANYTHING
is/was possible, even in 1963-'64
Robert Harris
I guess I wasn't clear.
If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
Please be specific.
And why did they choose to remove the image of Chaney?
Robert Harris
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
aeffects
This is what is gets to when dealing with scientific matters regarding
the Z-film -- Dr. John Costella beat these guy's [the infamous GANG]to
a pulp...
start here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
then onto here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/
Then follow the links on same page - I suspect 'vstevenv' here, is one
of the gang.
Do *some* folks want to get to the bottom of the murder of a President,
as they profess? Calling those that question some of the WCR
evidence-pap 'pig fuckers' like 'vstevenv' demonstrates below calls
into question their integrity, I'd say.
Flush the moron, Ben -- you don't need that kind of shit... it'll only
get worse, if you can believe it!
The only move they're capable of making is; discredit you, any way they
can... They KNOW 3D simulations-based on 2d film is fraught with
accuracy problems.
Notice one question that NEVER arises from the non-alteration camp; why
alter the film - alter it for WHOM (a film that was not going to see
the light of day for many, many years)?
aeffects
debate point, did you?
Get that tinfoil beany awork'in, son -- summers' around da corner
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:d80js...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <O_udnQ2kzug...@comcast.com>, vstevenv says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The point?
>>>>>
>>>>>Jerry said you was in error trying to use a scale to physically measure
>>>>>on
>>>>>a 2D photo. He is absolutely correct on this matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The statement that you cannot use a scale to physically measure the
>>>> distance on a 2D photo AND ASSUME THAT IT REPRESENTS THE ACTUAL
>>>> REAL-LIFE MEASUREMENT is correct.
>>>
>>>How does this go? Oh yeah...flog your own dead horse. Did I say this
>>>correctly?
>>
>> Why?
>
>'Cause I said so.
>
>>Do you really believe that it's impossible to physically measure distances
>> on a 2D photo?
>
>Mr. Ben, You be silly if you think I would debate you in *any* subject
>without bringing a full clip.
>
>
>So, as you twist,wiggle,and squirm, I said you can not physically measure
>distances in a 2D photo in the manner you claim.
Sure you can. I've even offered some Internet examples...
>Jerry said the same thing
>(in essence) also. Do you choose to call me a liar or, shall I dig up my
>original statement and prove you wrong?
Yep. Your're a liar.
I've been defying you to produce any statement of mine, in which I make a
measurement, AND ASSERT THAT THIS MEASUREMENT IS THE ACTUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN
OBJECTS IN REAL LIFE.
You can't do it, for the very simple reason that Jerry tried to misread what I'd
clearly stated, and you've jumped on the bandwagon as a Jerry cheerleader.
>> It's done all the time... I'd look pretty stupid denying the obvious...
>
>The problem exists that you are clueless as to how it is done. It is you,
>kind sir, that wants to deny the obvious.
Take a ruler... lay it across a 2D photo. Do I need to go further?
>> If you want to deny it, feel free.
>
>Thank you Mr. Ben for allowing me to point out the errors in your way. It
>would really piss me off to get a Judo chop because I point you in the
>correct direction.
When you do, I'll let you know. But in the meantime, you've proven to be even
more stupid than Bud, and *that's* a real acheivement.
>>> >But the idea that you cannot physically measure a photo is silly.
>>>
>>>Need proof? Just ask me Mr. Ben.
>>
>>
>> Nope, no need to ask me.
>
>I was not asking you. I asked you to ask me. Are you confused?
You will be monumentally unable to provide any proof whatsoever that it is
impossible to lay a ruler on a photograph, and make various measurements.
It's done routinely in certain fields.
>>Most people are within reach of some sort of photo.
>> And ruler. Put the two together. No need to ask me if it's possible.
>
>LOL
You *should* be laughing! No-one before has ever asserted that it's not
physically possible.
>> You can even find good examples of making physical measurements of a photo
>> on
>> the Internet. Here, for example, is what is presumably North Carolina
>> State
>> University's website:
>>
>>http://www.ncsu.edu/sciencejunction/station/experiments/earthkam/simulation/ekamphotos.html
>>
>> Going to tell the university that measuring photos is not possible?
>
>Ha ha ha . You are funny Mr. Ben. I can surmise that from your link that you
>can take a linear scale and deduce that the motorcycle is alongside the
>limo?
Measurement is not the direct proof of where Chaney is. If you've been
following the thread, you'd know that.
More to the point, not a SINGLE person has been brave enough to answer why the
proportions are so dramatically different.
Why not develop a backbone, and help Jerry out?
>>>............. Yikes!
>>>
>>>I came back to proof read my post.
>>>
>>>I am correct. you choose to employ your "liar,coward,yellow coward,child
>>>molester" antics rather than discuss the issue. Again, I can not speak for
>>>Mr. Jerry. However, I feel he put you in his kill basket because you are
>>>the
>>>liar.
>>
>> And yet, you can't quote a single instance where I FAILED to completely
>> answer
>> each and every question.
>
>Oh no?
>
>Try this on for size Mr. Ben........
>
>you said...
>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
> hair (less, actually)
>
>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>(again, just a hair less...)"
>
>I asked, and I will ask again...
>
>How did you deduce the 2 and 5cm measurements if you did not use a linear
>scale across your 2D picture?
>
>Simple question that you refuse to answer Mr. Ben.
Sure I did. Does "ruler" strike a bell?
Why bother to lie? You aren't fooling anyone other than Jerry...
>> Makes you the liar, doesn't it?
>
>Did you really think you would scare me away with your name calling
>nonsense.
>
>It is myself, VSTEVENV, that has called you on the carpet. You called Jerry
>a liar.
Yep. He stated that he would answer my points. Then, when pressed, he refused
to do so. That makes him a liar, unless you can point out that he *DIDN'T*
offer to answer my points, or you can show that he actually did.
>Your *infamous* lurkers really do read the posts in here.
Yep... I know they do. I get email from them every once in a while.
>You called Jerry a liar.
Repeating yourself? Once again: He stated that he would answer my points.
Then, when pressed, he refused to do so. That makes him a liar, unless you can
point out that he *DIDN'T* offer to answer my points, or you can show that he
actually did.
>And I have undoubtedly proven that it was you, you Mr. Ben,
>that lied.
On what? Where? Why can't you QUOTE me in a proven lie?
>You have been caught. I expect you will not fess up to your lie
>because you are a coward, a yellow belly, in fact I think you are a child
>molester.
>
>Fuck you Mr. Ben.
>
>Scumbag.
When you don't have the facts, jump to the ad hominem! ROTFLMAO!!!
Why haven't you answered my questions, Steven? Why haven't you supported YOUR
OWN STATEMENTS with any sort of proof?
>> But you've snipped it up so that people can't tell. That's okay, any
>> lurker who
>> suspects that you're not telling the truth again can go back to the
>> previous
>> post, and note that I *did*, in fact, answer every question.
>
>...Not only do you lie, you are a pig fucker.
And most lurkers might easily consider *you* to be the pig...
>I asked you one simple question. You refused to answer that question because
>it would directly point to yourself in a lie regarding Mr. Jerry.
Yet you refuse to quote it.
>Want me to "google it up' YET AGAIN?
You haven't the first time.
>You lied.
>
>Tell us again Mr. Ben...
>
>"How exactly did you derive that 2 and 5 3/4cm measurements?"
Answered quite explicitly the first time. I used the view of the photo on my
computer screen.
That didn't excite you sufficiently, so I clarified that yes indeed, I *had*
used a ruler.
Both of those answers failed to thrill you, so now you merely lie about them.
>The obvious answer......
>
>Like Mr. Jerry said....
>
>YOU ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO PUT A "RULER" ACROSS A 2D PICTURE TO PROVE Z FILM
>ALTERATION.
Of course I did. It's not exactly stupid to do, since proportions cannot be
derived without measurements, and *JERRY* brought up the topic of proportions
seen in the photo.
You obviously haven't quite figured out yet that Jerry used a ruler too.
This is undoubtably why you refuse to answer my question about deriving
proportions without underlying measurements.
You are, I hope you realize, proving my assertion of your stupidity...
>>>> It's done all the time. Astronomy, as merely one example, does most of
>>>> their work nowadays on photographs.
>>>
>>>You are speaking way out of your expertise Mr. Ben
>>
>>
>> So you presume. Either dispute it, and be ready to provide a cite, or
>> accept the obvious.
>
>Mr. Ben, the obvious is that you are speaking well out of your league. Your
>lurkers know this.
>
>Go away or provide more humor for them. Your choice.
LOL! You dispute that Astronomy does most of their work with photographs, yet
are unwilling to cite for it!
Anyone interested can Google the topic of photography and astronomy.
>> Anyone who doubts the accuracy of my statement will have no problem
>> verifying it with simple Google searches.
>
>cite them Mr. Ben or I will.
No, you've refused to do so immediately above, when I had just asked you to
provide a cite.
Anyone who tries to argue that photography is not a very basic part of astronomy
today is just silly and uninformed.
Perhaps you still visualize astronomers looking through their telescope with
their eyeballs...
>You lied about Mr. Jerry. That is a fact.
I can *QUOTE* where he offered to answer my points.
You cannot *QUOTE* him responding. For example, the simple proportions - Jerry
has no answer, and has refused to answer.
>Please sir, don't make me embarrass yourself ..again.
:)
>> But my crystal ball tells me that *YOU'LL* refuse to support your implied
>> contradiction.
>
>My "google ball" can prove you the liar that you are. Nothing mysterious
>about that fact!
Yep. My crystall ball was right again! You refused to provide any citation for
your contradiction of my statement that "Astronomy, as merely one example, does
most of their work nowadays on photographs."
My crystal ball is batting 1000 against your statements.
>>>> I defy you to produce any statement that I've made where I assert that
>>>> you
>>>> CAN
>>>
>>>OK...
>>>you said...
>>>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
>>> hair (less, actually)
>>
>>
>> Yep... it's true. Anyone who has a ruler, and the same photo that I had,
>> can *DUPLICATE* what I did, and come up with the same measurement.
>
>I suspect that no one is stupid enough to try it.
Why? Do you suppose that there is some mysterious property of photographs, that
defy the laying on of a ruler?
>(excluding yourself)
>Furthermore, I know of no researcher that is stupid enough to claim that the
>z film is not authentic because a motorcycle is along side of the limo
>according to the Altgens photo.
Actually, an example of another researcher was given by Jerry.
And I've already pointed out that none of this is original with me, I'm merely
passing along the work that others have done.
So all you're asserting is your level of ignorance, not any facts.
>You do not know when to shut the fuck up Mr. Ben. Your stupidness becomes
>more evident every time you respond.
Thankyou.
>>>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>>>(again, just a hair less...)"
>>
>> Ditto... still true.
>
>Ditto..still a jackass.
The measurement isn't going to change unless the size of the photo changes. In
which case, the PROPORTION cannot change, despite your assertions.
>>>You are wrong Mr. Ben and Mr. Jerry has tried to show you your error.
>>
>> How can I be wrong?
>
>Pay attention Mr. Ben! I..We... have been fruitlessly try to explain that to
>you.
Your explanations have certainly been fruitless... they've also been factless.
>>People put ruler to photos quite often. It's really not as
>> impossible as you apparently believe it is. Try it for yourself!
>
>Not only will I not try it, I will also not try to find out what happens
>when you play in traffic. Know why I won't try either of these Mr. Ben?
Because you have a mental aversion to using a ruler?
>> "Mr. Jerry" went running away when I pointed out that BASED ON HIS OWN
>> REPORTED
>> PROPORTION ARGUMENT, he had just proved that Altgens photographed Chaney
>> right
>> where he obviously is.
>>
>> Even you refuse to admit the simple fact that the proportions measured are
>> pretty close to 3 to 1.
>>
>> Even *YOU*, as stupid as you apparently are, can put a ruler to a
>> photograph. (Although I'm beginning to wonder...)
>
>Keep wondering Mr. Ben. Or ask, and like I said, I will patiently teach you
>why......If that is at all possible.
No, you won't. You've been asked a number of times now, and you simply won't
give any reason why measurements cannot be made on a photograph.
>> And for the purposes that *I* did it, you can't dispute.
>
>Dispute? No I can't dispute your stupidity. Now sir, ask me nicely and I
>will teach you why or, forever be stupid in this matter.
ROTFLMAO!!!
You still can't answer how to derive a proportion without a measurement!
I think I'd rather remain ignorant of your silliness.
>>>> make measurements on a photo AND ASSERT THAT THEY ARE IDENTICAL TO THE
>>>> REAL LIFE MEASUREMENTS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH IS A REPRESENTATION OF.
>>>>
>>>> My crystal ball tell me that you'll refuse to do so. Or, more
>>>> accurately,
>>>> *can't*.
>>>
>>>Fuck your stupid ball.
>>
>> Yep... my crystal ball was accurate. But this *is* what you and Jerry
>> have accused me of saying... you are just unable to quote me doing so.
>> Why is that, Steven? Cat got your tongue?
>
>Your crystal ball is stuck in your craw.
Nope, it's certainly been accurate.
>Now Mr. Ben, we can continue calling each other derogatory names or you can
>ask for help what you are obviously clueless. You choice Mr. Ben. My offer.
I've been asking - you've been ducking. Rather stupid of you.
>>>I asked you if you wanted to be educated on this
>>>topic. You choose to do you "silly shit": Hence, no one will debate JACK
>>>SHIT WITH YOU. The dumb ass that you are, you will not see the truth in my
>>>statement.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!! When you are unwilling to quote me saying what you imply that
>> I've
>> said, it would appear that YOU are the one in need of "education", not I.
>
>
>quote on
>
>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
> hair (less, actually)
>
>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>(again, just a hair less...)"
>
>quote off
Yep... absolutely accurate statements. And the proportions thereby derived,
which you refuse to provide, are still just as accurate, if slightly off due to
the perspective.
>> Don't you feel silly now?
>
>I am not feeling as silly as you should be right about now.
Why? You can't quote me in a lie, as you keep asserting.
What expertise???
You keep ducking the issue! Every question I've asked you that relates to
forshortening, you've refused to answer!! Coward.
>>>>It seems that with the truly dumb, you can't merely imply
>>>> what most people will immediately understand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Or are you going to try to confuse the "point" with nonsense that
>>>>>you were really talking about something else and I am just dumb?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You ARE dumb.
>>>
>>>One day I hope to be dumb enough to take a linear scale to a photograph
>>>and
>>>deduce the things you claim.
>>
>>
>> You don't know how to take measurements, and deduce the proportions that
>> they are relative to each other?
>
>Once upon a time, I passed my oldest daughter across the Thanksgiving table,
>with one hand, to her grandmother. I can only wish that I had a picture of
>that so you could measure and tell all of us what the proportions of my
>child vs. said turkey bird.
Judging from your non-answer, one presumes a lack of basic math skills on your
part.
>> Well, come to think of it, you refused to respond to that question, so
>> perhaps
>> your grade school math didn't prepare you for such a simple task.
>
>Did you think of this all of a sudden or, did this come to you in a dream?
You've continued to duck the question.
>> Of course, as most lurkers have no doubt noticed by now, what *I* deduced,
>> and what you and Jerry are asserting I deduced, are two different things.
>
>hahahahaha
Why laugh? Why not merely *prove* your point with a quote?
>quote on
>
>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
> hair (less, actually)
>
>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>(again, just a hair less...)"
>quote off
Yep. Still absolutely true and accurate as the day I typed those sentences.
Why not attempt to prove their falsity?
>Jerry and myself are stupid Mr. Ben. You are the smart one.
Yep. Even the stupid can sometimes make a completely accurate statement.
>>I challenged Jerry to quote any such statement, I challenged YOU to quote
>>any such statement.
>
>I am getting bored Mr. Ben.
Don't let me bother you...
>quote on
>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
> hair (less, actually)
>
>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>(again, just a hair less...)"
>quote off
Yep. Still absolutely 100% true and accurate.
>> And considering that it was a *RESPONSE* to a post of Jerry's, one could
>> wonder why you feel there's any error on my part. No-one has been brave
>> enough to defend Jerry's silly assertion on proportion yet...
>>
>> Rather silent on that issue...
>
>He has stated he put you in his kill folder. I am disappointed he did so. He
>was providing the lurkers with so much entertainment on your expense.
Yep. When faced with his own statements, he decided to run away.
But I suspected he was a coward.
>******Mr Jerry, sir.*******
>
>If you are out there, please, *unkill* Mr. Ben. You have a great sense of
>humor. I lurk and indeed appreciate your responses to Mr. Ben.
>KUDOS sir
Why not ask him to respond to my points, as he offered to do?
You refuse to do so as well, but at least you didn't *say* you would.
>>>> Only the truly stupid would think for even an instant that I'm
>>>> claiming that Hargis' helmet was a mere 2 centimeters away from the
>>>> standing SS agent at Dealey Plaza that day.
>>
>>
>> What!!! No comment???
>
>Did you check your magic q ball Mr. Ben? I don't see any (<<<<) to your
>comment. What does your 8 ball say?
My crystal ball tell me that you will be unable to quote any statement of mine,
where I assert that measurements on a photo are identical to real-life
measurements of the people, objects, and places that the photo was taken of.
And yet, for all of this foolishness, you simply refuse to answer the question
regarding how proportions are derived, and why Chaney's distance is so
dramatically different from Hargis'
Why do you emulate Jerry - who's *also* refused to answer this?
Is he your hero?
>>>You have been proven wrong. Not a bad thing, sir. Just fess up and move
>>>along..or not
>>
>>
>> Proven wrong on what???
>
>2 and 5 3/4 cm measurements on a 2D photo. and calling Mr. Jerry a liar.
Those are precisely the measurements anyone can get, providing they use the same
size photo.
And Jerry is *PROVABLY* a liar. As I've already discussed.
I know it hurts to hear your hero termed a liar, but the facts are there, and
you've not disputed them.
>> You're too cowardly to quote any such statement, and support it.
>
>Oy vey.....
>
>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
> hair (less, actually)
>
>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>(again, just a hair less...)"
Yep. Absolutely 100% correct.
>ho hummmm
>
>
>>>> Even Bud doesn't sink to this level.
>>>
>>>Bud who? I don't think anyone by the name "Bud" has ever called me
>>>"yellow
>>>coward" Have you, Mr. Ben?
>>
>>
>> I only refer to cowards as "yellow cowards".
>
>Are you kidding me here or are you telling the truth? (Getting hard to tell
>the difference with you Mr. Ben,)
Oh, I'd say you were a coward. You continue to refuse to answer the simple
questions that would illustrate your ignorance.
>> Why do you have such an inability to QUOTE any error by me?
>
>Check this out Mr. Ben...
>
>
>quote on
>
>"Anyone can measure Hargis at pretty much 2cm away - helmet to arm (just
> hair (less, actually)
>
>And anyone can measure Chaney at pretty much at 5 3/4cm - helmet to arm
>(again, just a hair less...)"
>
>quote off
Yep. Completely accurate!
Why are you unable to quote me in an error, Steven?
>Not as hard as you suggested Mr. Ben.
LOL!! Still waiting...
>> Why do you refuse to support your assertion that proportions can be
>> different on different sized photographs?
>
>Never said that at all Mr. Ben. Are you now becoming reading impaired or are
>you desperately grasping for straws?
******************************
> And can you illustrate that this proportion *changes* depending on what
> version of the photo you draw the measurements from?
You can't deduce anything from taking linear measurements on 2D drawings in
the manner you have been suggesting.
As for proportions changing, you are both correct and incorrect.
******************************
Lied, didn't you?
Curt Jester
Don't mind me, I am just here to stir the pot.
Here is a second source quote on Chaney from the Houston Chronicle on
Nov. 24, 1963. This is not Altgens' position by any means but it does
give indication that the protocol might not have been, 'motorcycles stay
even with second limo vehicle'.
According to Sheriff James C. Bowles, Officer James Chaney also
corroborated this scenario concerning which of the three shots struck
which target. Chaney died before Bowles conducted his formal interviews
with these officers.(20) However, during one of Mark Lane's appearances
before the Warren Commission, Lane stated, "James A. Chaney, who is a
Dallas motorcycle policeman, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on
November 24, 1963, as stating that the first shot missed entirely. He
said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving
about 15 miles an hour, and when the first shot was fired, 'I thought it
was a backfire,' he said."(21)
end of Chaney article/quote
Can any of these ruler measurerers for 'finding' distances, please tell
me according to your Altgens 255 or Zapruder 235, how much JFK's limo
shadow is to your best guess is, in inches and feet say, on the right
side of the vehice (Chaney's side or Altgen's left as he took the shot)?
What were the circumstances of James A. Chaney's death?
CJ
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>TOP POST
>
>This is what is gets to when dealing with scientific matters regarding
>the Z-film -- Dr. John Costella beat these guy's [the infamous GANG]to
>a pulp...
>
>start here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
>
>then onto here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/
>
>Then follow the links on same page - I suspect 'vstevenv' here, is one
>of the gang.
Quite probably...
He'll give up and run away like Martin and Jerry did as well...
Do you notice a pattern? First the really strong, intelligent arguments from
Martin... then the "second string" comes in with Jerry.
Finally, the last ditch defense, ala Bud, in the form of Steven.
One could wonder if it's possible to sink any lower...
>Do *some* folks want to get to the bottom of the murder of a President,
>as they profess? Calling those that question some of the WCR
>evidence-pap 'pig fuckers' like 'vstevenv' demonstrates below calls
>into question their integrity, I'd say.
It's a wonderful illustration of their grasp of the evidence!
>Flush the moron, Ben -- you don't need that kind of shit... it'll only
>get worse, if you can believe it!
Oh, I could care less about him... all they do is provide a very good "sounding
board" to get the facts out to any lurkers that are interested in the topic.
Showing that they all must lie about the evidence in order to support their WCR
stance is always worthwhile, since others, who may not be as familiar with the
evidence, wouldn't be able to spot the lies.
For example, when Tony tried to blast the speculation that Dr. Humes burned
paperwork AFTER LHO was killed, and as a RESPONSE to LHO being killed, by using
a "fact" that he simply made up - it might well have slid under the radar, if
people who *knew* the facts weren't there to confront him.
Or, as in this case, where people have to falsely assert what is being done when
you make simple measurements on a photo.
>The only move they're capable of making is; discredit you, any way they
>can... They KNOW 3D simulations-based on 2d film is fraught with
>accuracy problems.
>
>Notice one question that NEVER arises from the non-alteration camp; why
>alter the film - alter it for WHOM (a film that was not going to see
>the light of day for many, many years)?
Or the really good argument I like - why alter a film to prove conspiracy?
It actually *seems* like a strong argument! (That is, until you learn the
facts.)
Ben Holmes
>
>
>
>If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
I don't believe that Altgens was taken at 255.
>Please be specific.
Simple ... you have a vehicle moving ... it stops ... you take OUT all the
frames that show the stop. Chaney is removed...
I think it was far more complicated than this, the "frame of view" of the limo
tends to indicate that it was more extensively altered... but this will be a
sufficient explanation.
It could even have been accomplished rather quickly.
>And why did they choose to remove the image of Chaney?
They didn't. It was simply an after-effect of removing the limo stop.
Or, alternatively, they didn't want people to wonder why he wasn't questioned -
it's clear that he was the closest non-limo eyewitness.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>
>Don't mind me, I am just here to stir the pot.
Stir away! People who provide evidence, quotes, and source material are always
welcome!
Sshhh! Steven doesn't believe it's possible, and Jerry refuses to answer. It's
*not* going to end up being 7 feet long... which Jerry's theory would require.
curtj...@webtv.net
Ok, you don't need calculus or scientific photo analysis, all you need
is a golfer.
If you look at a better visual of the limo...you'll see
http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri2/McIntire1.jpg
This is a five foot bogey putt.
Now, this may be a little different because the street angle is not
quite the same, so you have a little wiggle room, but since we can put
the limo shadow at five feet, please put your other measurements
surrounding that mathematical axiom.
Then, explain to me why Chaney's vehicle 'must' be in relation to the
two limos, and why he should or shouldn't be in the Zapruder film or
other films?
First prize is a free round of golf at my home course...:).
CJ
Robert Harris
>In article <42a46255...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
>>
>>
>>
>>If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
>
>I don't believe that Altgens was taken at 255.
Let's define our terms here.
I absolutely disagree, if you think that photo wasn't taken at the
time the limo was physically positoned as we see it at 255 in the
Zfilm as it is today.
>
>>Please be specific.
>
>Simple ... you have a vehicle moving ... it stops ... you take OUT all the
>frames that show the stop. Chaney is removed...
Ok, so when do you have the limo coming to a stop?
Is the Zfilm as we see it today, Ok up to just prior to the stop? Does
it accelerate and then slow or stop again around Z300?
What I meant when I said "specific", was something with some numbers
that we can analyze. An estimation is fine, if it draws the general
picture.
>
>I think it was far more complicated than this, the "frame of view" of the limo
>tends to indicate that it was more extensively altered... but this will be a
>sufficient explanation.
Well, not really Ben. A plausible theory needs a lot of specifics in
order to test it.
What bothers me most I think, is that Nix and Muchmore's films seem to
sychronize quite well with the Zfilm - including a brake light coming
on in Muchmore that is a near perfect fit for Z300. To edit all three
in a relatively short time period like that, doesn't seem to be
possible.
>
>It could even have been accomplished rather quickly.
But how was it done? How do you edit a 16mm frame that is part of an
animation?
>
>>And why did they choose to remove the image of Chaney?
>
>They didn't. It was simply an after-effect of removing the limo stop.
Then you believe Greer has just hit the brakes in the Altgens photo?
>
>Or, alternatively, they didn't want people to wonder why he wasn't questioned -
>it's clear that he was the closest non-limo eyewitness.
I think that's a bit of a stretch, Ben.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> In article <42a46255...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
>
>>
>>
>>If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
>
>
> I don't believe that Altgens was taken at 255.
>
>
>>Please be specific.
>
>
> Simple ... you have a vehicle moving ... it stops ... you take OUT all the
> frames that show the stop. Chaney is removed...
>
That would not work. You would spot the error when the ghost images in
the sprocket hole area would not line up properly.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Don't mind me, I am just here to stir the pot.
>
> Here is a second source quote on Chaney from the Houston Chronicle on
> Nov. 24, 1963. This is not Altgens' position by any means but it does
> give indication that the protocol might not have been, 'motorcycles stay
> even with second limo vehicle'.
>
The order was never for the escort cycles to stay next to the
Presidential limousine. They were usually just behind the limousine.
Ben Holmes
>
>Curt Jester wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't mind me, I am just here to stir the pot.
>>
>> Here is a second source quote on Chaney from the Houston Chronicle on
>> Nov. 24, 1963. This is not Altgens' position by any means but it does
>> give indication that the protocol might not have been, 'motorcycles stay
>> even with second limo vehicle'.
>>
>
>The order was never for the escort cycles to stay next to the
>Presidential limousine. They were usually just behind the limousine.
LOL!! Another great misrepresentation by Tony!
Ben Holmes
>
>On 6 Jun 2005 10:33:34 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>>In article <42a46255...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
>>
>>I don't believe that Altgens was taken at 255.
>
>Let's define our terms here.
>
>I absolutely disagree, if you think that photo wasn't taken at the
>time the limo was physically positoned as we see it at 255 in the
>Zfilm as it is today.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>>>Please be specific.
>>
>>Simple ... you have a vehicle moving ... it stops ... you take OUT all the
>>frames that show the stop. Chaney is removed...
>
>Ok, so when do you have the limo coming to a stop?
Judging by what? The Z-film? Or the eyewitness statements?
If the Z-film has been altered, and I believe the evidence is overwhelming that
it has been, then you can't use it as a 'time-line' to place actions within -
particularly as those actions have been removed.
By the eyewitness statements, just prior to the head shots.
>Is the Zfilm as we see it today, Ok up to just prior to the stop?
No. Both the original filmer, and early viewers, describe that the film began
as the limo turned onto Elm street. Not seen in the extant film.
>Does it accelerate and then slow or stop again around Z300?
I'm not where I can view my copy... so I can't answer specifically right now...
but I don't regard the Z-film as a reliable guide to what happened. I regard it
as a 'chopped-up' guide. Much has been removed.
>What I meant when I said "specific", was something with some numbers
>that we can analyze. An estimation is fine, if it draws the general
>picture.
Ah! Numbers! How about analyzing Charles Brehm's son's actions... time it.
Start whenever you've decided he's behind his father - end it whenever you
decide he's standing alongside and clapping. Then try duplicating it.
Is this the sort of number crunching you'd like to try? It's one of the more
obvious 'time-related' problems of the extant film.
>>I think it was far more complicated than this, the "frame of view" of the limo
>>tends to indicate that it was more extensively altered... but this will be a
>>sufficient explanation.
>
>Well, not really Ben. A plausible theory needs a lot of specifics in
>order to test it.
I've tested it with the Altgen's photo - and it flunked.
More importantly, I've tested it with eyewitness statements, and it flunked.
>What bothers me most I think, is that Nix and Muchmore's films seem to
>sychronize quite well with the Zfilm - including a brake light coming
>on in Muchmore that is a near perfect fit for Z300. To edit all three
>in a relatively short time period like that, doesn't seem to be
>possible.
I'll defer to the opinion of those who do that sort of thing.
I do recall the comment that the Muchmore and Nix would have been much easier,
since they have far less detail to begin with.
>>It could even have been accomplished rather quickly.
>
>But how was it done? How do you edit a 16mm frame that is part of an
>animation?
It's been detailed quite extensively in one of Feltzer's books.
>>>And why did they choose to remove the image of Chaney?
>>
>>They didn't. It was simply an after-effect of removing the limo stop.
>
>Then you believe Greer has just hit the brakes in the Altgens photo?
Pretty close... According to what Altgens and other eyewitnesses said.
>> Or, alternatively, they didn't want people to wonder why he wasn't
>> questioned - it's clear that he was the closest non-limo eyewitness.
>
>I think that's a bit of a stretch, Ben.
Sure it is! Just wanted to both cover all the bases, and point out a sore point
with LNT'ers again.
Curt Jester
Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2005, 1:57pm From:
bnho...@rain.org (Ben Holmes)
In
article<42a4cf7...@news20.forteinc.com Robert Harris says...
>>Is the Zfilm as we see it today, Ok up to just prior >> to the stop?
>No. Both the original filmer, and early viewers, > describe that
the film began as the limo turned > onto Elm street. Not seen in the
extant film.
I read on some site that Zapruder was filming earlier than 133. He was
filming the lead motorcycles, but was afraid he was going to run out of
film, and stopped filming to restart later.
Was that portion of the film 'lost or destroyed'?
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <42a4cf7...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
> >
> >On 6 Jun 2005 10:33:34 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <42a46255...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
> >>
> >>I don't believe that Altgens was taken at 255.
> >
> >Let's define our terms here.
> >
> >I absolutely disagree, if you think that photo wasn't taken at the
> >time the limo was physically positoned as we see it at 255 in the
> >Zfilm as it is today.
>
>
> Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
>
> >>>Please be specific.
> >>
> >>Simple ... you have a vehicle moving ... it stops ... you take OUT all the
> >>frames that show the stop. Chaney is removed...
> >
> >Ok, so when do you have the limo coming to a stop?
>
> Judging by what? The Z-film? Or the eyewitness statements?
>
> If the Z-film has been altered, and I believe the evidence is overwhelming that
> it has been, then you can't use it as a 'time-line' to place actions within -
> particularly as those actions have been removed.
>
> By the eyewitness statements, just prior to the head shots.
>
> >Is the Zfilm as we see it today, Ok up to just prior to the stop?
>
> No. Both the original filmer, and early viewers, describe that the film began
> as the limo turned onto Elm street. Not seen in the extant film.
>
I read on some site last evening that Zapruder was filming before, that
he was filming some of the lead motor cycles when he decided that he
might be wasting valuable film, so he stopped filming only to resume
later.
Is this plausible with the extant film?
Where would this footage and accountability of it be?
CJ
>>>http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4853.jpg
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>
>Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2005, 1:57pm From:
>In
>article<42a4cf7...@news20.forteinc.com Robert Harris says...
>
>
>>>Is the Zfilm as we see it today, Ok up to just prior >> to the stop?
>
>>No. Both the original filmer, and early viewers, > describe that
>the film began as the limo turned > onto Elm street. Not seen in the
>extant film.
>
>I read on some site that Zapruder was filming earlier than 133. He was
>filming the lead motorcycles, but was afraid he was going to run out of
>film, and stopped filming to restart later.
That's the WC "story". I don't know where it originates. Zapruder is on record
as stating that he'd filmed the limo turning on to Elm street however.
>Was that portion of the film 'lost or destroyed'?
Nope... you can view it in the extant Z-film.
>CJ
>
aeffects
whoa -- whoa -- whoa! What 16mm frame? After double 8mm film is
processed, then split, it becomes regular old 8mm?
BTW, I'll respond to your post in more detail no later than tomorrow...
--gd
Martin Shackelford
start where the limo appears. The MPI and Groden DVDs both have that
portion.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
then admit that you have NO IDEA where it originated. It originated, of
course, with Zapruder, who you are citing very selectively.
Martin
aeffects
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > In article <42a46255...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
> >
> >
> > I don't believe that Altgens was taken at 255.
> >
> >
> >>Please be specific.
> >
> >
> > Simple ... you have a vehicle moving ... it stops ... you take OUT all the
> > frames that show the stop. Chaney is removed...
> >
>
> That would not work. You would spot the error when the ghost images in
> the sprocket hole area would not line up properly.
Well, Mr. Marsh before you make a fool of yourself, you might want to
find out what optical film printing techniques are/were available
during the 63-64 era. Jamiseon was aware, evidently Zavada, too.
If you can print edge to edge....
curtj...@webtv.net
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> No, those are frames 1-132--sometimes they are shown, sometimes people
> start where the limo appears. The MPI and Groden DVDs both have that
> portion.
>
> Martin
>
Well, according to the statement by Chaney that I previously posted,
then there was a limo stop/slow way before the more noted one. Chaney
describes a the first shot miss and the stoppage, and that he was even
with Presidential Limo. But that would be 150-160. Was that seen in
any footage.
I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
So where is this 1-132 frames shot? On Houston? On the end of Main
coming into Houston?
CJ
aeffects
Robert Harris wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2005 10:33:34 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <42a46255...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
> >
> >I don't believe that Altgens was taken at 255.
>
> Let's define our terms here.
>
> I absolutely disagree, if you think that photo wasn't taken at the
> time the limo was physically positoned as we see it at 255 in the
> Zfilm as it is today.
>
> >
> >>Please be specific.
> >
> >Simple ... you have a vehicle moving ... it stops ... you take OUT all the
> >frames that show the stop. Chaney is removed...
>
> Ok, so when do you have the limo coming to a stop?
>
> Is the Zfilm as we see it today, Ok up to just prior to the stop? Does
> it accelerate and then slow or stop again around Z300?
Robert,
Try working from this perspective; the Zapruder frame numbers don't
exist. It makes alteration much easier. Provided of course there was a
few weeks before Shaneyfelt count came into existence.
So I'll answer your question with a few questions: is it possible to
create the illusion of the limo de-accelerating and then accelerating
(yes it is, quite easy in fact), one of the oldest trick of the
trade...is it possible to excise frames in mass, or indiviually
selected frames, is it possible to hide frame deletions in the extent
film because of the film being shot, handheld?
> What I meant when I said "specific", was something with some numbers
> that we can analyze. An estimation is fine, if it draws the general
> picture.
Let's get specific How about numbering the frames AFTER frames were
deleted? The NPIC had frames numbers, when who numbered them? When did
Shaneyfelt number them. WHEN did the frame numbers first appear in
public, published by WHOM... When was the first Z-frame published that
showed Moorman?
>
>
> >
> >I think it was far more complicated than this, the "frame of view" of the limo
> >tends to indicate that it was more extensively altered... but this will be a
> >sufficient explanation.
>
> Well, not really Ben. A plausible theory needs a lot of specifics in
> order to test it.
>
> What bothers me most I think, is that Nix and Muchmore's films seem to
> sychronize quite well with the Zfilm - including a brake light coming
> on in Muchmore that is a near perfect fit for Z300. To edit all three
> in a relatively short time period like that, doesn't seem to be
> possible.
The "short" time period is how long? Did the Warren Commission (not
staffers) view Nix and Muchmore? If they did, WHY -- The Warren
Commission was the FINAL audience of the Zapruder film mid to late Feb
'64 and how many commission members *actually* saw the film? -- Nix and
Muchmore could of been edited anytime after that. I could careless who
saw what aired on television within a week or so of the assassination.
The only thing television viewers at the time were expecting to see was
JFK's brains spread all over Elm Street. They were disappointed!
>
>
> >
> >It could even have been accomplished rather quickly.
>
> But how was it done? How do you edit a 16mm frame that is part of an
> animation?
It was double 8mm camera stock 16mm wide, after the film is processed
it is split down the middle becoming 2 8mm pieces of film, then spliced
end to end.
There were processes available in getting 8mm film blown up to 35mm,
the format of choice for optical film printing effects
> >
> >>And why did they choose to remove the image of Chaney?
> >
> >They didn't. It was simply an after-effect of removing the limo stop.
>
> Then you believe Greer has just hit the brakes in the Altgens photo?
why not?
> >
> >Or, alternatively, they didn't want people to wonder why he wasn't questioned -
> >it's clear that he was the closest non-limo eyewitness.
>
> I think that's a bit of a stretch, Ben.
The whole Dallas gig is/was a bit of a stretch... Till someone who
knows optical film printing gets to view the alledged in-camera
Zapruder original housed at NARA extent film, under a loop, we'll never
know for sure --
Moe Weitzman told the committee (when ASKED) what to look for in
identiying a in-camera original, right there in his testimony...
Sounds like a starting point, doesn't it?
Davids Healy
Ben Holmes
curtj...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>
>
>Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> No, those are frames 1-132--sometimes they are shown, sometimes people
>> start where the limo appears. The MPI and Groden DVDs both have that
>> portion.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
>
>Well, according to the statement by Chaney that I previously posted,
>then there was a limo stop/slow way before the more noted one. Chaney
>describes a the first shot miss and the stoppage, and that he was even
>with Presidential Limo. But that would be 150-160. Was that seen in
>any footage.
Things will make far more sense when you realize that many people didn't
recognize that the first shot *was* one. Many people thought it was a
firecracker or exhaust backfire.
>I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
>filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
>shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
Yep. Missing. No-one knows where the original of this is.
Films and photographs have a rather interesting habit of being destroyed, or
going missing, in this case.
>So where is this 1-132 frames shot? On Houston? On the end of Main
>coming into Houston?
The entire Z-Film is available over at the Assassination Science website.
Ben Holmes
>
>I think it's very funny that you attribute something to "the WC,"
It *is* the WC story. It fits right along with all the rest of evidence
twisting that they did.
If you are not already aware of the methods they used to elicit exactly the
testimony they wanted, you should be.
And once again, Zapruder DID state that he began filming when the limo turned on
to Elm street.
Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the
motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple
underpass; is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started
coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston
Street.
And considering that this is EXACTLY what an early viewer of the film SAW AND
DESCRIBED, seems that once again, you're on the LNT'er side of the evidence.
Zapruder was extremely wary, and would *NOT* testify that the film had not been
tampered with... for example:
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you
tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after
your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?
A: I would say they do.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you again.
THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen
run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being
missing?
A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?
Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?
A: I couldn't tell you.
Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?
A: I could not.
THE COURT: Bring the Jury back.
(WHEREUPON, the Jury returned to the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell
the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original
film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas?
A: Yes, it does.
MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in.
Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you
have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having
been deleted or taken out or skipped?
A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I
have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I
couldn't tell.
Q: Weren't some frames damaged by the people at Life Magazine to the point where
copies couldn't be made of them?
MR. OSER: Objection.
THE COURT: I will permit the question on traverse.
THE WITNESS: I don't know, I couldn't verify that.
>and then admit that you have NO IDEA where it originated.
Oh, it was clearly a WC production. I just have a habit of never stating
anything that I cannot IMMEDIATELY cite for.
>It originated, of
>course, with Zapruder, who you are citing very selectively.
I'm sure everyone noted that you quoted Zapruder saying that, or gave a
citation.
But since you've already illustrated a penchant for selective misquoting of
quotes that are right in front of you, perhaps you can pull some false assertion
out of the Zapruder testimony I just quoted.
As you did with Hargis. What did he say about a limo stop?
Brokedad
If one continues to follow the "excised" frame scenario, they can
explain a lot of items.
Not just those related to vehicle speed and stops.
Tom
Ben Holmes
>> No, those are frames 1-132--sometimes they are shown, sometimes people
>> start where the limo appears. The MPI and Groden DVDs both have that
>> portion.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
>
>Well, according to the statement by Chaney that I previously posted,
>then there was a limo stop/slow way before the more noted one. Chaney
>describes a the first shot miss and the stoppage, and that he was even
>with Presidential Limo. But that would be 150-160. Was that seen in
>any footage.
>
>I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
>filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
>shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
>
>So where is this 1-132 frames shot? On Houston? On the end of Main
>coming into Houston?
>
>CJ
Here's the URL I couldn't find on my last post:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe001.html
aeffects
Hi Tom -- been some time since I've seen you post? Must be that,
brokedad handle... Still most curious about those FBI/SS reenactments
defining a possible headshot further down Elm... Can you enlighten us?
Your the only guy I'm aware of that has much experience with DP plats
and surveyors...
David
> Tom
tomnln
shoulders.
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118176217.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
curtj...@webtv.net
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1118119789.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> curtj...@webtv.net says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >> No, those are frames 1-132--sometimes they are shown, sometimes people
> >> start where the limo appears. The MPI and Groden DVDs both have that
> >> portion.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >
> >
> >Well, according to the statement by Chaney that I previously posted,
> >then there was a limo stop/slow way before the more noted one. Chaney
> >describes a the first shot miss and the stoppage, and that he was even
> >with Presidential Limo. But that would be 150-160. Was that seen in
> >any footage.
>
> Things will make far more sense when you realize that many people didn't
> recognize that the first shot *was* one. Many people thought it was a
> firecracker or exhaust backfire.
>
Yeah, but people didn't report two limo stops. There seems to be
statements like Chaney's supporting a stop in front of or just past the
TSBD as it relates to the time period just after the first shot. Then
you have another arsenal of witnesses who describe stoppage around the
head shot. Nobody describes a stoppage right after the second shot to
the best of my knowledge.
Also, Chaney states that he was even with the President on that first
shot. How would he end up getting 'in back' again?....unless the limo
sped up again before the head shot?
It seems that a host of witnesses describe that firecracker as 'the
missed shot'. It seems very well corroberated since many of those see
dust or smoke coming up from the curb where it hit. That is very circa
160, so I guess I wonder where 160 is exactly, and what the limo was or
could have been doing from 160 into the 300's?
>
> >I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
> >filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
> >shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
>
> Yep. Missing. No-one knows where the original of this is.
>
So, the film 'HAS' been tampered with in some degree. Funny, Zapruder
never offers anything to account for this either, at least to my
knowledge.
> Films and photographs have a rather interesting habit of being destroyed, or
> going missing, in this case.
>
> >So where is this 1-132 frames shot? On Houston? On the end of Main
> >coming into Houston?
>
> The entire Z-Film is available over at the Assassination Science website.
>
TY.
> >CJ
Anthony Marsh
>
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <42a46255...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>If frame 255 was altered or fabricated, how was it done?
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't believe that Altgens was taken at 255.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Please be specific.
>>>
>>>
>>>Simple ... you have a vehicle moving ... it stops ... you take OUT all the
>>>frames that show the stop. Chaney is removed...
>>>
>>
>>That would not work. You would spot the error when the ghost images in
>>the sprocket hole area would not line up properly.
>
>
> Well, Mr. Marsh before you make a fool of yourself, you might want to
> find out what optical film printing techniques are/were available
> during the 63-64 era. Jamiseon was aware, evidently Zavada, too.
>
That's stupid. I am talking about the original Double 8 MM film.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <G92pe.8806$%23.1785@trndny02>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>>Curt Jester wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't mind me, I am just here to stir the pot.
>>>
>>>Here is a second source quote on Chaney from the Houston Chronicle on
>>>Nov. 24, 1963. This is not Altgens' position by any means but it does
>>>give indication that the protocol might not have been, 'motorcycles stay
>>>even with second limo vehicle'.
>>>
>>
>>The order was never for the escort cycles to stay next to the
>>Presidential limousine. They were usually just behind the limousine.
>
>
>
> LOL!! Another great misrepresentation by Tony!
>
I stand by my statement and have proven it by extensive study of the
photographic evidence. There are only a couple of places in the
motorcade where the cyclists were right next to the limousine.
Ben Holmes
curtj...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1118119789.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> curtj...@webtv.net says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> >> No, those are frames 1-132--sometimes they are shown, sometimes people
>> >> start where the limo appears. The MPI and Groden DVDs both have that
>> >> portion.
>> >>
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, according to the statement by Chaney that I previously posted,
>> >then there was a limo stop/slow way before the more noted one. Chaney
>> >describes a the first shot miss and the stoppage, and that he was even
>> >with Presidential Limo. But that would be 150-160. Was that seen in
>> >any footage.
>>
>> Things will make far more sense when you realize that many people didn't
>> recognize that the first shot *was* one. Many people thought it was a
>> firecracker or exhaust backfire.
>>
>
>Yeah, but people didn't report two limo stops.
I certainly am unaware of any...
>There seems to be
>statements like Chaney's supporting a stop in front of or just past the
>TSBD as it relates to the time period just after the first shot.
No. His statement supports nothing of the sort. That's a factoid of Martin's,
that he's been unwilling to support ever since I blasted the underpinning of
that statement.
Chaney *CLEARLY* places a shot before the limo stop. *NO-ONE* reported a shot
on Houston street.
Simply stating that you heard that someone else saw what you saw, and will
support your statement, does not mean that the action happened where *that*
witness was.
>Then
>you have another arsenal of witnesses who describe stoppage around the
>head shot. Nobody describes a stoppage right after the second shot to
>the best of my knowledge.
One limo stop...
>Also, Chaney states that he was even with the President on that first
>shot.
Which first shot? As I commented, many times, testimony will come together when
you simply realize that what one person refers to as the first shot may well
have been the second *real* shot.
>How would he end up getting 'in back' again?....unless the limo
>sped up again before the head shot?
No-one reports the limo speeding up *before* the headshot, only after it.
>It seems that a host of witnesses describe that firecracker as 'the
>missed shot'. It seems very well corroberated since many of those see
>dust or smoke coming up from the curb where it hit. That is very circa
>160, so I guess I wonder where 160 is exactly, and what the limo was or
>could have been doing from 160 into the 300's?
>
>
>>
>> >I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
>> >filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
>> >shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
>>
>> Yep. Missing. No-one knows where the original of this is.
>>
>
>So, the film 'HAS' been tampered with in some degree. Funny, Zapruder
>never offers anything to account for this either, at least to my
>knowledge.
I've recently quoted some of his statements where he refuses to "authenticate"
the film as being complete.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> In article <G92pe.8806$%23.1785@trndny02>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>>Curt Jester wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't mind me, I am just here to stir the pot.
>>>>
>>>>Here is a second source quote on Chaney from the Houston Chronicle on
>>>>Nov. 24, 1963. This is not Altgens' position by any means but it does
>>>>give indication that the protocol might not have been, 'motorcycles stay
>>>>even with second limo vehicle'.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The order was never for the escort cycles to stay next to the
>>>Presidential limousine. They were usually just behind the limousine.
>>
>> LOL!! Another great misrepresentation by Tony!
>
>I stand by my statement and have proven it by extensive study of the
>photographic evidence. There are only a couple of places in the
>motorcade where the cyclists were right next to the limousine.
Compared with security precautions taken during President Kennedy's motorcade
through Houston the day before the Dallas assassination, the physical protection
provided during the Dallas motorcade was, in the words of a congressional
committee that reinvestigated the assassination, "uniquely insecure." In
Houston on Nov. 21, six police motorcycles flanked the presidential limousine;
in Dallas on Nov. 22, on orders of the Secret Service, only four motorcycles
were assigned to escort the limousine, and the police motorcyclists were
instructed to remain to the rear of the limousine rather than flank it. Source:
U. S. House of Representatives, House Select Committee on Assassinations,
Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, vol. 11, pp.
527-29 (1979).
Don't wait for Tony to tell you this, he's done an "extensive" investigation.
curtj...@webtv.net
Well, all the shots are before the limo stop. Chaney seems to
associate the first shot with the limo stopping. He could be mistaken
in the time element, but that is what his statement implies.
> Simply stating that you heard that someone else saw what you saw, and will
> support your statement, does not mean that the action happened where *that*
> witness was.
>
What specifically do you mean?
>
> >Then
> >you have another arsenal of witnesses who describe stoppage around the
> >head shot. Nobody describes a stoppage right after the second shot to
> >the best of my knowledge.
>
> One limo stop...
>
> >Also, Chaney states that he was even with the President on that first
> >shot.
>
> Which first shot? As I commented, many times, testimony will come together when
> you simply realize that what one person refers to as the first shot may well
> have been the second *real* shot.
>
It's more likely that the second real shot being viewed as the first as
many would not count the 'firecracker' as a shot. Chaney has to have
the shot correct, because there could be no shot before the
'firecracker'. He has to have the shot correct as he associates that
with the curb being hit by the shot. That's at circa 160 and that
would be very close to the TSBD in my opinion. Like I said, he could
have a confused recollection, but this was only 2 days after the
assassination.
> >How would he end up getting 'in back' again?....unless the limo
> >sped up again before the head shot?
>
> No-one reports the limo speeding up *before* the headshot, only after it.
>
Ok, but he says he is even with the President at the first shot. If he
is even with the President on another shot, where he can be mistaken,
then you have a possible out.
> >It seems that a host of witnesses describe that firecracker as 'the
> >missed shot'. It seems very well corroberated since many of those see
> >dust or smoke coming up from the curb where it hit. That is very circa
> >160, so I guess I wonder where 160 is exactly, and what the limo was or
> >could have been doing from 160 into the 300's?
> >
> >
I still wonder this, and I also wonder where the limo pulled over and
stopped at the curb like some witnesses have supported? Is there any
footage by any of the films or photos showing the limo going off toward
the curb?
> >>
> >> >I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
> >> >filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
> >> >shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
> >>
> >> Yep. Missing. No-one knows where the original of this is.
> >>
> >
> >So, the film 'HAS' been tampered with in some degree. Funny, Zapruder
> >never offers anything to account for this either, at least to my
> >knowledge.
>
> I've recently quoted some of his statements where he refuses to "authenticate"
> the film as being complete.
>
He seemed to be hedging at the Garrison trial. Maybe he like many
witnesses were afraid to be too poignant in their testimonies.
CJ
Martin Shackelford
covered by other films--Towner, Martin, Bell, Hughes. No limo stop.
Z frames 1-132 show the three lead motorcycles coming down
Elm--essentially the same area geographically as the first part with the
limo shortly after that.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
the way Arlen Specter did it, among other things.
Ben Holmes
>
>The period of time represented between Z frames 132 and 133 is fully
>covered by other films--Towner, Martin, Bell, Hughes. No limo stop.
Makes your theory about Chaney rather stupid, doesn't it?
It's bad enough when LNT'ers create impossible scenarios... but when CT'ers do
it, creating "factoids" like this, there's no reason for it.
Only a belief in the "unreliability" of eyewitnesses can account for it.
By the way, what did Hargis say about a limo stop?
Ben Holmes
>
>I know all about the WC manipulation of witnesses--I've written about
>the way Arlen Specter did it, among other things.
What happened Martin? Does a few *QUOTES* of EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY shut you up?
You'd better get used to it... when I *say* something, I usually have the
eyewitness testimony in mind, and ready to cite or quote.
Still a coward about your lie concerning Hargis, I see...
Ben Holmes
No. The only eyewitnesses that I'm aware of that said any such thing were far
away from the action.
>Chaney seems to associate the first shot with the limo stopping.
Yep... he CLEARLY places the first shot *BEFORE* the limo stop.
James Chaney: "at the time, after the shooting, FROM THE TIME THE SHOT FIRST
RANG OUT, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped... Now I
have heard several of them say that Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it
stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely." [3H266; also 2H44-45
(Lane), referring to Chaney's statement as reported in The Houston Chronicle,
11/24/63]
>He could be mistaken
>in the time element, but that is what his statement implies.
He is corroborated by many others
Only the films dispute this limo stop. And when eyewitnesses dispute a film
that has no chain of custody, I'll have to go with the eyewitnesses.
>> Simply stating that you heard that someone else saw what you saw, and will
>> support your statement, does not mean that the action happened where *that*
>> witness was.
>>
>What specifically do you mean?
Martin claims that Chaney is referring to a stop RIGHT NEXT TO TRULY. Read
Chaney's statement above. See if *you* agree with Martin that Chaney is
locating the limo stop next to Truly, or merely stating that he has another
eyewitness who reports the same thing he saw.
>> >Then
>> >you have another arsenal of witnesses who describe stoppage around the
>> >head shot. Nobody describes a stoppage right after the second shot to
>> >the best of my knowledge.
>>
>> One limo stop...
>>
>> >Also, Chaney states that he was even with the President on that first
>> >shot.
>>
>>Which first shot? As I commented, many times, testimony will come together when
>> you simply realize that what one person refers to as the first shot may well
>> have been the second *real* shot.
>>
>
>It's more likely that the second real shot being viewed as the first as
>many would not count the 'firecracker' as a shot. Chaney has to have
>the shot correct, because there could be no shot before the
>'firecracker'. He has to have the shot correct as he associates that
>with the curb being hit by the shot. That's at circa 160 and that
>would be very close to the TSBD in my opinion. Like I said, he could
>have a confused recollection, but this was only 2 days after the
>assassination.
I don't find anything that disputes other eyewitnesses in what Chaney said.
Or better stated, Chaney got it right.
>> >How would he end up getting 'in back' again?....unless the limo
>> >sped up again before the head shot?
>>
>> No-one reports the limo speeding up *before* the headshot, only after it.
>>
>
>Ok, but he says he is even with the President at the first shot. If he
>is even with the President on another shot, where he can be mistaken,
>then you have a possible out.
I'm quite sure that he *was* even with the President NOT ON THE FIRST SHOT.
There's no reason for Chaney to be straining his neck like a tourist unless
there had been some reason for it.
Chaney clearly states that the limo stop happened AFTER at least one shot. I
don't see any reason for him to be overtaking the limo until the limo starts
slowing down.
>> >It seems that a host of witnesses describe that firecracker as 'the
>> >missed shot'. It seems very well corroberated since many of those see
>> >dust or smoke coming up from the curb where it hit. That is very circa
>> >160, so I guess I wonder where 160 is exactly, and what the limo was or
>> >could have been doing from 160 into the 300's?
>> >
>> >
>
>I still wonder this, and I also wonder where the limo pulled over and
>stopped at the curb like some witnesses have supported? Is there any
>footage by any of the films or photos showing the limo going off toward
>the curb?
None that have survived the FBI.
>> >>
>> >> >I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
>> >> >filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
>> >> >shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
>> >>
>> >> Yep. Missing. No-one knows where the original of this is.
>> >>
>> >
>> >So, the film 'HAS' been tampered with in some degree. Funny, Zapruder
>> >never offers anything to account for this either, at least to my
>> >knowledge.
>>
>>I've recently quoted some of his statements where he refuses to "authenticate"
>> the film as being complete.
>>
>
>He seemed to be hedging at the Garrison trial.
Don't stop there... he hedges during the WC testimony also.
curtj...@webtv.net
Witness testimony sometimes lacks conciseness and can be ambiguous.
Some state that there was a stoppage after the first shot....it sort of
implies that the limo is stopping all the way from the first shot
through the 3rd shot. Maybe it goes in degrees....a slowdown...getting
slower...then stopping for the 6-8 seconds, I don't know.
I thought that he did in fact claim this. I will have to recheck.
> There's no reason for Chaney to be straining his neck like a tourist unless
> there had been some reason for it.
>
> Chaney clearly states that the limo stop happened AFTER at least one shot. I
> don't see any reason for him to be overtaking the limo until the limo starts
> slowing down.
>
Maybe he wasn't in one fixed postition througout.
> >> >It seems that a host of witnesses describe that firecracker as 'the
> >> >missed shot'. It seems very well corroberated since many of those see
> >> >dust or smoke coming up from the curb where it hit. That is very circa
> >> >160, so I guess I wonder where 160 is exactly, and what the limo was or
> >> >could have been doing from 160 into the 300's?
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >I still wonder this, and I also wonder where the limo pulled over and
> >stopped at the curb like some witnesses have supported? Is there any
> >footage by any of the films or photos showing the limo going off toward
> >the curb?
>
>
> None that have survived the FBI.
>
>
What about Chaney after the headshot....he supposedly sped up to talk
to Curry's group? Shouldn't he have appeared for sure in the Zapruder
film at that time?
> >> >>
> >> >> >I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
> >> >> >filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
> >> >> >shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep. Missing. No-one knows where the original of this is.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >So, the film 'HAS' been tampered with in some degree. Funny, Zapruder
> >> >never offers anything to account for this either, at least to my
> >> >knowledge.
> >>
> >>I've recently quoted some of his statements where he refuses to "authenticate"
> >> the film as being complete.
> >>
> >
> >He seemed to be hedging at the Garrison trial.
>
> Don't stop there... he hedges during the WC testimony also.
>
Zapruder hobnobbed with many that were suspects in the planning. I
could not eliminate him and his film taking as just spontaneous either.
He could have filmed to insure the investigation had control even
prior to the shooting.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <zUtpe.2184$5M2.1624@trndny06>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <G92pe.8806$%23.1785@trndny02>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Curt Jester wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Don't mind me, I am just here to stir the pot.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is a second source quote on Chaney from the Houston Chronicle on
>>>>>Nov. 24, 1963. This is not Altgens' position by any means but it does
>>>>>give indication that the protocol might not have been, 'motorcycles stay
>>>>>even with second limo vehicle'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The order was never for the escort cycles to stay next to the
>>>>Presidential limousine. They were usually just behind the limousine.
>>>
>>>LOL!! Another great misrepresentation by Tony!
>>
>>I stand by my statement and have proven it by extensive study of the
>>photographic evidence. There are only a couple of places in the
>>motorcade where the cyclists were right next to the limousine.
>
>
>
> Compared with security precautions taken during President Kennedy's motorcade
> through Houston the day before the Dallas assassination, the physical protection
> provided during the Dallas motorcade was, in the words of a congressional
> committee that reinvestigated the assassination, "uniquely insecure." In
That statement does not necessarily have anything to do with the
placement of escort cyclists. I have looked at all the photos of
motorcades and in very few were the several escort cyclists surrounding
the limousine. Most were behind the limousine. But as I pointed out, a
few times the escort cyclists were next to the limousine, even in
Dallas. One of the few exceptions was the motorcade in Berlin. But those
were GERMAN cyclists and the typically used a 4 corner arrangement.
> Houston on Nov. 21, six police motorcycles flanked the presidential limousine;
Flanked? Show me. All you are doing is parroting Vince.
> in Dallas on Nov. 22, on orders of the Secret Service, only four motorcycles
> were assigned to escort the limousine, and the police motorcyclists were
> instructed to remain to the rear of the limousine rather than flank it. Source:
> U. S. House of Representatives, House Select Committee on Assassinations,
> Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, vol. 11, pp.
> 527-29 (1979).
>
Which is exactly what I said in the first place. Yet even in Dallas the
escort cyclists occasionally drew up NEXT to the limousine.
>
> Don't wait for Tony to tell you this, he's done an "extensive" investigation.
>
>
Actually, did some more extensive research yesterday and plan to scan in
some photos I am having made.
Ben Holmes
But sometimes those who lack critical thinking skills will apply "ambigousness"
to statements that don't merit it. Such as Martin with his assertion that
Chaney placed the limo stop in front of Mr. Truly. The normal, everyday
understanding of language doesn't even allow such an interpretation, yet he does
it.
I don't believe he did... but if he *did*, then he may very well have made the
same mistake many did... of missing shot number 1.
>> There's no reason for Chaney to be straining his neck like a tourist unless
>> there had been some reason for it.
>>
>> Chaney clearly states that the limo stop happened AFTER at least one shot. I
>> don't see any reason for him to be overtaking the limo until the limo starts
>> slowing down.
>>
>
>Maybe he wasn't in one fixed postition througout.
"Overtaking" is a movement, not a still frame.
>> >> >It seems that a host of witnesses describe that firecracker as 'the
>> >> >missed shot'. It seems very well corroberated since many of those see
>> >> >dust or smoke coming up from the curb where it hit. That is very circa
>> >> >160, so I guess I wonder where 160 is exactly, and what the limo was or
>> >> >could have been doing from 160 into the 300's?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >I still wonder this, and I also wonder where the limo pulled over and
>> >stopped at the curb like some witnesses have supported? Is there any
>> >footage by any of the films or photos showing the limo going off toward
>> >the curb?
>>
>>
>> None that have survived the FBI.
>>
>>
>
>What about Chaney after the headshot....he supposedly sped up to talk
>to Curry's group? Shouldn't he have appeared for sure in the Zapruder
>film at that time?
When did he pass the limo? Couldn't he have done so *after* the limo went under
the overpass? I'm quite sure that the film can't be counted on to give a
realistic picture of what happened, but I won't 'hang my hat' on such nebulous
and easily argued points.
I prefer the sort of evidence that the Altgens photo is; clear, distinct, and
obvious - that has LNT'ers jumping up and down, lying, and refusing to talk to
me...
>>>> >> >I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
>> >> >> >filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
>> >> >> >shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yep. Missing. No-one knows where the original of this is.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >So, the film 'HAS' been tampered with in some degree. Funny, Zapruder
>> >> >never offers anything to account for this either, at least to my
>> >> >knowledge.
>> >>
>>>>I've recently quoted some of his statements where he refuses to "authenticate"
>> >> the film as being complete.
>> >>
>> >
>> >He seemed to be hedging at the Garrison trial.
>>
>> Don't stop there... he hedges during the WC testimony also.
>>
>
>Zapruder hobnobbed with many that were suspects in the planning. I
>could not eliminate him and his film taking as just spontaneous either.
> He could have filmed to insure the investigation had control even
>prior to the shooting.
Tis possible, but I don't really think that the planning went into that sort of
detail. They could have done far better with the Z-Film, for example. I tend
to think of it as sloppy 'after-action' cleanup.
At the very *least*, he had strong motivation to 'go along' with things... he
earned a tremendous amount of money because of the film.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> In article <zUtpe.2184$5M2.1624@trndny06>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <G92pe.8806$%23.1785@trndny02>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Curt Jester wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't mind me, I am just here to stir the pot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here is a second source quote on Chaney from the Houston Chronicle on
>>>>>>Nov. 24, 1963. This is not Altgens' position by any means but it does
>>>>>>give indication that the protocol might not have been, 'motorcycles stay
>>>>>>even with second limo vehicle'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The order was never for the escort cycles to stay next to the
>>>>>Presidential limousine. They were usually just behind the limousine.
>>>>
>>>>LOL!! Another great misrepresentation by Tony!
>>>
>>>I stand by my statement and have proven it by extensive study of the
>>>photographic evidence. There are only a couple of places in the
>>>motorcade where the cyclists were right next to the limousine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Compared with security precautions taken during President Kennedy's motorcade
>>through Houston the day before the Dallas assassination, the physical protection
>> provided during the Dallas motorcade was, in the words of a congressional
>> committee that reinvestigated the assassination, "uniquely insecure." In
>
>That statement does not necessarily have anything to do with the
>placement of escort cyclists.
No, but someone who has an IQ above a cucumber would have read the entire
citation I quoted before mouthing off what it doesn't say.
As is clear below, you've simply misrepresented ONCE AGAIN!
>I have looked at all the photos of
>motorcades and in very few were the several escort cyclists surrounding
>the limousine. Most were behind the limousine. But as I pointed out, a
>few times the escort cyclists were next to the limousine, even in
>Dallas. One of the few exceptions was the motorcade in Berlin. But those
>were GERMAN cyclists and the typically used a 4 corner arrangement.
>
>>Houston on Nov. 21, six police motorcycles flanked the presidential limousine;
>
>Flanked? Show me. All you are doing is parroting Vince.
Flanked is the word. Bugs you?
I'm sure people have noted that *I've* supplied a citation that contradicts your
statement, and all you can do is argue that it isn't correct.
>> in Dallas on Nov. 22, on orders of the Secret Service, only four motorcycles
>> were assigned to escort the limousine, and the police motorcyclists were
>>instructed to remain to the rear of the limousine rather than flank it. Source:
>> U. S. House of Representatives, House Select Committee on Assassinations,
>> Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, vol. 11, pp.
>> 527-29 (1979).
>>
>
>Which is exactly what I said in the first place.
No, not at all. Which is why I cited this.
>Yet even in Dallas the
>escort cyclists occasionally drew up NEXT to the limousine.
>
>>
>> Don't wait for Tony to tell you this, he's done an "extensive"
>> investigation.
>
>Actually, did some more extensive research yesterday and plan to scan in
>some photos I am having made.
Doesn't matter *how* "extensive" your "investigation" is, when you lie about the
facts.
curtj...@webtv.net
If you read it, it can be interpretated that way if you just read it
lightly...and even with other witness statements it could have
interpretation of a limo stop close to the TSBD, but if you take all
the statements their could have been no major limo stop at that time.
The quote that was from the Houson Chronicle that was summarized was
that Chaney said at the time of the first shot that he was "6 feet to
the right of the limo, and in front". If it is correct, then then he
must have moved back a little IMO for the Altgens photo. He could
again not be mistaken, as he also stated that this was the missed shot,
so no possible confusion is there for shot mis-identification.
Maybe it hasn't been looked into. I think it's important as it's
obvious that he had to pass the limo. He had to get to Stavis Ellis
first to converse, then they had to go further to get to Curry, and
then converse more to get instructions what to do with the limo. The
limo speeding off after the headshot, must have not been full blast, as
they must have had to communicate with Curry/Decker on what to do and
when. (See Don Roberdeau's posted article on Stavis Ellis). Zapruder
kept filming, what, into the 480's? Wasn't there a Danied film that
went past the footage of Zapruder? I would think if Chaney shows up
'suddenly' it just gives you more to bolster your case. You don't want
more?
I don't know if you have convinced me anything with Zapruder as he
filmed up high with barely getting the limo in at times...sometimes
just showing just above door windows and showing lots of grass on the
other side. What positievely makes you think that Chaney isn't
underneath and not in a position to be shot? He stated he was 6 feet
away from it at one point. The McIntyre photo before the freeway
entrance has the Chaney-side motorcyles a good five feet from the limo
width-wise.
>
> >>>> >> >I am kinda of confused too on roll and frames. Zapruder supposedly had
> >> >> >> >filmed some small family stuff and had a brief trial shoot, photo
> >> >> >> >shooting Sitzman before the motorcade arrival.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yep. Missing. No-one knows where the original of this is.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So, the film 'HAS' been tampered with in some degree. Funny, Zapruder
> >> >> >never offers anything to account for this either, at least to my
> >> >> >knowledge.
> >> >>
> >>>>I've recently quoted some of his statements where he refuses to "authenticate"
> >> >> the film as being complete.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >He seemed to be hedging at the Garrison trial.
> >>
> >> Don't stop there... he hedges during the WC testimony also.
> >>
> >
> >Zapruder hobnobbed with many that were suspects in the planning. I
> >could not eliminate him and his film taking as just spontaneous either.
> > He could have filmed to insure the investigation had control even
> >prior to the shooting.
>
>
> Tis possible, but I don't really think that the planning went into that sort of
> detail. They could have done far better with the Z-Film, for example. I tend
> to think of it as sloppy 'after-action' cleanup.
>
> At the very *least*, he had strong motivation to 'go along' with things... he
> earned a tremendous amount of money because of the film.
>
It definitely wasn't a normal transaction. Could have been the payoff.
CJ
Ben Holmes
I disagree most strongly. The *ONLY* factor that Chaney mentions is that it
happened after a shot. He is doing nothing more than mentioning a corroborating
witness, as I'm sure that *he* thought it was quite unbelievable that a
Presidential driver would slam on the brakes when shooting starts.
When he referred to Truly, it was to make *two* points, One - that Mr. Truly was
"standing out there" - which clearly indicates ONLY that Mr. Truly could be
trusted as an eyewitness, and Two - that Mr. Truly CORROBORATES what Chaney is
saying.
To infer that Chaney meant that the limo stopped in front of Mr. Truly is
absolutely silly. CHANEY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW OF HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE WHERE MR. TRULY
WAS STANDING! As Chaney is quoted: "Now I have heard several of them say that
Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped." Rather clear, isn't he?
If Chaney *wanted* to say where the limo stopped, and puts it where Martin does,
then he would have simply said "it stopped at the corner", or "it stopped in
front of the TSBD".
But to try to make the claim that someone who KNEW where the limo stopped,
asserted that it stopped in front of someone WHO'S LOCATION HE DID NOT KNOW, is
just silly.
If you "read it lightly" and come to the conclusion that Chaney meant that the
limo stopped in front of Mr. Truly - IT CAN ONLY BE BECAUSE YOU READ THE
STATEMENT ALREADY BELIEVING THAT.
Or willingly *attempting* to locate discrepancies that don't exist.
>and even with other witness statements it could have
>interpretation of a limo stop close to the TSBD,
Quote or cite them.
Which limo?
"in front" of what?
>If it is correct, then then he
>must have moved back a little IMO for the Altgens photo. He could
>again not be mistaken, as he also stated that this was the missed shot,
>so no possible confusion is there for shot mis-identification.
Methinks you're reading into this quote more than can be legitimately drawn.
What I *don't* want is arguments that can easily be dismissed.
The strength of Altgens is illustrated by the number of people who've *refused*
to answer the points I've raised.
>I don't know if you have convinced me anything with Zapruder as he
>filmed up high with barely getting the limo in at times...sometimes
>just showing just above door windows and showing lots of grass on the
>other side.
That alone would be a strong factor in *favor* of Z-film alteration, if you
should think about it.
>What positievely makes you think that Chaney isn't
>underneath and not in a position to be shot?
Because no other film shows him there either.
And interestingly enough, it was structured into a series of payments that went
the same length as LBJ's stay in office. Make of that what you will...