Wrone and Z-Film Authenticity
Ben Holmes
Wrone... So I'll just post it again...
*******************************************************************
It’s long been my contention that when people find it necessary to lie to
‘prove’ their theory, that perhaps their time would be better spent finding a
better theory that doesn’t need lies to support it.
An excellent example can be found in David Wrone’s book on the Zapruder film.
An otherwise excellent book, Wrone’s misrepresentations of those he disagrees
with are rather obvious and mind-boggling. I’ll illustrate with just four
paragraphs below, interspersed with my comments:
“Twyman provides five primary conclusions concerning the Zapruder film. First,
he says, it was altered, or forged in his terminology, by having frames spliced
out. He fails to explain precisely which frames were removed and how removal
would have been detected. The reader is left to accept his assertion as fact.
Nor does he explain exactly what evidence the conspirators removed, which is
also left to the reader to surmise.”
Twyman gives *precise* examples of where frames were removed… see page 165, as
merely one example, where he specifies that frames were removed between frame
302 and 303… along with how it was detected.
“Second, he contradicts himself. At one point, he states he could not decide
whether ‘JFK was first hit either just before or after he passed behind the
freeway sign.’ But he also states, ‘When he emerged from behind the sign, he
had already been hit.’”
This is just silly. Twyman clearly states that he cannot decide whether JFK was
first hit either just before, or just after he passed behind the sign. The
Warren Commission believed that JFK was hit after he was hidden by the sign,
there’s persuasive evidence that he was hit before that point. It matters
rather little at which point you believe he was hit … For *neither* is
contradicted by his statement of fact that when JFK emerged from behind the
sign, he had already been hit. Wrone finds contradictions where there simply
are none. This doesn’t bode well for Wrone’s ability to reason from the
evidence.
“Third, he draws upon the ‘sworn testimony’ of allegedly credible eyewitnesses
to back up his claim that the Zapruder film shows JFK’s limousine came to a
‘virtually complete stop.’ Those witnesses, however, are never identified, and
the film does not support his claim.”
An outright lie here… at no point does Twyman state that eyewitnesses state that
the *Zapruder Film* shows a limousine stop – quite the opposite, in fact. He
quite clearly states on page 118: “The Zapruder film, when projected on a
screen, does not show the limousine slowing down or stopping, contrary to the
sworn statements of credible eyewitnesses.”
Wrone also claims that these “witnesses, however, are never identified” – but
anyone who reads pages 129-132, conveniently titled “EYEWITNESSES: LIMOUSINE
SLOWS ALMOST TO A STOP”, would perhaps wonder at Wrone’s accuracy here. Wrone
simply lied. Not only were a number of credible eyewitnesses specifically
named, their applicable WC testimony was QUOTED!
Note also that Twyman called them “credible” eyewitnesses… let’s examine who he
quoted:
Roy Truly – TBSD manager
Marion Baker – Dallas Policeman
Earle Brown – Dallas Policeman
D.V. Harkness – Dallas Policeman
Bobby Hargis – Dallas Policeman
Ralph Yarborough – United States Senator
Sounds like Twyman was merely telling the truth when he stated that “credible
eyewitnesses” gave the sworn testimony that he quoted.
“Fourth, he charges that the allegedly altered film hides the blowout at the
rear of JFK’s head described by doctors and nurses. In fact, there was no
rear-side blowout, as I note elsewhere. Medical authorities mistook for a
gunshot hole a flap of skin with bone and bloody matter attached that was thrown
back over the head on a hinge of skin.”
No “rear-side blowout”? While Parkland medical authorities might be argued to
have not accurately described what they saw, the same cannot be said for an
autopsy lasting in excess of four hours… and *they* describe a wound that
certainly can be described as a “rear-side blowout”.
(“The Zapruder Film” by David R. Wrone, pg 129)
Does anyone want to defend Wrone?
aeffects
I can hear the door slamming as the Nutters bolt for the street
cdddraftsman
>
> Does anyone want to defend Wrone?
Does anyone want to defend the Carate Chop Kid ? :
Ben Holmes wrote :
" Yet you can't provide any citations ( that stand up under the
simplest check ) for your assertions about him ( Mark Lane ) .
Ishtar replied :
OK , let me start with quotes from :
THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY
by Historians DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone .
Published in 1980.
BTW it is subtitled :
A COMPREHENSIVE AND LEGAL BIBLIORAPHY, 1963-1979
On p. viii of the preface they write :
"We wish to lift the subject out of the quagmire of often bizarre
speculations , official disinformation , and exploitation by the likes
of Mark Lane."
And on p. xxii
" Lane's RUSH TO JUDGMENT provides a classic example of subjective
gimmickry , with it scholarly cosmetic of 4,500 footnotes , containing
hundreds of substantial errors and repetitions . Quotations within the
text have been quietly changed in over two hundred instances from
original documented versions , important material has been excised
from the evidence in order to highlight the trivial or to mislead ."
No doubt acceptable to you , Benji-boy .
Good job Ishtar ! Add this one to the Mountain of ' Official Evidence
' against Lane :
Misleading the House Select Committee :
Mark Lane has been a purveyor or Martin Luther King conspiracy
theories too , and he represented King's killer , James Earl Ray ,
before the House Select Committee on Assassinations . After
investigating Lane's claims , the Committee chastised him :
" Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated
were first raised by Mark Lane , the attorney who represented James
Earl Ray at the committee's public hearings . As has been noted , the
facts were often at variance with Lane's assertions. . . . In many
instances , the committee found that Lane was willing to advocate
conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis
for them . In other instances , Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on
little more than inference and innuendo . Lane's conduct resulted in
public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be
condemned . ( House Select Committee Report , Page 424 , footnote 16 )
end .........
I guess Benny Boy just never forgave Wrone for being Right !
tl
cdddraftsman
>
> I can hear the door slamming as the Nutters bolt for the street .....
That was a loose bolt in that empty cranium of yours .
"the door slamming"
Check your berka rear flap ....... Rossley's on the prowl .....
tl
Harry
I'm about halfway through that book right now. Although David's
position is that there was a conspiracy involved, stating his
opposition that the film was altered puts a different light on every
other assertion he makes.
It doesn't take a Phd. in any science to know the film was altered. A
layman can plainly see that by comparing it with the Nix film. Also,
my dad had an 8mm camera and the films that he took never skipped and
jerked like the Z film does. It's evident that frames have been
removed to hide pertinent facts concerning what really happened during
the shooting sequence.
There's another point I'd like to bring up and get some comments on.
On page 80 of Wrone's book, he states that Life magazine finally broke
down and let some critics of the WC view what they claimed was the
"original" Z film. Among those that viewed the film in the New York
offices of Time were Cyril Wecht, Sylvia Meagher, and Josiah Thompson.
We know that the Z film depicts a frontal blowout of Kennedy's head,
but that is not right according the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the
Parkland medical personnel, and the autopsy photographs. IF these
critics saw the "original" film that depicted the explosion of the
BACK of the head, why didn't they state this publicly? It makes one
wonder if these people weren't duped by viewing an altered film while
Life was claiming it was the "master" copy they had purchased from A.
Zapruder.
muc...@gmail.com
How?
Harry
How what?
muc...@gmail.com
You said that a layman can plainly see that the Zapruder film was
altered by comparing it with the Nix film. What exactly do you mean by
that?
Harry
In the Z film the limo shows no indication of "slowing/stopping." The
movement of the limo against the background makes it appear that the
limo maintained the same speed throughout the shooting sequence. The
Nix film plainly shows the limo slowing "almost" to a stop. In fact,
one the motorcycle outriders, who happened to be going the same speed
as the limo, had to stop his motorcycle to keep from falling over
because of the loss of forward momentum to keep the cycle upright. In
the Z film it appears that the motorcycle rider is actually speeding
up for some reason which was not the case. The two films are opposed
to each. Add the testimony of people in Dealey Plaza, in and out of
the motorcade, that stated the limo slowed/stopped and you have
reasonable doubt about the validity of the Z film. OBVIOUS reasonable
doubt.
Also, concerning the "blowout" to Kennedy's forehead which extended
down to his right eye, no one in Dallas saw this. Not the people in
Dealey Plaza, Jackie, Clint Hill, nor the medical personnel at
Parkland Hospital. The old catchphrase, "Well, they were all
'mistaken,'" is a bucket with holes in it. The autopsy photos which
LNers rely on to try and prove whatever their point is on any
particular subject, plainly show that Kennedy's forehead was intact
and there was no "blowout" reaching down to his right eye. Also the
photos and Xrays oppose each other. I repeat, no one in Dallas
reported a frontal "blowout." They all stated that the BACK of
Kennedy's head was missing. Even in some frames of the Z film (335)
show the back of the head blown out.
Ben Holmes
Harry says...
>
>On Aug 19, 10:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> This is just another repost, since no LNT'er types felt it necessary
>> to defend Wrone... So I'll just post it again...
>>
>> *******************************************************************
>>
>> It's long been my contention that when people find it necessary to lie to
>> finding a better theory that doesn't need lies to support it.
>>
>> An excellent example can be found in David Wrone's book on the Zapruder
>> film. An otherwise excellent book, Wrone's misrepresentations of those
>> he disagrees with are rather obvious and mind-boggling. I'll illustrate
>> with just four paragraphs below, interspersed with my comments:
>>
>> "Twyman provides five primary conclusions concerning the Zapruder film.
>> First, he says, it was altered, or forged in his terminology, by having
>> frames spliced out. He fails to explain precisely which frames were
>> removed and how removal would have been detected. The reader is left to
>> accept his assertion as fact. Nor does he explain exactly what evidence
>> the conspirators removed, which is also left to the reader to surmise."
>>
>> Twyman gives *precise* examples of where frames were removed: see
>> page 165, as merely one example, where he specifies that frames were
>>
>> "Second, he contradicts himself. At one point, he states he could not
>> decide whether JFK was first hit either just before or after he passed
>> behind the freeway sign. But he also states, 'When he emerged from
>> behind the sign, he had already been hit.'"
>>
>> This is just silly. Twyman clearly states that he cannot decide whether
>> JFK was first hit either just before, or just after he passed behind
>> the sign. The Warren Commission believed that JFK was hit after he
>> was hidden by the sign, there's persuasive evidence that he was hit
>> before that point. It matters rather little at which point you believe
>> that when JFK emerged from behind the sign, he had already been hit.
>> Wrone finds contradictions where there simply are none. This doesn't
>> bode well for Wrone's ability to reason from the evidence.
>>
>> "Third, he draws upon the 'sworn testimony' of allegedly credible
>> eyewitnesses to back up his claim that the Zapruder film shows JFK's
>> limousine came to a 'virtually complete stop.' Those witnesses, however,
>> are never identified, and the film does not support his claim."
>>
>> state that the *Zapruder Film* shows a limousine stop - quite the
>> opposite, in fact. He quite clearly states on page 118: "The Zapruder
>> film, when projected on a screen, does not show the limousine slowing
>> down or stopping, contrary to the sworn statements of credible
>> eyewitnesses."
>>
>> Wrone also claims that these witnesses, however, are never identified
>> but anyone who reads pages 129-132, conveniently titled "EYEWITNESSES:
>> LIMOUSINE SLOWS ALMOST TO A STOP", would perhaps wonder at Wrone's
>> accuracy here. Wrone simply lied. Not only were a number of credible
>> eyewitnesses specifically named, their applicable WC testimony was QUOTED!
>>
>> examine who he quoted:
>>
>> Roy Truly - TBSD manager
>> Marion Baker - Dallas Policeman
>> Earle Brown - Dallas Policeman
>> D.V. Harkness - Dallas Policeman
>> Bobby Hargis - Dallas Policeman
>> Ralph Yarborough - United States Senator
>>
>> Sounds like Twyman was merely telling the truth when he stated that
>> "credible eyewitnesses" gave the sworn testimony that he quoted.
>>
>> "Fourth, he charges that the allegedly altered film hides the blowout
>> at the rear of JFK's head described by doctors and nurses. In fact,
>> there was no rear-side blowout, as I note elsewhere. Medical authorities
>> mistook for a gunshot hole a flap of skin with bone and bloody matter
>> attached that was thrown back over the head on a hinge of skin."
>>
>> No "rear-side blowout"? While Parkland medical authorities might be
>> argued to have not accurately described what they saw, the same cannot
>> describe a wound that certainly can be described as a "rear-side blowout".
>>
>> ("The Zapruder Film" by David R. Wrone, pg 129)
>>
>> Does anyone want to defend Wrone?
>
>I'm about halfway through that book right now. Although David's
>position is that there was a conspiracy involved, stating his
>opposition that the film was altered puts a different light on every
>other assertion he makes.
The fact that he presents outright lies about CT authors puts him squarely in
the LNT'er camp - this is a frequent tactic of LNT'ers - to simply lie about the
evidence.
Perhaps Mr. Wrone felt that most people wouldn't have access to the book he was
lying about - and his lies would pass unnoticed.
But when you are *forced* to lie to support your theory - it really *is* time to
find a new theory.
We see the same thing happening right now on the forum with others trying to
assert the SBT, for example.
>It doesn't take a Phd. in any science to know the film was altered. A
>layman can plainly see that by comparing it with the Nix film. Also,
>my dad had an 8mm camera and the films that he took never skipped and
>jerked like the Z film does. It's evident that frames have been
>removed to hide pertinent facts concerning what really happened during
>the shooting sequence.
>
>There's another point I'd like to bring up and get some comments on.
>On page 80 of Wrone's book, he states that Life magazine finally broke
>down and let some critics of the WC view what they claimed was the
>"original" Z film. Among those that viewed the film in the New York
>offices of Time were Cyril Wecht, Sylvia Meagher, and Josiah Thompson.
>We know that the Z film depicts a frontal blowout of Kennedy's head,
>but that is not right according the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the
>Parkland medical personnel, and the autopsy photographs. IF these
>critics saw the "original" film that depicted the explosion of the
>BACK of the head,
My opinion is that they didn't.
>why didn't they state this publicly? It makes one
>wonder if these people weren't duped by viewing an altered film while
>Life was claiming it was the "master" copy they had purchased from A.
>Zapruder.
I'm of the opinion that the major alterations to the film were done quite
quickly, it would have taken only a few hours to remove frames so that the limo
stop was no longer seen, and to splice the film so that the *original* scene of
the limo turning the corner was no longer there (probably taken out to hide an
early shot, is a logical conclusion)
The 'finished product' would have taken quite a bit more time - but then, they
had exactly this - plenty of time - the extant Z-film was inaccessible for close
to a year after it was taken, plenty of time for serious work ... if need be,
there were literally years to work on it before it became so widely available
that no more changes could be made.
In brief - the alteration took place in two phases, the weekend of the
assassination they took out frames... and in the months to follow they made a
more finished product, and swapped out the film & copies with the newly made
altered film. Few people saw the original, Zapruder of coure, Deloach, Dan
Rather... and it's interesting that those who *DID* see the original describe it
differently than the film we have today.
Amusing that no-one has stepped forth to defend Wrone ... dare I suspect that
even LNT'ers recognize that he simply lied?
robcap...@netscape.com
Paul Rothermal, former chief aide to H.L. Hunt, told Dick Russell
("The Man Who Knew Too Much") that he was given "...a substantial
amount of money to purchase the Zapruder film. I GOT THE FIRST COPY,
as far as I know." (Emphasis mine) This supposedly occured in the
late afternoon of 11/22/63. Does anyone have any other info regarding
this?
Rothermal would also say he saw Jack Ruby visit Mr. Hunt's offices on
11/21/63 in the company of a woman.
aeffects
> In article <4dcb89f7-5992-40a9-a25e-07b6b24db...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
B-I-N-G-O
robcap...@netscape.com
Attorney Douglas Weldon has made his sole study the limo, and he
states there was a special "throttle" that allowed the limo to
maintain a parade speed of 11-12 mph (a speed the SS determined to be
safe by the way). Clearly 59 people can't be wrong, especially, as
Ben says, the ones closests to the limo - the motorcycle police. The
limo did NOT maintain a 11-12 mph speed during the shooting sequence.
> Also, concerning the "blowout" to Kennedy's forehead which extended
> down to his right eye, no one in Dallas saw this. Not the people in
> Dealey Plaza, Jackie, Clint Hill, nor the medical personnel at
> Parkland Hospital. The old catchphrase, "Well, they were all
> 'mistaken,'" is a bucket with holes in it. The autopsy photos which
> LNers rely on to try and prove whatever their point is on any
> particular subject, plainly show that Kennedy's forehead was intact
> and there was no "blowout" reaching down to his right eye. Also the
> photos and Xrays oppose each other. I repeat, no one in Dallas
> reported a frontal "blowout." They all stated that the BACK of
> Kennedy's head was missing. Even in some frames of the Z film (335)
> show the back of the head blown out.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harry
wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me to know that the film was being circulated in
Dallas the weekend of the assassination. The so-called "trail" of what
happened to Zapruder's film after the assassination doesn't ring true.
There were probably many copies passed around to various people and
agencies. If Zapruder was "connected" to certain people and
organizations before the assassination that were vehemently against
JFK's policies--both foreign and domestic--then all the "official"
stories of what occurred concerning him, who is really was, and his
film are just another smoke screen to hide the truth.
People in the past, including the surveyors for Life magazine that did
a recreation of the assassination have stating seeing things in the
early copies of the film that are not there now. Smells like dead
tuna.
aeffects
wrote:
11/22/63 Kodak processed 4 films for Abraham Zapruder. The in-camera
original was assigned KODAK control number #0183, at the time of
processing. That film was used to create the 3 optical film prints
(copies is you will) at Jamison Film in Dallas that same afternoon.
Those film copies were hand carried back to KODAK for processing a few
hours later (same day). At that time (same day) of processing, the
three optical prints were assigned KODAK copntrol numbers #0185, 0186,
0187. To the best of our knowledge, no other films were processed at
KODAK from the time Zapruders in-camera original was processed and the
3 optical prints....
Which leaves a slight problem: what IS, and what happened to KODAK
film processing control number #0184? Interesting to say the least...
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7dfdee12-8069-4214...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
11/22/63 Kodak processed 4 films for Abraham Zapruder. The in-camera
original was assigned KODAK control number #0183, at the time of
processing. That film was used to create the 3 optical film prints
(copies is you will) at Jamison Film in Dallas that same afternoon.
Those film copies were hand carried back to KODAK for processing a few
hours later (same day). At that time (same day) of processing, the
three optical prints were assigned KODAK copntrol numbers #0185, 0186,
0187. To the best of our knowledge, no other films were processed at
KODAK from the time Zapruders in-camera original was processed and the
3 optical prints....
Which leaves a slight problem: what IS, and what happened to KODAK
film processing control number #0184? Interesting to say the least...
HERE are Dan Rather's LIES>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Aug 21, 9:18 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 6:22 am, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 19, 10:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>to defend
>> > > Wrone... So I'll just post it again...
>>
>> > > *******************************************************************
>>
>lie to
>> > > =91prove=92 their theory, that perhaps their time would be better spe=
>nt finding a
>> > > better theory that doesn=92t need lies to support it.
>>
>> > > An excellent example can be found in David Wrone=92s book on the Zapr=
>uder film.
>> > > An otherwise excellent book, Wrone=92s misrepresentations of those he=
> disagrees
>> > > with are rather obvious and mind-boggling. I=92ll illustrate with ju=
>st four
>> > > paragraphs below, interspersed with my comments:
>>
>ilm. First,
>> > > he says, it was altered, or forged in his terminology, by having fram=
>es spliced
>> > > out. He fails to explain precisely which frames were removed and how=
> removal
>> > > would have been detected. The reader is left to accept his assertion=
> as fact.
>> > > Nor does he explain exactly what evidence the conspirators removed, w=
>hich is
>> > > also left to the reader to surmise.=94
>>
>> > > Twyman gives *precise* examples of where frames were removed=85 see p=
>age 165, as
>> > > merely one example, where he specifies that frames were removed betwe=
>en frame
>> > > 302 and 303=85 along with how it was detected.
>>
>> > > =93Second, he contradicts himself. At one point, he states he could =
>not decide
>> > > whether =91JFK was first hit either just before or after he passed be=
>hind the
>> > > freeway sign.=92 But he also states, =91When he emerged from behind =
>the sign, he
>> > > had already been hit.=92=94
>>
>> > > This is just silly. Twyman clearly states that he cannot decide whet=
>her JFK was
>> > > first hit either just before, or just after he passed behind the sign=
>. The
>> > > Warren Commission believed that JFK was hit after he was hidden by th=
>e sign,
>> > > there=92s persuasive evidence that he was hit before that point. It =
>matters
>> > > rather little at which point you believe he was hit =85 For *neither*=
> is
>> > > contradicted by his statement of fact that when JFK emerged from behi=
>nd the
>> > > sign, he had already been hit. Wrone finds contradictions where ther=
>e simply
>> > > are none. This doesn=92t bode well for Wrone=92s ability to reason f=
>rom the
>> > > evidence.
>>
>> > > =93Third, he draws upon the =91sworn testimony=92 of allegedly credib=
>le eyewitnesses
>> > > to back up his claim that the Zapruder film shows JFK=92s limousine c=
>ame to a
>> > > =91virtually complete stop.=92 Those witnesses, however, are never i=
>dentified, and
>> > > the film does not support his claim.=94
>>
>> > > An outright lie here=85 at no point does Twyman state that eyewitness=
>es state that
>> > > the *Zapruder Film* shows a limousine stop =96 quite the opposite, in=
> fact. He
>> > > quite clearly states on page 118: =93The Zapruder film, when projecte=
>d on a
>> > > screen, does not show the limousine slowing down or stopping, contrar=
>y to the
>> > > sworn statements of credible eyewitnesses.=94
>>
>> > > Wrone also claims that these =93witnesses, however, are never identif=
>ied=94 =96 but
>> > > anyone who reads pages 129-132, conveniently titled =93EYEWITNESSES: =
>LIMOUSINE
>> > > SLOWS ALMOST TO A STOP=94, would perhaps wonder at Wrone=92s accuracy=
> here. Wrone
>> > > simply lied. Not only were a number of credible eyewitnesses specifi=
>cally
>> > > named, their applicable WC testimony was QUOTED!
>>
>=92s examine who he
>> > > quoted:
>>
>> > > Roy Truly =96 TBSD manager
>> > > Marion Baker =96 Dallas Policeman
>> > > Earle Brown =96 Dallas Policeman
>> > > D.V. Harkness =96 Dallas Policeman
>> > > Bobby Hargis =96 Dallas Policeman
>> > > Ralph Yarborough =96 United States Senator
>>
>> > > Sounds like Twyman was merely telling the truth when he stated that =
>=93credible
>> > > eyewitnesses=94 gave the sworn testimony that he quoted.
>>
>> > > =93Fourth, he charges that the allegedly altered film hides the blowo=
>ut at the
>> > > rear of JFK=92s head described by doctors and nurses. In fact, there=
> was no
>> > > rear-side blowout, as I note elsewhere. Medical authorities mistook =
>for a
>> > > gunshot hole a flap of skin with bone and bloody matter attached that=
> was thrown
>> > > back over the head on a hinge of skin.=94
>>
>> > > No =93rear-side blowout=94? While Parkland medical authorities might=
> be argued to
>> > > have not accurately described what they saw, the same cannot be said =
>for an
>> > > autopsy lasting in excess of four hours=85 and *they* describe a woun=
>d that
>> > > certainly can be described as a =93rear-side blowout=94.
>>
>> > > (=93The Zapruder Film=94 by David R. Wrone, pg 129)
Another *HUGE* problem is that the "original" doesn't have the #0183 leader on
it, and at least one of the copies photographically shows a SPLICE between the
#0183 and the rest of the presumed original film.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Aug 20, 7:45=A0am, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 8:24 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 20 Aug., 16:07, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 20, 7:55 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > On 20 Aug., 15:22, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Aug 19, 10:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>ssary to defend
>> > > > > > Wrone... So I'll just post it again...
>>
>****
>>
>> > > > > > It=92s long been my contention that when people find it necessa=
>ry to lie to
>> > > > > > =91prove=92 their theory, that perhaps their time would be bett=
>er spent finding a
>> > > > > > better theory that doesn=92t need lies to support it.
>>
>> > > > > > An excellent example can be found in David Wrone=92s book on th=
>e Zapruder film.
>> > > > > > An otherwise excellent book, Wrone=92s misrepresentations of th=
>ose he disagrees
>> > > > > > with are rather obvious and mind-boggling. =A0I=92ll illustrate=
> with just four
>> > > > > > paragraphs below, interspersed with my comments:
>>
>uder film. =A0First,
>> > > > > > he says, it was altered, or forged in his terminology, by havin=
>g frames spliced
>> > > > > > out. =A0He fails to explain precisely which frames were removed=
> and how removal
>> > > > > > would have been detected. =A0The reader is left to accept his a=
>ssertion as fact.
>> > > > > > Nor does he explain exactly what evidence the conspirators remo=
>ved, which is
>> > > > > > also left to the reader to surmise.=94
>>
>> > > > > > Twyman gives *precise* examples of where frames were removed=85=
> see page 165, as
>> > > > > > merely one example, where he specifies that frames were removed=
> between frame
>> > > > > > 302 and 303=85 along with how it was detected.
>>
>> > > > > > =93Second, he contradicts himself. =A0At one point, he states h=
>e could not decide
>> > > > > > whether =91JFK was first hit either just before or after he pas=
>sed behind the
>> > > > > > freeway sign.=92 =A0But he also states, =91When he emerged from=
> behind the sign, he
>> > > > > > had already been hit.=92=94
>>
>> > > > > > This is just silly. =A0Twyman clearly states that he cannot dec=
>ide whether JFK was
>> > > > > > first hit either just before, or just after he passed behind th=
>e sign. =A0The
>> > > > > > Warren Commission believed that JFK was hit after he was hidden=
> by the sign,
>> > > > > > there=92s persuasive evidence that he was hit before that point=
>. =A0It matters
>> > > > > > rather little at which point you believe he was hit =85 For *ne=
>ither* is
>> > > > > > contradicted by his statement of fact that when JFK emerged fro=
>m behind the
>> > > > > > sign, he had already been hit. =A0Wrone finds contradictions wh=
>ere there simply
>> > > > > > are none. =A0This doesn=92t bode well for Wrone=92s ability to =
>reason from the
>> > > > > > evidence.
>>
>> > > > > > =93Third, he draws upon the =91sworn testimony=92 of allegedly =
>credible eyewitnesses
>> > > > > > to back up his claim that the Zapruder film shows JFK=92s limou=
>sine came to a
>> > > > > > =91virtually complete stop.=92 =A0Those witnesses, however, are=
> never identified, and
>> > > > > > the film does not support his claim.=94
>>
>itnesses state that
>> > > > > > the *Zapruder Film* shows a limousine stop =96 quite the opposi=
>te, in fact. =A0He
>> > > > > > quite clearly states on page 118: =93The Zapruder film, when pr=
>ojected on a
>> > > > > > screen, does not show the limousine slowing down or stopping, c=
>ontrary to the
>> > > > > > sworn statements of credible eyewitnesses.=94
>>
>> > > > > > Wrone also claims that these =93witnesses, however, are never i=
>dentified=94 =96 but
>> > > > > > anyone who reads pages 129-132, conveniently titled =93EYEWITNE=
>SSES: LIMOUSINE
>> > > > > > SLOWS ALMOST TO A STOP=94, would perhaps wonder at Wrone=92s ac=
>curacy here. =A0Wrone
>> > > > > > simply lied. =A0Not only were a number of credible eyewitnesses=
> specifically
>> > > > > > named, their applicable WC testimony was QUOTED!
>>
>=85 let=92s examine who he
>> > > > > > quoted:
>>
>> > > > > > Roy Truly =96 TBSD manager
>> > > > > > Marion Baker =96 Dallas Policeman
>> > > > > > Earle Brown =96 Dallas Policeman
>> > > > > > D.V. Harkness =96 Dallas Policeman
>> > > > > > Bobby Hargis =96 Dallas Policeman
>>
>> > > > > > Sounds like Twyman was merely telling the truth when he stated =
>that =93credible
>> > > > > > eyewitnesses=94 gave the sworn testimony that he quoted.
>>
>> > > > > > =93Fourth, he charges that the allegedly altered film hides the=
> blowout at the
>> > > > > > rear of JFK=92s head described by doctors and nurses. =A0In fac=
>t, there was no
>> > > > > > rear-side blowout, as I note elsewhere. =A0Medical authorities =
>mistook for a
>> > > > > > gunshot hole a flap of skin with bone and bloody matter attache=
>d that was thrown
>> > > > > > back over the head on a hinge of skin.=94
>>
>> > > > > > No =93rear-side blowout=94? =A0While Parkland medical authoriti=
>es might be argued to
> said for an
>> > > > > > autopsy lasting in excess of four hours=85 and *they* describe =
>a wound that
>> > > > > > certainly can be described as a =93rear-side blowout=94.
>>
>>
>> > > > > > Does anyone want to defend Wrone?
>>
>> > > > > I'm about halfway through that book right now. Although David's
>> > > > > position is that there was a conspiracy involved, stating his
>ery
>> > > > > other assertion he makes.
>>
>d. A
>> > > > > layman can plainly see that by comparing it with the Nix film.
>>
>> > > > How?
>>
>> > > > > Also,
> and
>> > > > > jerked like the Z film does. It's evident that frames have been
>uring
>> > > > > the shooting sequence.
>>
>> > > > > There's another point I'd like to bring up and get some comments =
>on.
>> > > > > On page 80 of Wrone's book, he states that Life magazine finally =
>broke
>> > > > > down and let some critics of the WC view what they claimed was th=
>e
>> > > > > "original" Z film. Among those that viewed the film in the New Yo=
>rk
>> > > > > offices of Time were Cyril Wecht, Sylvia Meagher, and Josiah Thom=
>pson.
>> > > > > We know that the Z film depicts a frontal blowout of Kennedy's he=
>ad,
>> > > > > but that is not right according the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the
>> > > > > Parkland medical personnel, and the autopsy photographs. IF these
>e
>> > > > > BACK of the head, why didn't they state this publicly? It makes o=
>ne
>> > > > > wonder if these people weren't duped by viewing an altered film w=
>hile
>> > > > > Life was claiming it was the "master" copy they had purchased fro=
>m A.
>> > > > > Zapruder.
>>
>> > > How what?
>>
>> > You said that a layman can plainly see that the Zapruder film was
>> > altered by comparing it with the Nix film. What exactly do you mean by
>> > that?
>>
>> In the Z film the limo shows no indication of "slowing/stopping." The
>> movement of the limo against the background makes it appear that the
>> limo maintained the same speed throughout the shooting sequence. The
>> Nix film plainly shows the limo slowing "almost" to a stop. In fact,
>> one the motorcycle outriders, who happened to be going the same speed
>> as the limo, had to stop his motorcycle to keep from falling over
>> because of the loss of forward momentum to keep the cycle upright. In
>> the Z film it appears that the motorcycle rider is actually speeding
>> up for some reason which was not the case. The two films are opposed
>> to each. Add the testimony of people in Dealey Plaza, in and out of
>> the motorcade, that stated the limo slowed/stopped and you have
>> reasonable doubt about the validity of the Z film. OBVIOUS reasonable
>> doubt.
>
>Attorney Douglas Weldon has made his sole study the limo, and he
>states there was a special "throttle" that allowed the limo to
>maintain a parade speed of 11-12 mph (a speed the SS determined to be
>safe by the way). Clearly 59 people can't be wrong, especially, as
>Ben says, the ones closests to the limo - the motorcycle police.
I can't claim originality on this - I can't recall who first made this
observation, but it's in one of the Fetzer books.
>The
>limo did NOT maintain a 11-12 mph speed during the shooting sequence.
Even LNT'ers accept this, since Alvarez pointed it out - what they can't explain
IS THAT IT'S NOT VISIBLE TO ANY CASUAL VIEWER OF THE EXTANT Z-FILM, which is
simply impossible when you compare to the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw it live
- and noticed the speed.
aeffects
> In article <7dfdee12-8069-4214-8aac-df668f3a6...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
and LN folk wonder/question why *experts* should take a penetrating
look at the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film...
robcap...@netscape.com
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> 11/22/63 Kodak processed 4 films for Abraham Zapruder. The in-camera
> original was assigned KODAK control number #0183, at the time of
> processing. That film was used to create the 3 optical film prints
> (copies is you will) at Jamison Film in Dallas that same afternoon.
> Those film copies were hand carried back to KODAK for processing a few
> hours later (same day). At that time (same day) of processing, the
> three optical prints were assigned KODAK copntrol numbers #0185, 0186,
> 0187. To the best of our knowledge, no other films were processed at
> KODAK from the time Zapruders in-camera original was processed and the
> 3 optical prints....
>
> Which leaves a slight problem: what IS, and what happened to KODAK
> film processing control number #0184? Interesting to say the least...
>
> HERE are Dan Rather's LIES>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
Tom, I've made this mistake for many years as I say with some regret
that the study of the extant Z-film was never high on my list due to
the overwhelming proof in other areas that showed conspiracy.
However, in the last couple of years I have gotten more involved in
this area so I could really have a better understanding of the whole
case.
I always suspected that the extant Z-film was tampered with just
because so much other "evidence" had been, and the last few years has
made this very clear. All this is leading to the fact that Dan wasn't
lying, for once he was telling the God's honest truth about JFK's
movements.
Numerous witnesses said JFK went FORWARD twice, and the fatal head
shot was what made him go forward the second time. The irony is the
one thing that screams conspriacy to the novice in this case - the
quick backward motion of JFK during the head shot - is the one thing
that screams alteration! Why would they leave this in LNers like to
ask? It is a good question, and one we will never know the answer to
for sure. Without knowing the whole thought pattern of the
conspirators it would seem two things jump to the top. Firstly, it
was the lesser of two evils, and secondly they assumed NO one would
ever see the film past the initial showings.
Now LNers may say, what is less likable than showing a backward head
motion, again a valid question. All I can say is they did NOT want
anyone to see JFK hit between 6-8 times from three locations! This is
what one of the two men who worked on the film on either 11/23/63 or
11/24/63 at NPIC said was his impression. His name is Homer McMahon
and he was the supervisor of the color lab at NPIC (the sad irony here
is RFK had them move into a new state of the art facility in 1/63, and
this allowed them to handle color), and he said in interviews with the
ARRB that he viewed the film about "10 times" while making 8x10 still
color pictures (he of course was told which frames to make pictures
of). As reported by Dr. Mantik and Jim Fetzer he said his impression
was "JFK was hit 6-8 times from three directions" (he could tell by
the body movement and reactions of JFK), but the suspicious SS agent,
Mr. "Smith", said NO, he was hit just THREE times from behind.
(Empahsis mine) This is telling because they had NOT worked out the
SBT yet as we all know the WC claimed he was hit just twice.
Other than some intitial viewings early on (as attented by Rather and
Thompson) they film was really just officially shown one other time in
1964 (can't remember if it was late January or early Feb.) so I don't
think they worried too much about public scrutiny. The rapid backward
motion is due to frames being removed, the ones that showed the extra
shots probably, and this sped up his movement as most think Jackie
pulled him back after the fatal head shot. The shot actually came
later than Z-312/313 which means the car was even further away
(approx. 265 yards) from the SN making an already tough shot even more
impossible. What confirms this for highly esteemed researchers like
Dr. Mantik (P.H.D. degree in physics and M.D. radiation oncology) is
that the 10cm trail of metal was at the top of the head and the extant
Z-film shows JFK with his head DOWN, making this impossible. He had
to be sitting up straight like the many witnesses said.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> > Rothermal would also say he saw Jack Ruby visit Mr. Hunt's offices on
> > 11/21/63 in the company of a woman.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <e26bd93f-781c-453b-8302-b1a0e16d2...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Even Posner wrote the statement the limo stopped in his "Case Closed".
>
> >> Also, concerning the "blowout" to Kennedy's forehead which extended
> >> down to his right eye, no one in Dallas saw this. Not the people in
> >> Dealey Plaza, Jackie, Clint Hill, nor the medical personnel at
> >> Parkland Hospital. The old catchphrase, "Well, they were all
> >> 'mistaken,'" is a bucket with holes in it. The autopsy photos which
> >> LNers rely on to try and prove
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
muc...@gmail.com
I'm not sure you can trust your eyes completely on this. You also have
to use your brain a little bit (no offense intended). It seems to me
that perception of speed depends on factors like:
- how broad your field of view is,
- how close you are to the moving object,
- the amount of detail you can see in the background, etc.
If you take things like that into account, I think it's easy to see
that the limo is going relatively slow in the early Z-300's.
> Nix film plainly shows the limo slowing "almost" to a stop. In fact,
> one the motorcycle outriders, who happened to be going the same speed
> as the limo, had to stop his motorcycle to keep from falling over
> because of the loss of forward momentum to keep the cycle upright. In
Huh? Hargis was riding next to (not behind) the limo, so there was no
obstacle.
> the Z film it appears that the motorcycle rider is actually speeding
> up for some reason which was not the case. The two films are opposed
> to each.
Not true. In Nix, you can see Hargis gaining to the point of his front
wheel partly overlapping the limo's back wheel.
> Add the testimony of people in Dealey Plaza, in and out of
> the motorcade, that stated the limo slowed/stopped and you have
> reasonable doubt about the validity of the Z film. OBVIOUS reasonable
> doubt.
Objection!
> Also, concerning the "blowout" to Kennedy's forehead which extended
> down to his right eye, no one in Dallas saw this. Not the people in
> Dealey Plaza, Jackie, Clint Hill, nor the medical personnel at
> Parkland Hospital. The old catchphrase, "Well, they were all
> 'mistaken,'" is a bucket with holes in it. The autopsy photos which
> LNers rely on to try and prove whatever their point is on any
> particular subject, plainly show that Kennedy's forehead was intact
> and there was no "blowout" reaching down to his right eye. Also the
> photos and Xrays oppose each other. I repeat, no one in Dallas
> reported a frontal "blowout." They all stated that the BACK of
> Kennedy's head was missing. Even in some frames of the Z film (335)
> show the back of the head blown out.
Bob Harris will love you for this, but what you see in Z-335 is
Jackie's glove, not a blow-out.
-Mark
Harry
Wrong. Jackie didn't have her hand on JFK's head. There are also other
frames that show that blowout. The doctors and nurses at Parkland,
Clint Hill, and Jackie were not wrong in their descriptions of the
hole in the back of JFK's head.
Sorry, but the glove angle has been tried before. It don't wash.
curtjester1
>
> Tom, I've made this mistake for many years as I say with some regret
> that the study of the extant Z-film was never high on my list due to
> the overwhelming proof in other areas that showed conspiracy.
> However, in the last couple of years I have gotten more involved in
> this area so I could really have a better understanding of the whole
> case.
>
> I always suspected that the extant Z-film was tampered with just
> because so much other "evidence" had been, and the last few years has
> made this very clear. All this is leading to the fact that Dan wasn't
> lying, for once he was telling the God's honest truth about JFK's
> movements.
>
> Numerous witnesses said JFK went FORWARD twice, and the fatal head
> shot was what made him go forward the second time. The irony is the
> one thing that screams conspriacy to the novice in this case - the
> quick backward motion of JFK during the head shot - is the one thing
> that screams alteration! Why would they leave this in LNers like to
> ask? It is a good question, and one we will never know the answer to
> for sure. Without knowing the whole thought pattern of the
> conspirators it would seem two things jump to the top. Firstly, it
> was the lesser of two evils, and secondly they assumed NO one would
> ever see the film past the initial showings.
>
when JFK was hit in the head, he went to the left. I can't recall
any numerous witnesses saying he went forward twice. And weren't
there others who saw the film on the first day, processors,
employees..and such? Anyway, I just can't see why they would want
any backwards movement put in. And where would they get the violent
thrust against the backseat and the upwards movement, technically-
wise? I can see the blob being put in to mask a forward shot/
backmovement though.
CJ