Smoking Gun - The Hole in the Motorcade Limo
curtjester1
curtjester1
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM&mode=related&search=
>
> CJ
SS drinking Everclear at The Cellar?
CJ
curtjester1
> curtjester1 wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 8:38 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM&mode=related&search=
> >>> CJ
> >> There was no hole in the windshield.
> >> How about a hole in the floor?
>
> > Evidence, not conjecture, not agency whims, not mama and papa, not
> > traditions...Evidence.
>
> Where the Hell have you been? I refuted it a long time ago.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/windshield.htm
>
> > You either refute it, or you don't care.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM&mode=related&search=
>
> > CJ
>
> Now, you seem to fall for every wacky theory that comes down the pike,
> so why didn't you adopt the theory of a hole in the floor?
Because that would probably get confused with the hole somewhere else.
They get touchy on specifics to people here, so I won't go farther.
Basically your an "official document" person. Kinda of the WC approach to
things. It's better to deal with people that have been involved in the
evidentiary approach to things rather than depend on a snapped photo.
How many photos and pieces of evidence were altered in the first four
days?? Hundreds, and that's documented from the Dallas to Washington back
to Dallas fiasco. Don't make me post all those.
To all who like all the in-between stuff on the matter, you might want to
refer to the 'cultists': After reading this, I think Agent Mush here
could be on the McElwain cult side..:)
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13050
CJ
Sam McClung
Subject: Re: JFK's Brain
Date: 1999/11/19
I think President Kennedy's brain is in a vault in downtown Boston. I
believe Robert Kennedy gave it to Cardinal Cushing so that it could be
kept safe from the government. Cushing would have placed it in the
Holy Relics collection, which is off-limits to any governmental
controls.
curtjester1
Robert Groden claims he knows the answer and will be told in his
upcoming soon book, Absolute Proof.
CJ
Sam McClung
news:d3b9f628-ec58-477c...@v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
will marsh believe groden though?
Sam McClung
lazu...@webtv.net
unrelible, but the back of the head photograph is accurate....go figure
I think the hardest evidence of the hole in the windshield is
GeorgeWhitaker the high ranking Ford employee who told of a switched
windshield and a definite thru and thru hole from the front. According
to Doug Weldon, he had never followed the Assassination, had an
imeccable work record-I thnk he worked there like over 20 years and only
wanted his info. to come out after his death. He's on the Men Who Killed
Kennedy episode: The Smoking Guns....
Sam McClung
news:10880-492...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...
and doug relays plenty of other evidence subtantiating the through and
through bullethole as well, weldon is thorough
robcap...@netscape.com
> curtjester1 wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM&mode=related&search=
>
> > CJ
>
> There was no hole in the windshield.
> How about a hole in the floor?
Anthony is being dishonest again! He should read Douglas Weldon's
great work. There were witnesses who saw a hole in the windshield
including several DPD officers who supervised the motorcade escort and
rode in the motorcade - Stavis Ellis and H.R. Freeman. Ellis, who
supervised the motorcade escort said "You could put a pencil through
it." He was referencing the hole in the windshield.
David Von Pein
Ellis saw a spiderwebbed crack in the glass, idiot. Not a hole. There
was no hole in the windshield, of course.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485b.htm
BTW, did Ellis put a "pencil" through it?
================
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to examine the car shortly
after the assassination?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did, on the early morning of November 23,
1963. ....
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of
the Presidential limousine?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - What did that examination disclose?
Mr. FRAZIER - On the inside surface of the windshield there was a
deposit of lead. This deposit was located when you look at the inside
surface of the windshield, 13 1/2 inches down from the top, 23 inches
from the left-hand side or driver's side of the windshield, and was
immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks which
appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield.
Mr. DULLES - What do you mean by the "outer layer of the laminated
windshield"?
Mr. FRAZIER - The windshield is composed of two layers with a very
thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form
of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the
outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a
very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of
glass missing from the outside surface.
Mr. DULLES - And the outside surface was the surface away from where
the occupants were sitting?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is correct; yes.
Mr. DULLES - And the inside surface was the surface nearest the
occupants?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - What do those characteristics indicate as to which side
of the windshield was struck?
Mr. FRAZIER - It indicates that it could only have been struck on the
inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface
because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of
the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer
layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of
impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where
these small radial or wagon spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear
on the outer surface.
Mr. DULLES - So the pressure must have come from the inside and not
from the outside against the glass?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. DULLES - As far as the car is concerned from the back to the
front?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Gil Jesus
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM&mode=related&search=
>
> CJ
The hole in the windshield is further proof that the wound in the
throat was caused by a bullet fired from in front of the limo:
"WOUND OF ENTRY" - Parts 1 & 2
Gil Jesus
> Ellis saw a spiderwebbed crack in the glass, idiot. Not a hole. There
> was no hole in the windshield, of course.
Of course, David.
Evelena Glages didn't see a hole either.
Nor did Mr. Whittaker.
Now, what kind of multiple mis-illusion would cause all of these
people to make the same error ?
Some sort of mass-hallucination ?
David Von Pein
The fact that there IS no hole in the windshield makes all witnesses
who claimed that there was kinda....wrong. Doesn't it, Gil-Kook?
(Tell me again about how Bob Frazier is a worthless liar. Okay?)
aeffects
easy Dave, what's your last name again, son? Dave Bugliosi, Reitzes,
Von Pein, which one again? When are you ever going to appear in
public, son? There's a plethora of fans awaiting for you to bask in
their glory. You are going to appear in public, yes?
David Von Pein
Oh, goodie! I get to be "Dave Bugliosi" today!
Thanks, kook!
(BTW, Healy, does your dealer provide your drugs on holidays like
today? Just curious. If not, I hope you stocked up last night.)
Gil Jesus
> When are you ever going to appear in public, son? There's a plethora of fans awaiting for you to bask in
> their glory. You are going to appear in public, yes ?
Let's not forget that Von Pinhead was ejected from the Education Forum
because he REFUSED to comply with the rule that required posters to
include a picture of themselves in their profiles.
In that light, "Von Pein" may be someone who is a recognizable public
figure.
In any event, he appears to be someone who has something to hide.
David Von Pein
>>> "In that light, "Von Pein" may be someone who is a recognizable public figure. In any event, he appears to be someone who has something to hide." <<<
"The conspiracy community regularly...treats rumors, even
questions, as the equivalent of proof [and] leaps from the most
minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions." -- Vince B.
aeffects
DVP (sic) can not afford to be identified, hell even the [place he
claims as home in Indiana doesn't even exist. Go figure. Just another
USENET moron in search of love, in all the wrong places. But hell,
what do trolls know anyway?
aeffects
ya can dance, hon.... But we play the music.... carry on, troll!
robcap...@netscape.com
> Ellis saw a spiderwebbed crack in the glass, idiot. Not a hole. There
> was no hole in the windshield, of course.
>
>
> BTW, did Ellis put a "pencil" through it?
Ellis admitted this many years later, why would he do this if it was
NOT true?
Why don't you use Ellis's testimony before the WC instead of
Frazier's? Oh that is right, THEY DID NOT CALL HIM!
Hmmm, I wonder why if he didn't see a hole?
How about the women Weldon went to interview a long time after the
assassination? She was a resident at the other hospital across the
street from PH, and she was up close and saw a hole in the
windshield. He interviewed her (can't remember if was the 90's or
later) and she turned up dead within a month of the interview. She
had told him a vacation she was taking in a month and did NOT mention
any serious illnesses so the fact she was dead that fast after the
interview has to make the normal person believe she had very good
information.
You CAN'T lie this away Dave, there was a hole in the windshield.
David Von Pein
>>> "You CAN'T lie this away Dave, there was a hole in the windshield." <<<
At the end of today (like all other days), you and I are left with the
same "Who Do I Believe?" question with regard to the "hole in the
windshield" debate (and many other JFK debates).
You (being a CT-loving kook) choose to believe any and all things that
you think will help you prop up your insane and obviously-incorrect
"Anybody But Oswald" theory.
I, OTOH, (being a non-kook) will try to weigh the overall evidence,
realizing that discrepancies are a part of life and realizing also
that there's no possible chance on this Earth that a police officer
named Stavis Ellis actually went up to that limousine and stuck a
pencil through a hole in the windshield (even if there HAD been a hole
in it); because such a belief is, frankly, just stupid. Why on Earth
would ANYONE have a desire to stick a "pencil" through a hole in the
windshield?
Can't you see how idiotic that sounds, Rob?
BTW, I'm doubting very much that Ellis said that he actually DID
physically put a pencil through the windshield. I think he merely
stated that if he'd wanted to, he COULD have stuck a pencil through it
(in his [wrong] opinion). Big difference.
But the "non-kook" position on this topic is, of course, the only way
to arrive at the truth. And that's because of the testimony of Robert
A. Frazier of the FBI...plus the photos of the windshield. Frazier's
testimony regarding the windshield always has and always will trump
Ellis and all other "there was a hole in the windshield" witnesses --
no matter how many of those witnesses there are.
Also --
We know for a fact that the windshield was ONLY struck by a bullet
from BEHIND, because the lead residue was only located on the INSIDE
of the windshield's glass (Rob The Kook obviously must think that Bob
Frazier just made up that stuff about the residue ONLY existing on the
INSIDE portion of the glass).
But a kook like Rob has no choice but to dismiss the BEST evidence
every time, on every subject. Because if he didn't dismiss the best
evidence totally, then he'd have to admit that his favorite patsy was
guilty of two murders in Dallas.
Right, Rob-K?
curtjester1
> >>>> curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>> curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM&mode=related&search=
> >>>>>>>>> CJ
> >>>>>>>> There was no hole in the windshield.
> >>>>>>>> How about a hole in the floor?
> >>>>>>> traditions...Evidence.
> >>>>>> Where the Hell have you been? I refuted it a long time ago.
> >>>>>>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/windshield.htm
> >>>>>>> You either refute it, or you don't care.
> >>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM&mode=related&search=
> >>>>>>> CJ
> >>>>>> Now, you seem to fall for every wacky theory that comes down the pike,
> >>>>>> so why didn't you adopt the theory of a hole in the floor?
> >>>>> Because that would probably get confused with the hole somewhere else.
> >>>>> They get touchy on specifics to people here, so I won't go farther.
> >>>>> Basically your an "official document" person. Kinda of the WC approach to
> >>>>> things. It's better to deal with people that have been involved in the
> >>>>> evidentiary approach to things rather than depend on a snapped photo.
> >>>>> How many photos and pieces of evidence were altered in the first four
> >>>>> days?? Hundreds, and that's documented from the Dallas to Washington back
> >>>>> to Dallas fiasco. Don't make me post all those.
> >>>> evidence. We know of only a couple of examples.
> >>>> What you are doing is weak research. Throwing out all the physical
> >>>> evidence and hand picking wacky witnesses.
> >>> Unfortunately they have to be montitored by a number system and
> >>> photography. It just didn't work out for them. Even rolls of film
> >>> were 'lost'.
> >> Several things were intentionally destroyed. That is not the same thing
> >> as your claim that many photos and pieces of evidence were altered. You
> >> might be able to cite a few, maybe 5. Not hundreds.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0d6e368a42e00bb0?
>
> >>>>> To all who like all the in-between stuff on the matter, you might want to
> >>>>> refer to the 'cultists': After reading this, I think Agent Mush here
> >>>>> could be on the McElwain cult side..:)
> >>>>>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13050
> >>> saw a close to original film of the motorcade).
> >> I am one of the few who has addressed many of these ridiculous
> >> anomalies. Almost all of them stem from stupidity.
>
> > That dog didn't hunt. There's just too many of them. Physics was put to
> > it in the latter years. I don't think there is any PHD's by your name.
>
> I could give a rat's ass what you think. You have no credentials either,
> and my findings have been confirmed by Roland Zavada, who is the top
> expert on 8 mm film. I cut your supposed experts to shreds. Fetzer and
> Mantik and their supposed expert on film said that the ghost images
> between the sprocket hole areas appear ONLY on the Zapruder film and never
> on any ordinary 8 mm home movie, so they must be artifacts created by
> copying the film that night at the secret CIA photo lab. According to them
> it could not be natural because cameras are made to prevent that from
> happening. Little did they know that at that exact moment I held in my
> hands hundreds of examples of ordinary people's 8 mm home movies which
> showed exactly the same type of ghost images between the sprocket hole
> areas. Turns out that my aunt had worked at a film laboratory where one of
> her jobs was repairing customers home movies. She would crop out the
> damaged frames and put the film back together. She kept boxes full of
> snipped out frames. I inherited them. There are several examples of
> ordinary customers 8 mm home movies which have ghost images in the
> sprocket hole area which Fetzer, Mantik and their so-called expert were
> totally unaware of. I was the first person to correctly describe and
> illustrate the mechanism which caused the ghost images. Dr. Zavada
> reviewed my paper and stated that it is 100% correct and even went beyond
> what he was able to do by identifying many of the objects seen in the
> ghost images.
>
> Even Fetzer has acknowledged recently that I am correct by talking about
> how we now know how the ghost images were created.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/zapruder.htmhttp://the-puzzle-palace.com/amateurs.htmhttp://the-puzzle-palace.com/anomalies.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What your attempting to say has nothing to do with Alteration. All these
things are ancillary in comparison to that. Zavada is acknowledged by all
the experts as good and necessary. BUT, even Zapada knows that his work,
with Kodak film and ghost images, don't prove anything with the CONTENTS
of the film. If Zavada was an authority and made any headway, I don't
think the evil Alterationists would be including a chapter on his work,
and how his work can be looked at. You can find some of that in the
Prologue on xii, and even goes into what his work can mean in the way of
possible scenarios for time elements for alteration to be contemplated.
The Great Zapruder Film Hoax:
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You CAN'T lie this away Dave, there was a hole in the windshield." <<<
>
> At the end of today (like all other days), you and I are left with the
> same "Who Do I Believe?" question with regard to the "hole in the
> windshield" debate (and many other JFK debates).
>
> You (being a CT-loving kook) choose to believe any and all things that
> you think will help you prop up your insane and obviously-incorrect
> "Anybody But Oswald" theory.
LOL!!! He means I believe EYEwitnesses that saw the car up close and
personal rather than a bunch of liars who claimed to know what the car
looked like when they NEVER saw it! This has NOTHING to do with LHO!
Either there was a hole in the windshield or there wasn't, and the
MAJORITY of witnesses who saw the car up close at PH said there WAS a
hole in the windshield (including several cops).
> I, OTOH, (being a non-kook)
If non-kook=BIG LIAR, then you are a non-kook.
> will try to weigh the overall evidence,
When have you ever done this? All you do is LIE about the overall
evidence!
> realizing that discrepancies are a part of life and realizing also
> that there's no possible chance on this Earth that a police officer
> named Stavis Ellis actually went up to that limousine and stuck a
> pencil through a hole in the windshield (even if there HAD been a hole
> in it); because such a belief is, frankly, just stupid. Why on Earth
> would ANYONE have a desire to stick a "pencil" through a hole in the
> windshield?
Rambling aren't you? If you want to discount Stavis Ellis you have
PROVE he was a liar (Dave always forgets this part especially with
people like Craig) by showing what he claimed was false. Can you?
Doubt it. He was but one person who saw it, many others saw the hole.
> Can't you see how idiotic that sounds, Rob?
NOT really, he was a cop and interested, why would he say you could
put a pencil through it if it was NOT a through and through hole?
Prove he lied Dave or move on.
> BTW, I'm doubting very much that Ellis said that he actually DID
> physically put a pencil through the windshield. I think he merely
> stated that if he'd wanted to, he COULD have stuck a pencil through it
> (in his [wrong] opinion). Big difference.
He said "you could put a pencil through it" so NO he did NOT say he
did, but the point is the hole was through and through so you could
have if you wanted to. What about the other witnesses Dave? Why are
you only focusing on Ellis? Because you CAN'T shoot them all down so
you are trying to distract. IT IS NOT WORKING! Here are some
comments of OTHER witnesses (we never have JUST ONE like the WC):
Richard Dudman - reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch - he wrote in an
article entitled "Commentary of an Eyewitness" that appeared in the
"New Republic" (12/21/63): "A few of us NOTICED the hole in the
windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance
after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach
close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates
a bullet has PIERCED the glass from the opposite side." (Emphasis
mine) Dudman went on to say he and other reporters were SHOVED away
by SS agents when they tried to examine the hole to determine from
which direction the direction it had been fired from. (Mark Lane,
Amherst speech, 1964)
Why would the SS be shoving folks Dave unless they didn't want the
hole and other damage to be seen?
or
H.R. Freeman - DPD officer who rode in the motorcade - noted in a 1971
interview with Gil Toff of his observation of the limousine at PH
immediately after the shooting, "I was RIGHT BESIDE IT. I could have
TOUCHED IT. It WAS a bullet HOLE. You could tell what it
was." (Emphasis mine) This was a police officer, if you are going to
say he doesn't know a bullet hole from a mole hill you better bring
some PROOF Dave.
We have mentioned Ellis but we did NOT discuss his viewing of the
little boy who had his camera ripped from him by the SS and the film
taken out of it have we? Why would the SS act like bullies with a
small boy and take the undeveloped film out of his camera if there was
NO hole in the windshield and other damage they would lie about later
on? This story was corroborated by another DPD officer, James W.
Courson, so it is NOT just Ellis's word for it. Explain this bully
behavior for us Dave.
Ellis also saw a bullet hit the pavement near the car (along with
Sheriff Decker - neither would be called by the WC) during the
shooting sequence so this is one more reason why they want to
discredit him.
Remember the woman I mentioned earlier and could not remember her
name? Well her name was Dr. Evalea Glanges and she was a second year
med student at Southwestern Hospital, which was right next to PH.
When she heard of the shooting she knew the President would be taken
to PH so she ventured out there for a look. She wound up standing
RIGHT NEXT TO THE LIMOUSINE! She leaned against the fender and looked
at the windshield up close and saw a HOLE in it. Looking from her
outside position she noted it "was a real clean hole." She had a
friend with her who saw the hole but still refused to discuss it (or
allow Dr. Glanges to say their name) when she met with Douglas Weldon
in 1999! That is how afraid that person is of what they saw. They
were wise as Dr. Glanges would "die" in February 1999 after meeting
with Weldon in January 1999 for an interview about the hole.
Glanges told Weldon that she talked about the hole in a loud voice at
PH, this caused someone to get into the car and speed away with it.
Glanges said it happened so fast they "almost took my arm off." She
said she knew the official story was "phony", and that she should
"keep her mouth shut", but with retirement on the horizon and so many
years gone by I guess she thought it was safe.
> But the "non-kook" position on this topic is, of course, the only way
> to arrive at the truth. And that's because of the testimony of Robert
> A. Frazier of the FBI...plus the photos of the windshield. Frazier's
> testimony regarding the windshield always has and always will trump
> Ellis and all other "there was a hole in the windshield" witnesses --
> no matter how many of those witnesses there are.
Frazier is a proven liar on many points and claims he made before the
WC, so why would an honest person believe a word he said? You should
read Douglas Weldon's work as he has gone to the Ford plant in
Michigan and has intereviewed folks who saw the windshield being
replaced.
> Also --
>
> We know for a fact that the windshield was ONLY struck by a bullet
> from BEHIND,
We know NO such thing as the WC NEVER proved their theory of the
shooting sequence. In fact, it goes against the testimony and
comments of those closest to the shooting and those who would view the
President's wounds up close.
> because the lead residue was only located on the INSIDE
> of the windshield's glass (Rob The Kook obviously must think that Bob
> Frazier just made up that stuff about the residue ONLY existing on the
> INSIDE portion of the glass).
I don't believe a word he said as he has been proven to be a liar on
many points. NO ONE was allowed to look at the windshield for the
defense to see if what he claimed was true, thus we have HIS WORD FOR
IT, maybe that is good enough for a paid liar like you, but I want
real proof.
> But a kook like Rob has no choice but to dismiss the BEST evidence
> every time, on every subject.
LOL!!! Dave is the ONE that dismisses all the BEST evidence all the
time. Or he lies about it.
> Because if he didn't dismiss the best
> evidence totally, then he'd have to admit that his favorite patsy was
> guilty of two murders in Dallas.
Reprise: LOL!!! The real best evidence shows it was a conspiracy!
> Right, Rob-K?
Right, lying Dave?
curtjester1
wrote:
Excellent presentation, Rob. This is worth saving. Does Weldon have
anything written independently, or his stuff in someone else's book?
TY, CJ
curtjester1
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > What your attempting to say has nothing to do with Alteration. All these
> > things are ancillary in comparison to that. Zavada is acknowledged by all
> > the experts as good and necessary. BUT, even Zapada knows that his work,
> > with Kodak film and ghost images, don't prove anything with the CONTENTS
> > of the film. If Zavada was an authority and made any headway, I don't
> > think the evil Alterationists would be including a chapter on his work,
> > and how his work can be looked at. You can find some of that in the
>
> Zavada can not go beyond the technical aspects of the film into other
> issues. I do. I have addressed many of the so-called anomalies. Others
> have as well.
>
Well it seems you are quiet on the matters when serious people debate the
issues. Making a page of findings doesn't quite stand up to many debate
forums, and people with bona fide education's in the Science's that it
would take to discern the finer points. I don't think a course in grandma
hand-me-down's is going to get you much clout in the field of the
Discussion of Alteration, do you? Here is real people that one can sink
their thoughts into, and I'll even throw in the Assassination Science Book
for you. I think you need to get more specific with these type of folk
instead of making bravado remarks concerning your research and history:
Dr. Costella with Dr. Fetzer (PHD's)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella1.mp3
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella2.mp3
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella3.mp3
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella4.mp3
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella5.mp3
Assassination Science - Online Book
Education Forum Topic on Zapruder Alteration
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11824
> > Prologue on xii, and even goes into what his work can mean in the way of
> > possible scenarios for time elements for alteration to be contemplated.
>
> The film is authentic. There was no alteration. You can alter copies all
> you want.
>
Or you can make a complete film up from good ol' Kodak film, and make
as many copies as you want.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
Thanks CJ, the stuff I have read is part of "Murder In Dealey Plaza"
which was edited by James Fetzer and includes all different aspects of
the case. Even Palamara has a small part in it. I have not read
anything else by him and he may have an artlicle or two, but I know he
was doing this part-time (because he says as much) as he is/was a
lawyer.
I guess we can do a Google search to see, huh?
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is one I found right away:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=226698
curtjester1
> >>> refer to the 'cultists': After reading this, I think Agent Mush here
> >>> could be on the McElwain cult side..:)
> >>>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13050
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You seem to argue like an LNT'er.
>
> Tough nuggets. The facts are the facts, no matter which side you are on.
>
>
And you are the one that just said this is an unquiet debate forum. Ten on
the humor scale. I see you avoided the below discussion, therefore I must
assume like your articles of refutation that will pick on one item and
refuse to address the the thrust of the points. So, I assume you will,
just adhere to your Robert A. Frazier photo, and call all the witnesses
liars? You already have got a few along the way that had to be liars for
windshield testimony, and got testy in rebuttal when they accused them of
being off in their testimnoies, didn't you? I do believe in all honesty
that the Weldon witnesses are much more poignant, descriptive about the
hole in the windshield. Even Stavis Ellis said you could run a pencil
through the hole. How much more descriptive could people want? I am sure
you don't like the fact that many photos of FBI nature were fudged in the
largest of ways, and that Robert A. Frazier is known to be less than
honest in other dealings in the case, don't you?
Here's some more of Doug Weldon, who has torn away tough nuggets that
timid researchers seem to shy away from:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=4883&relPageId=35
>
> > CJ
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> What your attempting to say has nothing to do with Alteration. All these
> >>> things are ancillary in comparison to that. Zavada is acknowledged by all
> >>> the experts as good and necessary. BUT, even Zapada knows that his work,
> >>> with Kodak film and ghost images, don't prove anything with the CONTENTS
> >>> of the film. If Zavada was an authority and made any headway, I don't
> >>> think the evil Alterationists would be including a chapter on his work,
> >>> and how his work can be looked at. You can find some of that in the
> >> In his book Fetzer stipulates that Zavada is correct. He complains that
> >> Zavada can not go beyond the technical aspects of the film into other
> >> issues. I do. I have addressed many of the so-called anomalies. Others
> >> have as well.
>
> > Well it seems you are quiet on the matters when serious people debate the
> > issues. Making a page of findings doesn't quite stand up to many debate
>
> debated these issues elsewhere also. Fetzer is well enough aware of them
> to devote space to attacking me.
>
> > forums, and people with bona fide education's in the Science's that it
>
> any credentials either, John. And I decimated Fetzer, Mantik, and their
> so-called expert.
>
> > would take to discern the finer points. I don't think a course in grandma
> > hand-me-down's is going to get you much clout in the field of the
> > Discussion of Alteration, do you? Here is real people that one can sink
>
> the very proof in my hands which they knew nothing about.
>
> > their thoughts into, and I'll even throw in the Assassination Science Book
> > for you. I think you need to get more specific with these type of folk
> > instead of making bravado remarks concerning your research and history:
>
> criticism of Assassination Science. Very little in that book is accurate.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/index.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dr. Costella with Dr. Fetzer (PHD's)
>
> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella1.mp3
>
> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella2.mp3
>
> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella3.mp3
>
> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella4.mp3
>
> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella5.mp3
>
> > Assassination Science - Online Book
>
>
> > Education Forum Topic on Zapruder Alteration
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11824
>
> >>> Prologue on xii, and even goes into what his work can mean in the way of
> >>> possible scenarios for time elements for alteration to be contemplated.
> >> The film is authentic. There was no alteration. You can alter copies all
> >> you want.
>
> > Or you can make a complete film up from good ol' Kodak film, and make
> > as many copies as you want.
>
>
>
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In all honesty you don't need to be a film expert to see all the funnyness
of the film from the northside of Elm in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.
You basically said it all in your treasties on your detractors. I believe
you allude to dealing with anomalies as something like I wouldn't have
enough time in your lifetime to deal with all of them. Now, you might as
well have said, "I know it's fakery, but I deal only with little ancillary
issues." Why on earth would one run from the most important aspect, the
finished 'product'?
No one is suggesting by ghost images that they made up a whole new film
from scratch and that they repasted all the bystanders, and motorcade
characters all at whim. Of course their would be film from Dealey, and
the potential 'editing' could mean anywhere from making splices in the
film in key spots, to removal's, to paint adding, and things like that.
I would suggest you get in the reality issues, of making witness testimony
adhere strictly to the film instead of excusing them off. How can one
dismiss all the people saying motorcyclist Chaney not being included in
going forward to check with the lead car prior to the Triple Underpass?
He is eliminated completely from Nix and Zapruder! Why do the passengers
in the limo lurch forward, as the limo is speeding along? This is just
basic, and you can look at the film on this on the front page of the topic
board. Why is there no witnesses that ever say that there is a violent
back and to the left movement of the President's head? Why is their a
hideous would called a blob that no one ever seemed to say in testimony
much less see in any close examinations at the hospital? Why do people
say that they are looking at a President and speaking to them like a Jean
Hill, and she doesn't even look like she's even looking that way? Of
course the simplest explanation is that films are removed, aren't they,
instead of making up stories about ghost imaging with other ancillary
pseudo- technical explanations, isn't it? People do know when they plant
their feet in the street beyond a curb, and they are full of head matter
on their clothes, and are saying stuff when they are shot; yet for some
'inexplicable' reason, they don't show up, and yet...by the magic of whim
they are dismissed. Just incredible.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Dec 2, 10:24=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> curtjester1 wrote:
>> > On Nov 30, 6:54 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> curtjester1 wrote:
>> >>> On Nov 28, 8:46 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>> curtjester1 wrote:
>e:
>> >>>>>> curtjester1 wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Nov 25, 12:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wr=
>ote:
>> >>>>>>>> curtjester1 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 24, 8:22 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> w=
>rote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> curtjester1 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:38 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net>=
> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> curtjester1 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DhAW-bxxZfcM&mode=3Drelated&=
>search=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CJ
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There was no hole in the windshield.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How about a hole in the floor?
>, not
>> >>>>>>>>>>> traditions...Evidence.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Where the Hell have you been? I refuted it a long time ago.
>> >>>>>>>>>>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/windshield.htm
>> >>>>>>>>>>> You either refute it, or you don't care.
>arch=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>> CJ
>> >>>>>>>>>> Now, you seem to fall for every wacky theory that comes down t=
>he pike,
>> >>>>>>>>>> so why didn't you adopt the theory of a hole in the floor?
>e else. =A0
>> >>>>>>>>> They get touchy on specifics to people here, so I won't go fart=
>her.
>> >>>>>>>>> Basically your an "official document" person. =A0Kinda of the W=
>C approach to
>> >>>>>>>>> things. =A0It's better to deal with people that have been invol=
>ved in the
>> >>>>>>>>> evidentiary approach to things rather than depend on a snapped =
>photo. =A0
>> >>>>>>>>> How many photos and pieces of evidence were altered in the firs=
>t four
>> >>>>>>>>> days?? =A0Hundreds, and that's documented from the Dallas to Wa=
>shington back
>> >>>>>>>>> to Dallas fiasco. =A0Don't make me post all those.
>> >>>>>>>> You are spewing nonsense. There are no hundreds of altered photo=
>s and
>> >>>>>>>> evidence. We know of only a couple of examples.
>al
>> >>>>>>>> evidence and hand picking wacky witnesses.
>> >>>>>>> Unfortunately they have to be montitored by a number system and
>f film
>> >>>>>>> were 'lost'.
>thing
>> >>>>>> as your claim that many photos and pieces of evidence were altered=
>. You
>> >>>>>> might be able to cite a few, maybe 5. Not hundreds.
>b0?
>> >>>>>>>>> To all who like all the in-between stuff on the matter, you mig=
>ht want to
>> >>>>>>>>> refer to the 'cultists': =A0After reading this, I think Agent M=
>ush here
>> >>>>>>>>> could be on the McElwain cult side..:)
>> >>>>>>> One can start here with a few of the anomalies. =A0(Interview wit=
>h one who
>> >>>>>>> saw a close to original film of the motorcade).
>> >>>>>> I am one of the few who has addressed many of these ridiculous
>> >>>>>> anomalies. Almost all of them stem from stupidity.
> put to
>> >>>>> it in the latter years. =A0I don't think there is any PHD's by your=
> name.
>> >>>> I could give a rat's ass what you think. You have no credentials eit=
>her,
>> >>>> and my findings have been confirmed by Roland Zavada, who is the top
>nd
>> >>>> Mantik and their supposed expert on film said that the ghost images
> never
>> >>>> on any ordinary 8 mm home movie, so they must be artifacts created b=
>y
>> >>>> copying the film that night at the secret CIA photo lab. According t=
>o them
>> >>>> it could not be natural because cameras are made to prevent that fro=
>m
>> >>>> happening. Little did they know that at that exact moment I held in =
>my
>> >>>> hands hundreds of examples of ordinary people's 8 mm home movies whi=
>ch
>> >>>> showed exactly the same type of ghost images between the sprocket ho=
>le
>> >>>> areas. Turns out that my aunt had worked at a film laboratory where =
>one of
>> >>>> her jobs was repairing customers home movies. She would crop out the
>f
>> >>>> snipped out frames. I inherited them. There are several examples of
>> >>>> ordinary customers 8 mm home movies which have ghost images in the
>ere
>> >>>> totally unaware of. I was the first person to correctly describe and
>> >>>> illustrate the mechanism which caused the ghost images. Dr. Zavada
>eyond
>> >>>> what he was able to do by identifying many of the objects seen in th=
>e
>> >>>> ghost images.
>> >>>> Even Fetzer has acknowledged recently that I am correct by talking a=
>bout
>> >>>> how we now know how the ghost images were created.
>...quoted text -
>> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> these
>> >>> things are ancillary in comparison to that. =A0Zavada is acknowledged=
> by all
>> >>> the experts as good and necessary. =A0BUT, even Zapada knows that his=
> work,
>> >>> with Kodak film and ghost images, don't prove anything with the CONTE=
>NTS
>> >>> of the film. =A0If Zavada was an authority and made any headway, I do=
>n't
>> >>> think the evil Alterationists would be including a chapter on his wor=
>k,
>> >>> and how his work can be looked at. =A0You can find some of that in th=
>e
>> >> In his book Fetzer stipulates that Zavada is correct. He complains tha=
>t
>> >> Zavada can not go beyond the technical aspects of the film into other
>> >> issues. I do. I have addressed many of the so-called anomalies. Others
>> >> have as well.
>>
>he
>> > issues. =A0Making a page of findings doesn't quite stand up to many deb=
>ate
>>
>> Quiet? This is a debate forum, or at least it is supposed to be. I have
>> debated these issues elsewhere also. Fetzer is well enough aware of them
>> to devote space to attacking me.
>>
>> > forums, and people with bona fide education's in the Science's that it
>>
>> You know where you can stick your Argument by Authority. You don't have
>> any credentials either, John. And I decimated Fetzer, Mantik, and their
>> so-called expert.
>>
>andma
>> > hand-me-down's is going to get you much clout in the field of the
>ink
>>
>> Again, you miss the point. They were dealing in idle speculation. I had
>> the very proof in my hands which they knew nothing about.
>>
>ook
>> > for you. =A0I think you need to get more specific with these type of fo=
>lk
>> > instead of making bravado remarks concerning your research and history:
>>
>> Maybe you didn't notice, but I devote an entire section on my Web page to
>> criticism of Assassination Science. Very little in that book is accurate.
>>
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/index.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Dr. Costella with Dr. Fetzer (PHD's)
>>
>> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella1.mp3
>>
>> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella2.mp3
>>
>> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella3.mp3
>>
>> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella4.mp3
>>
>> >http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella5.mp3
>>
>> > Assassination Science - Online Book
>>
>q=3DP...
>>
>> > Education Forum Topic on Zapruder Alteration
>>
>>
>> >>> Prologue on xii, and even goes into what his work can mean in the way=
> of
>> >>> possible scenarios for time elements for alteration to be contemplate=
>d.
>> >> The film is authentic. There was no alteration. You can alter copies a=
>ll
>> >> you want.
>>
>> > Or you can make a complete film up from good ol' Kodak film, and make
>> > as many copies as you want.
>>
>> Ridiculous. The ghost images depend on live filming in Dealey Plaza.
There's nothing inherently different between "ghost images" and other images on
film. *All* of it can be altered, faked, forged, etc.
Tony would have you believe that "ghost images" can only be created by live
filming, which of course is sheerest nonsense.
Tony, like all other "defenders of the faith" and LNT'ers - has run from
defending the extant Z-film... the facts simply don't support the authenticity
of this film.
>> > CJ
aeffects
> In article <2f893d07-1c41-4214-bdcd-243cec1c9...@v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >q=3DP...
>
> >> > Education Forum Topic on Zapruder Alteration
>
> >> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D11824
>
> >> >>> Prologue on xii, and even goes into what his work can mean in the way=
> > of
> >> >>> possible scenarios for time elements for alteration to be contemplate=
> >d.
> >> >> The film is authentic. There was no alteration. You can alter copies a=
> >ll
> >> >> you want.
>
> >> > Or you can make a complete film up from good ol' Kodak film, and make
> >> > as many copies as you want.
>
> >> Ridiculous. The ghost images depend on live filming in Dealey Plaza.
>
> There's nothing inherently different between "ghost images" and other images on
> film. *All* of it can be altered, faked, forged, etc.
>
> Tony would have you believe that "ghost images" can only be created by live
> filming, which of course is sheerest nonsense.
>
> Tony, like all other "defenders of the faith" and LNT'ers - has run from
> defending the extant Z-film... the facts simply don't support the authenticity
> of this film.
The Lone Nutters now know better.... in the hands of the right crafts-
person anything, when it comes to film composition ANYTHING is
possible....