Newly-Discovered Film Showing JFK In Motorcade
David Von Pein
has just been donated to the Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza.
Gary Mack of the Museum has made the crystal-clear and colorful 39-
second film available on the Internet as well. (The Sixth Floor
Museum's Main Page has info on the film and a link to it.)
The film was taken approximately 90 seconds before the shooting by a
Mr. George Jefferies, and is most notable for the ultra-clear view we
can get of the very-noticeably BUNCHED-UP coat/jacket of President
Kennedy just as he passes Jefferies' camera.
When freeze-framing some of these frames (at the 0:23 and 0:25 marks),
the "bunching" of the suit coat is very vivid.
Here's a direct link to this new film.....
David Von Pein
"This newly-discovered home movie of the fateful Kennedy motorcade was
recently donated to The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. The
photographer, George Jefferies, filmed President and Mrs. Kennedy on
Main Street at Lamar in downtown Dallas less than 90 seconds before
the assassination. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, assigned to
protect Jackie Kennedy, can be seen riding on the left rear bumper.
The donor, Wayne Graham, is the son-in-law of Mr. Jefferies. Click on
the image for the entire film." -- Via Main (Front) Webpage for "The
Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza"
gvravel
those who are interested, you can go to the www.jfk.org website and
download the video (right click, "safe as target"). It will take
several minutes. This afternoon it's a hard site to get onto.
Everyone is probably busy trying to download the video.
aeffects
> Yes, you're right. JFK's "bunched up" coat is clearly visable. For
> download the video (right click, "safe as target"). It will take
> several minutes. This afternoon it's a hard site to get onto.
> Everyone is probably busy trying to download the video.
frankly, the film is useles. In determining if JFK was assassinated by
a lone gunman, that is...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Yes, you're right. JFK's "bunched up" coat is clearly visable.
The film is useless for determining that.
Or do *you* believe that E.T. is still phoning home?
If you're willing to make it worth my while, I can produce a film showing JFK's
jacket bunching up to his eop. And it won't take me 40+ years... either.
gvravel
> >Yes, you're right. JFK's "bunched up" coat is clearly visable.
>
> The film is useless for determining that.
>
> Or do *you* believe that E.T. is still phoning home?
>
> If you're willing to make it worth my while, I can produce a film showing JFK's
> jacket bunching up to his eop. And it won't take me 40+ years... either.
Only an absolute moron would say that the film is "useless for
determining" if the coat was "bunched up" in the film. It clearly
is. Whether or not it means anything I really couldn't care less.
I'm not a conspiracy "guru" when comes to the JFK assassination. I
was simply agreeing with Pein on the matter about what I saw. But, by
your idiotic comment, I can tell you are a moron.
gvravel
I agree. It really doesn't help either cause (pro or anti conspiracy)
too much.
Gil Jesus
was shot isn't proof that it was bunched up WHEN he was shot.
Secondly, the bullet holes in the coat and shirt match the location on
the death certificate and Boswell's face sheet. They also match the
diagram drawn by FBI agent Sibert. There was no bunching of the coat
when the bullet entered the BACK.
Thirdly, there was NO bullet hole in the base of the neck, David. Stop
trying to perpetuate this lie. If there's a bullet hole in the base of
the neck, show us the autopsy photo that shows it. It's simply not
there. There was no hole in the base of the neck.
Period.
That being said, the whole argument about whether the coat was bunched
up or not is useless. There was no hole in the base of the neck,
making the issue moot.
Go ask MacDaddy what you should do next.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1171915361.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, gvravel
> says...
> >
> >Yes, you're right. JFK's "bunched up" coat is clearly visable.
>
>
> The film is useless for determining that.
But you can bet Ben will find reasons this film proves conspiracy.
> Or do *you* believe that E.T. is still phoning home?
Theres that stellar thinking. It is possible to make things appear
on film that are not, therefore what is shown on this particular film
is doctored.
> If you're willing to make it worth my while, I can produce a film showing JFK's
> jacket bunching up to his eop. And it won't take me 40+ years... either.
On what grounds does Ben declare this film a fraud? That he can
imagine it being a fake? No first frame flash, what?
Bud
Gil Jesus wrote:
> First of all, whether JFK's coat was bunched up 90 seconds before he
> was shot isn't proof that it was bunched up WHEN he was shot.
You`d think a person actually trying to get answers to the
questions raised in this case would welcome information that might
help answer these questions, like why the holes in the clothing don`t
line up with the hole in JFK`s body shown in the autopsy photo. But no
one would confuse these kooks with someone honestly trying to get
answers to these questions. They are going to defend these kook
squalking points no matter how much evidence shows they are wrong, no
matter how many shooting re-enactments are done, ect.
> Secondly, the bullet holes in the coat and shirt match the location on
> the death certificate and Boswell's face sheet. They also match the
> diagram drawn by FBI agent Sibert.
These determinations are made my measurements, not by the
placement in diagrams.
> There was no bunching of the coat
> when the bullet entered the BACK.
Which can be seen as high on the back (about a hand span down from
the crease in the back of JFK`s neck) in the autopsy photo.
> Thirdly, there was NO bullet hole in the base of the neck, David. Stop
> trying to perpetuate this lie. If there's a bullet hole in the base of
> the neck, show us the autopsy photo that shows it. It's simply not
> there. There was no hole in the base of the neck.
>
> Period.
The hole shown in JFK`s back in the autopsy photo has been shown to
be plenty high for a throat exit from a shot from the sixth floor of
the TSBD, kook denial nothwithstanding.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>> >Yes, you're right. JFK's "bunched up" coat is clearly visable.
>>
>> The film is useless for determining that.
>>
>> Or do *you* believe that E.T. is still phoning home?
>>
>> If you're willing to make it worth my while, I can produce a film showing
>> JFK's jacket bunching up to his eop. And it won't take me 40+ years...
>> either.
>
>Only an absolute moron would say that the film is "useless for
>determining" if the coat was "bunched up" in the film. It clearly
>is.
No, I agree with the legal theory that photographs and notes are useless unless
they are attested to by eyewitnesses.
You *do* understand this simple concept, don't you? I'll be happy to provide a
citation to that effect, if you are unfamiliar with this legal concept.
You've taken a film of unknown provenance, and merely because you believe that
it supports your theory, have no interest whatsoever in whether the film is
authentic or not.
That's sad...
>Whether or not it means anything I really couldn't care less.
>I'm not a conspiracy "guru" when comes to the JFK assassination. I
>was simply agreeing with Pein on the matter about what I saw. But, by
>your idiotic comment, I can tell you are a moron.
Most people who "agree" with DVP would certainly class me as a "moron"... but
then, you're known by your friends.
That you're willing to accept a video with no research into it's origins
whatsoever speaks to *your* ability and knowledge about this case.
Or, in other words... you really *do* believe that E.T. is still phoning home...
after all, I can show you the video.
gvravel
> You`d think a person actually trying to get answers to the
> questions raised in this case would welcome information that might
> help answer these questions, like why the holes in the clothing don`t
> line up with the hole in JFK`s body shown in the autopsy photo. But no
> one would confuse these kooks with someone honestly trying to get
> answers to these questions. They are going to defend these kook
> squalking points no matter how much evidence shows they are wrong, no
> matter how many shooting re-enactments are done, ect.
>
Many years ago I was deeply involved with this subject. I had at
least a dozen books on the subject and even attended a symposium in
Dallas in the early 90's. As the years have gone by I have become
less and less certain of an actual conspiracy but I still consider
myself "on the fence". A film like this can help. It won't be a
determining factor however. One will say that JFK's shirts were made
to fit "skin tight" and the shirt shows a lower entrance wound.
Whatever the case may be I'm waiting with "baited breath" to see who
comes up with the idea that George Jefferies was/is an operative for
the CIA.
It does seem interesting how rabid some of the pro-conspiracy side are
reacting to this film. I guess they have to because they have too
much invested psychologically with their opinions.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1171926630....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, gvravel
> says...
> >
> >
> >> >Yes, you're right. JFK's "bunched up" coat is clearly visable.
> >>
> >> The film is useless for determining that.
> >>
> >> Or do *you* believe that E.T. is still phoning home?
> >>
> >> If you're willing to make it worth my while, I can produce a film showing
> >> JFK's jacket bunching up to his eop. And it won't take me 40+ years...
> >> either.
> >
> >Only an absolute moron would say that the film is "useless for
> >determining" if the coat was "bunched up" in the film. It clearly
> >is.
>
> No, I agree with the legal theory that photographs and notes are useless unless
> they are attested to by eyewitnesses.
Who cares what you agree with? This isn`t a court of law.
> You *do* understand this simple concept, don't you? I'll be happy to provide a
> citation to that effect, if you are unfamiliar with this legal concept.
I wonder why Ben goes on about that Minox camera he says
disappeared. Likely any photos contained in such a camera could not be
attested to by dead Oswald.
> You've taken a film of unknown provenance, and merely because you believe that
> it supports your theory, have no interest whatsoever in whether the film is
> authentic or not.
Seems you have determined it to be fake, whether it is or not.
> That's sad...
Cheer up, at least you remain an asshole.
> >Whether or not it means anything I really couldn't care less.
> >I'm not a conspiracy "guru" when comes to the JFK assassination. I
> >was simply agreeing with Pein on the matter about what I saw. But, by
> >your idiotic comment, I can tell you are a moron.
>
> Most people who "agree" with DVP would certainly class me as a "moron"... but
> then, you're known by your friends.
And you are known as a moron. And it`s seems dvgravel is preceptive
enough to discern that in only one post. I think it took me two.
> That you're willing to accept a video with no research into it's origins
> whatsoever speaks to *your* ability and knowledge about this case.
Where would the conspiracy cause be without kooks accepting
whatever suits their fancy, for whatever reason they imagine?
> Or, in other words... you really *do* believe that E.T. is still phoning home...
> after all, I can show you the video.
You don`t believe the video showing a plane going into the WTC, do
you?
Bud
gvravel wrote:
> > You`d think a person actually trying to get answers to the
> > questions raised in this case would welcome information that might
> > help answer these questions, like why the holes in the clothing don`t
> > line up with the hole in JFK`s body shown in the autopsy photo. But no
> > one would confuse these kooks with someone honestly trying to get
> > answers to these questions. They are going to defend these kook
> > squalking points no matter how much evidence shows they are wrong, no
> > matter how many shooting re-enactments are done, ect.
> >
>
> Many years ago I was deeply involved with this subject. I had at
> least a dozen books on the subject and even attended a symposium in
> Dallas in the early 90's. As the years have gone by I have become
> less and less certain of an actual conspiracy but I still consider
> myself "on the fence".
The issues and complaints raised by the kooks are becoming weaker
when science is applied to them. Compare the sketch of a bullet zig-
zagging in midair popular in the 70`s of the single bullet`s flight to
the scientific re-enactment performed for the "Magic Bullet" show on
the Discovery channel. One is just "this doesn`t look right", the
other is "lets test and see if the SBT is a feasible theory". But,
similar to what you say below, the kooks have to much breath invested
in disputing the SBT to conceed it now, it kills their whole
conspiracy fantasy.
> A film like this can help. It won't be a
> determining factor however. One will say that JFK's shirts were made
> to fit "skin tight" and the shirt shows a lower entrance wound.
Only a fool would use the clothing to determine the entrance
anyway.
> Whatever the case may be I'm waiting with "baited breath" to see who
> comes up with the idea that George Jefferies was/is an operative for
> the CIA.
Oh, yah, Ben is almost there already. He claims this film needs to
be proven authenic before it can be considered. To my thinking, that
it is fake is an extraordinary possibility, and it extraordinary
possibilities that require the most proving.
.
> It does seem interesting how rabid some of the pro-conspiracy side are
> reacting to this film. I guess they have to because they have too
> much invested psychologically with their opinions.
Can you imagine if an LN "holy grail" of indisputable proof
emerged? They probably disappear before I could serve them their crow.
Of course the claims of conspiracy proof are made daily here.
David Von Pein
Damn straight! Just look at this still frame from the film (linked
below). It's almost eerie, in a "The Coat Was Positively Bunched Just
90 Seconds Or So Before A Bullet Went Crashing Through JFK's Back"
sort of fashion:
David Von Pein
"similar" IMO:
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>> You`d think a person actually trying to get answers to the
>> questions raised in this case would welcome information that might
>> help answer these questions, like why the holes in the clothing don`t
>> line up with the hole in JFK`s body shown in the autopsy photo. But no
>> one would confuse these kooks with someone honestly trying to get
>> answers to these questions. They are going to defend these kook
>> squalking points no matter how much evidence shows they are wrong, no
>> matter how many shooting re-enactments are done, ect.
>>
>
>Many years ago I was deeply involved with this subject. I had at
>least a dozen books on the subject and even attended a symposium in
>Dallas in the early 90's. As the years have gone by I have become
>less and less certain of an actual conspiracy but I still consider
>myself "on the fence".
Doubtful. You're another LNT'er troll. Let's see if my prediction holds true.
>A film like this can help. It won't be a
>determining factor however. One will say that JFK's shirts were made
>to fit "skin tight" and the shirt shows a lower entrance wound.
>
>Whatever the case may be I'm waiting with "baited breath" to see who
>comes up with the idea that George Jefferies was/is an operative for
>the CIA.
>
>It does seem interesting how rabid some of the pro-conspiracy side are
>reacting to this film. I guess they have to because they have too
>much invested psychologically with their opinions.
Sorry... there's nothing "opinion" about the evidence in this case. If you
truly *were* "deeply involved" then you already know this.
The evidence doesn't support the WCR, and that's why the WC was forced to
misrepresent and lie about their own evidence.
It's interesting that *YOU* are reacting to the film as a LNT'er.
A CT'er reacts just like any legal system would - we don't automatically assume
that it's evidence - just as LNT'ers automatically *do*.
Despite the legal system's opinion.
When you're ready to defend the WCR - just let us know...
aeffects
Many years ago I was deeply involved.... yeah right LMAO! You reading
this thread clearly? Or suffering from the old, "I use to be a Cter,
but now..."?
The only rabid freaks around here Champ, are the Nutter's. There's 35
questions that need answering, take a stab at them, we don't expect
much from you...
FWIW, this new film is a waste of time, tells us nothing about the
assassination, just another 6thFloor 'see what a good boy am I', gig!
lazu...@webtv.net
is. JFK could have been wearing a cape for all it matters when the
Sibert-O'neill report-death certificate signed by Dr. burkley-Autopsy
face sheet drawn, verified and signed by Dr. Boswell, along with the
eyewtnessess put it at T3.
lazu...@webtv.net
it... Heavens to betsy I wait on bended knee for your posts.
Martin Shackelford
earlier.
Martin
"gvravel" <gvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171915361.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
additional bit of visual history.
Martin
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1171928486....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
was introduced by Jim Garrison through validating testimony by Abraham
Zapruder.
The new film has been validated by George Jefferies, the fellow who took it.
He was interviewed on ABC News.
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:erdh7...@drn.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
similar confused analysis.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1171939585.1...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
gvravel
> misrepresent and lie about their own evidence.
>
> It's interesting that *YOU* are reacting to the film as a LNT'er.
>
> A CT'er reacts just like any legal system would - we don't automatically assume
> that it's evidence - just as LNT'ers automatically *do*.
>
> Despite the legal system's opinion.
>
> When you're ready to defend the WCR - just let us know...
You assume too much. Why do you think I'd want to defend the WCR
which was a report done to fit a preconceived conclusion (i.e. Deputy
Attorney General Katzenbach's written memo to Moyers Nov. 25, 1963)?
Back in the middle 1990's if anyone said I'd be accused of being a
"LNTer" I would say they were nuts themselves. It's been so freakin
long since I've studied the case that after I posted what I did to
David's original post I actually had to go back and find out what the
"bunched coat" thing meant. I wasn't sure if it was pro or anti
conspiracy bit of news.
I was so deeply involved in all of this that I once corresponded with
Ricky White's (Roscoe White's son) attorney in Houston in the early
90's. It seemed that Ricky's story had been lifted from a book
written years before that. His attorney said that was further "proof"
White's story was correct since Ricky couldn't have read it (he was
illiterate). The attorney never stopped to think that someone could
have told him the story from the book.
What's funny is that the CT's seem to have more of a heated debate
between themselves than they do with the LNTers. The first ones that
comes to mind are the Groden/Livingston and the Lifton/Groden
feuds.
David Von Pein
corroborates (to a large degree) the "bunched up" coat that can be
seen also in the Robert Croft photo (which was snapped at approx.
Z161, per Richard Trask's analysis, which is almost exactly when I
think the first shot was fired).
Croft:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154280771.jpg
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1171935064.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, gvravel
> says...
> >
> >
> >> You`d think a person actually trying to get answers to the
> >> questions raised in this case would welcome information that might
> >> help answer these questions, like why the holes in the clothing don`t
> >> line up with the hole in JFK`s body shown in the autopsy photo. But no
> >> one would confuse these kooks with someone honestly trying to get
> >> answers to these questions. They are going to defend these kook
> >> squalking points no matter how much evidence shows they are wrong, no
> >> matter how many shooting re-enactments are done, ect.
> >>
> >
> >Many years ago I was deeply involved with this subject. I had at
> >least a dozen books on the subject and even attended a symposium in
> >Dallas in the early 90's. As the years have gone by I have become
> >less and less certain of an actual conspiracy but I still consider
> >myself "on the fence".
>
> Doubtful.
Based on what? A few posts. Watch, you might get a reputation for
jumping to conclusions. No, no wait, you already have that.
> You're another LNT'er troll.
Ben has the guy pegged already. See what happens to a little
information in the hands of a kook?
> Let's see if my prediction holds true.
You will claim it did regardless of the outcome.
> >A film like this can help. It won't be a
> >determining factor however. One will say that JFK's shirts were made
> >to fit "skin tight" and the shirt shows a lower entrance wound.
> >
> >Whatever the case may be I'm waiting with "baited breath" to see who
> >comes up with the idea that George Jefferies was/is an operative for
> >the CIA.
> >
> >It does seem interesting how rabid some of the pro-conspiracy side are
> >reacting to this film. I guess they have to because they have too
> >much invested psychologically with their opinions.
>
>
> Sorry... there's nothing "opinion" about the evidence in this case.
Exactly wrong. There was no trial, nothing was established legally
about Oz`s guilt, and all there is about this case is opinion. Ben
just considers his opinions facts, is all. But, Ben is also nuts.
> If you
> truly *were* "deeply involved" then you already know this.
Ben sets a hurdle, and claims it hasn`t been cleared. Same shit,
different day.
> The evidence doesn't support the WCR, and that's why the WC was forced to
> misrepresent and lie about their own evidence.
To the kooks, the witnesses saying they saw Oz kill Tippit is proof
the witnesses didn`t see Oz kill Tippit. that doesn`t leave them as
the ones to be declaring what is, and what isn`t.
> It's interesting that *YOU* are reacting to the film as a LNT'er.
Ben has a preconceived notion on how everyone should view this
evidence, and dvravel (I messed his name up previously) is not living
up to Ben expectations. Typical kook approach, "I expect this to
happen, when it doesn`t, I get to make up a reason why it didn`t
happen as I expected"
.
> A CT'er reacts just like any legal system would -
Of course, if the legal system applied the criteria set by the
kooks in this case, the jails would be empty. Defense lawyers would
merely demand that it be proven that a double to the suspect didn`t
commit the crime, or that all the evidence against his client was
faked and/or planted.
> we don't automatically assume
> that it's evidence - just as LNT'ers automatically *do*.
There are two possibilities about this film. Either it is as
represented, a film taken 11-22-63 of the motorcade, or someone has
gone to extraordinary lengths to manufacture this evidence. It is the
extraordinary explaination that needs to be backed up (not that you
won`t find things in this film to be suspicious of, so you can claim
it is faked).
> Despite the legal system's opinion.
This film just surfaced, yet Ben claims the support of the entire
legal system`s support of his viewpoint. Personally, I see film
presented all the time on the news, I don`t demand to see
documentation before determining whether to accept it at face value.
> When you're ready to defend the WCR - just let us know...
Has he expressed a desire to do this? Or is this just something you
misread into what he did say?
Bud
<snicker> The kooks here think that since it is impoosible for them
to get smarter, that nobody can.
> The only rabid freaks around here Champ, are the Nutter's.
Are you saying that no kook will claim that Jefferies is CIA?
>There's 35
> questions that need answering, take a stab at them, we don't expect
> much from you...
What good would the answers do you?
> FWIW, this new film is a waste of time, tells us nothing about the
> assassination, just another 6thFloor 'see what a good boy am I', gig!
"It seems interesting how rabid some of the pro-conspiracy side are
reacting to this film." Interesting, indeed, a bunch of sputtering,
apparentlly new information is to be feared and suspected. Of course
if someone came forward now, and claimed to see a rifleman on the
knoll, that would be golden.
Bud
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> What matters is only the situation AT THE TIME HE WAS SHOT, not two streets
> earlier.
Certainly, just like it doesn`t matter where Oz was 90 seconds after
the assassination.
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> I used to be a conspiracy theorist, but I saw the light isn't that about
> it... Heavens to betsy I wait on bended knee for your posts.
The kooks think being a kook is like being in the Mafia, you are in
for life.
David Von Pein
The kooks who have thousands of Internet posts invested in their CT
fantasy are, indeed, probably "in for life" down there at Kooktown.
But there is hope for the fence-riders...or even the staunch CTer who
doesn't really make his/her opinions on the case known on the Internet
(etc.) too often. Those CTers are within reach of VB's CS&L. (Heck,
even I've reached a handful in the last few years, I'm pleased to say.
And if Bud's always-logical pro-LN posts are any barometer, I'm
guessing that a few fence-sitters or "non-kook" CT nutcases have been
swayed by Bud's thoughtful posts as well.)
Let's review VB's (tentative) Chapter List for "Reclaiming
History" (the one title I really enjoy is "The Zanies (And Others)
Have Their Say". .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/79aad61f970de446
aeffects
wrote:
> The film doesn't prove anything for either side, but it is an interesting
> additional bit of visual history.
Gary threw the Nutter's a bone, the Neuter *Texas* contigent is in
desperate need for something to talk about, ANYTHING to talk about
having nothing to do with the "35" questions, floating around here,
which they refuse to deal with ( I wonder why :) ). Nutter's want more
nonesense to cover up their ineptitude when confronted with evidence
that has a direct bearing on JFK's assassination.
> Martin
>
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171928486....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In article <1171915361.022966.178...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> gvravel
> >> says...
>
> >> >Yes, you're right. JFK's "bunched up" coat is clearly visable.
>
> >> The film is useless for determining that.
>
> > But you can bet Ben will find reasons this film proves conspiracy.
>
> >> Or do *you* believe that E.T. is still phoning home?
>
> > Theres that stellar thinking. It is possible to make things appear
> > on film that are not, therefore what is shown on this particular film
> > is doctored.
>
> >> If you're willing to make it worth my while, I can produce a film showing
> >> JFK's
> >> jacket bunching up to his eop. And it won't take me 40+ years... either.
>
> > On what grounds does Ben declare this film a fraud? That he can
> > imagine it being a fake? No first frame flash, what?
>
> >> >For
> >> >those who are interested, you can go to thewww.jfk.orgwebsite and
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> The evidence doesn't support the WCR, and that's why the WC was forced to
>> misrepresent and lie about their own evidence.
>>
>> It's interesting that *YOU* are reacting to the film as a LNT'er.
>>
>> A CT'er reacts just like any legal system would - we don't automatically
>> assume that it's evidence - just as LNT'ers automatically *do*.
>>
>> Despite the legal system's opinion.
>>
>> When you're ready to defend the WCR - just let us know...
>
>You assume too much.
Oh, we'll see...
The history of trolls in this newsgroup has been quite extensive... and they
generally follow the same pattern.
>Why do you think I'd want to defend the WCR
>which was a report done to fit a preconceived conclusion (i.e. Deputy
>Attorney General Katzenbach's written memo to Moyers Nov. 25, 1963)?
>
>Back in the middle 1990's if anyone said I'd be accused of being a
>"LNTer" I would say they were nuts themselves. It's been so freakin
>long since I've studied the case that after I posted what I did to
>David's original post I actually had to go back and find out what the
>"bunched coat" thing meant. I wasn't sure if it was pro or anti
>conspiracy bit of news.
Ignorance of the evidence in this case is common among LNT'ers...
>I was so deeply involved in all of this that I once corresponded with
>Ricky White's (Roscoe White's son) attorney in Houston in the early
>90's. It seemed that Ricky's story had been lifted from a book
>written years before that. His attorney said that was further "proof"
>White's story was correct since Ricky couldn't have read it (he was
>illiterate). The attorney never stopped to think that someone could
>have told him the story from the book.
Why does Tony Marsh keep coming to mind???
Walt
You're selecting a few well known CT's and using the disagreement
between them to make it appear that CT's are not in agreement. ALL
CT's agree that there was a conspiracy to Murder JFK.. There is
disagreement on the details about that conspiracy , but that's to be
expected..... Because the Warren Commission, and the HSCA delivered
so much disinformation that it;s difficult to sift the winnow from the
wheat.
Walt
Ben Holmes
says...
That's my prediction... we have another ignorant troll.
But only time will tell whether I'm right, or whether I'll have to offer an
apology.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Odd, then, that you don't accept the validity of the Zapruder film, which
>was introduced by Jim Garrison through validating testimony by Abraham
>Zapruder.
I accept the legal *admissibility* of the Zapruder film. The *EVIDENCE*, which
you refuse to discuss - illustrates that the extant Z-film has been altered, and
is therefore suspect as evidence.
Particularly when it contradicts the eyewitnesses.
>The new film has been validated by George Jefferies, the fellow who took it.
>He was interviewed on ABC News.
It will never be examined, since it's now in the haven of the museum. And in
*this* case, such 'validation' wouldn't mean much - since the only detail bound
to be of interest is something that Jefferies *certainly* never noticed in 1963
- and is probably quite unaware of even now
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>The film doesn't prove anything for either side, but it is an interesting
>additional bit of visual history.
>
>Martin
>
>"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
>news:1171928486....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <1171915361.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> gvravel
>>> says...
>>> >
>>> >Yes, you're right. JFK's "bunched up" coat is clearly visable.
>>>
>>>
>>> The film is useless for determining that.
>>
>> But you can bet Ben will find reasons this film proves conspiracy.
>>
>>> Or do *you* believe that E.T. is still phoning home?
>>
>> Theres that stellar thinking. It is possible to make things appear
>> on film that are not, therefore what is shown on this particular film
>> is doctored.
>>
>>> If you're willing to make it worth my while, I can produce a film showing
>>> JFK's
>>> jacket bunching up to his eop. And it won't take me 40+ years... either.
>>
>> On what grounds does Ben declare this film a fraud?
Another excellent example of why Bud is still killfiled.
He simply makes up assertions on the spur of the moment.
I have *NEVER* stated that this film is a fraud - that would be *IDENTICAL* with
the mass rush to accept it totally and 100% without any research whatsoever.
But Bud can't argue the actual evidence - this is why he's willing to lie...
And trolls who lie, and can't debate the actual evidence... get killfiled.
David Von Pein
LOL. Kook Logic at its finest (again).
I wonder if I should hand over my "home movies" to Ben-Kook for
"research", so that he can verify them as unaltered?
Geez.
gvravel
Dallas. My most vivid memories of it was the in-fighting amoung the
various panel members. Thankfully, 1 or 2 originator's of the
symposium tried to calm things down and act as peacemakers. I
rememeber one of them saying "when the conspiracy is proven we will
all be able to take credit". There were HUGE egos on those panels.
Looking back at it I thought that maybe they should of had a sign at
the entrance "Please Leave Your Egos at the Door".
> You're selecting a few well known CT's and using the disagreement
> between them to make it appear that CT's are not in agreement. ALL
> CT's agree that there was a conspiracy to Murder JFK.. There is
> disagreement on the details about that conspiracy , but that's to be
> expected..... Because the Warren Commission, and the HSCA delivered
> so much disinformation that it;s difficult to sift the winnow from the
> wheat.
> Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
don't be apalled by honesty, you beef-stick you. Researchers with
proven debating skills make Lone Nutters very, VERY vunerable... as
you've proven day, after day, AFTER DAY! LMFAO
David Von Pein
before.
Ben's post re. the home movies is nothing more than a paranoid
mindset, as anyone can easily see. It's the type of thing that
backfired on Jim Garrison at the Shaw trial....when the kook on the
witness stand admitted that he had his own daughter fingerprinted to
make sure she wasn't an imposter.
Ben's got the same mindset re. the films...and re. lots of other
things that he fears are "hiding" within the evidence (and under his
cot there at the jail as he types his silliness daily).
gvravel
"troll is a person who enters an established community such as an
online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption,
often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory,
insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the
intent of provoking a reaction from others"
"Troll" is the most overused word on the internet. It was your
original snide remark to me that started all of this. I never
intentionally tried to disrupt anything. I just agreed with David
that the video showed JFK's coat being bunched up. That was it.
That's all. It was YOU who wanted to turn my comment into something
else. Do you just assume that everyone who posts here for the first
time (although I have posted here before in past years) is a troll?
If you want to call me "ignorant" then fine. I'll plead guilty. At
least I don't have so much of an inflated ego that I can't admit to
it. And being that I haven't really studied the JFK case in 8-9 years
I have forgotten a lot of things. Sorry Ben, but you are your own
worst enemy when it comes to convincing people about a conspiracy.
Ben Holmes
says...
Once again, my decision to killfile someone is illustrated once again.
DVP refuses to decry an obvious lie... wonder why?
David Von Pein
Who coulda thunk it?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>my prediction... we have another ignorant troll.
>
>"troll is a person who enters an established community such as an
>online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption,
>often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory,
>insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the
>intent of provoking a reaction from others"
Yep... excellent description.
>"Troll" is the most overused word on the internet. It was your
>original snide remark to me that started all of this. I never
>intentionally tried to disrupt anything. I just agreed with David
>that the video showed JFK's coat being bunched up. That was it.
That you'd agree with DVP *immediately* demonstrates troll-like behavior.
>That's all. It was YOU who wanted to turn my comment into something
>else. Do you just assume that everyone who posts here for the first
>time (although I have posted here before in past years) is a troll?
Yep. And if you've lurked for any time at all around here, you'd know *EXACTLY*
the truth of that. Time will tell whether you're guilty as charged, or if I owe
you an apology. But sad to say, statistically, I have nothing to worry about...
my prediction stands.
>If you want to call me "ignorant" then fine. I'll plead guilty. At
>least I don't have so much of an inflated ego that I can't admit to
>it. And being that I haven't really studied the JFK case in 8-9 years
>I have forgotten a lot of things. Sorry Ben, but you are your own
>worst enemy when it comes to convincing people about a conspiracy.
No, not at all. The *trolls* hate me, but the people with serious interest will
find nothing but facts from me.
We'll see very quickly where you fit on the spectrum, but I've made my
prediction loudly and in print.
David Von Pein
BTW, what do you think of Vince Bugliosi's abilities as an author and
lawyer (and Oswald's prosecutor at the Mock Trial in '86)?
Just curious.
Walt
> Fair enough. In the early 90's I went to a "3rd Decade" Symposium in
> Dallas. My most vivid memories of it was the in-fighting amoung the
> various panel members. Thankfully, 1 or 2 originator's of the
> symposium tried to calm things down and act as peacemakers. I
> rememeber one of them saying "when the conspiracy is proven we will
> all be able to take credit". There were HUGE egos on those panels.
> Looking back at it I thought that maybe they should of had a sign at
> the entrance "Please Leave Your Egos at the Door".
Right On.... You've hit the bullseye. And you probably noticed that
not one of the CT's had an ironclad case. Infact some of them should
have been banished from the panel because they were basing their pet
theory on feeble information. Robert Groden is one that comes to
mind. He knows there was a conspiracy, but rather than join forces
with others to prove it, he will alter ( he calls it "enhansing")
photos to try to make a point. That irritates the hell outta me.
Harold Weisberg was one of the pioneers in uncovering a lot of
info...but he wouldn't join forces with anybody to advance the case.
He absolutely hated Jim Garrison..... If he had joined forces with
Garrison I'm sure we'd have a more cohesive idea of the truth than we
now do.
Walt
>
>
>
> > You're selecting a few well known CT's and using the disagreement
> > between them to make it appear that CT's are not in agreement. ALL
> > CT's agree that there was a conspiracy to Murder JFK.. There is
> > disagreement on the details about that conspiracy , but that's to be
> > expected..... Because the Warren Commission, and the HSCA delivered
> > so much disinformation that it;s difficult to sift the winnow from the
> > wheat.
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
"facts" that he then cannot POSSIBLY weave into any semblance of a
"COHESIVE TAPESTRY OF CONSPIRACY" in the JFK case.
Just ask him some BASIC questions like: What is your shot-by-shot
account of the shooting via your CT mindset?
Or: How is it possible that these "plotters" could have been so egg-
headed to even WANT to shoot JFK with multiple guns within the PRE-
ARRANGED context of a ONE-PATSY PLOT?
He won't answer those questions. He can't. He'd look like a bigger
boob than he's already proven himself to be if he did answer them.
Ben can't place his isolated, piecemeal conspiracy TOGETHER into
anything approaching a realistic, doable, usable, non-kooky-sounding
scenario. Which is one of THE biggest reasons to know that (despite
some piecemeal "facts" that, when KEPT ISOLATED, might lead a kook to
scream "Conspiracy" from the top of their orange crate) no multi-gun
conspiracy existed in Dallas on 11/22/63 (esp. of the MULTI-GUN, ONE-
PATSY variety, which is the type that Ben seems to want to actually
believe and peddle around these parts).
THAT kind of loony multi-rifle plot would never have been CONSIDERED
for a moment by anyone who wanted to frame a single "Patsy".
But Ben, being incapable of ASSEMBLING data correctly and logically,
can't (won't) see things in that rational way. Nor will many other
Oliver Stone lovers in America...which is why Vince Bugliosi
definitely needs at least 100 pages or more devoted to "SMASHING
STONE'S SILLINESS" in VB's upcoming book.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <vrzCh.46313$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, Martin Shackelford
> says...
> >
> >Odd, then, that you don't accept the validity of the Zapruder film, which
> >was introduced by Jim Garrison through validating testimony by Abraham
> >Zapruder.
>
>
> I accept the legal *admissibility* of the Zapruder film. The *EVIDENCE*, which
> you refuse to discuss - illustrates that the extant Z-film has been altered, and
> is therefore suspect as evidence.
>
> Particularly when it contradicts the eyewitnesses.
>
>
> >The new film has been validated by George Jefferies, the fellow who took it.
> >He was interviewed on ABC News.
>
>
> It will never be examined, since it's now in the haven of the museum. And in
> *this* case, such 'validation' wouldn't mean much - since the only detail bound
> to be of interest is something that Jefferies *certainly* never noticed in 1963
> - and is probably quite unaware of even now
Excellent sidestep. To recap, Ben was demanding validation. Martin
provided it. The legal requirement for such validation is pretty lax,
you only need the person in question vouching for the fact that they
took the film, and it is representave of what they took the film of.
So, instead of addressing that Martin supplied what he demanded, he
starts pointing out irrelevancies to the point.
Bud
Why wait?
> I have *NEVER* stated that this film is a fraud - that would be *IDENTICAL* with
> the mass rush to accept it totally and 100% without any research whatsoever.
>
> But Bud can't argue the actual evidence - this is why he's willing to lie...
You were obviously making the case that the film was fake. Why
distance yourself from that position now?
Bud
gvravel wrote:
> Fair enough. In the early 90's I went to a "3rd Decade" Symposium in
> Dallas. My most vivid memories of it was the in-fighting amoung the
> various panel members. Thankfully, 1 or 2 originator's of the
> symposium tried to calm things down and act as peacemakers. I
> rememeber one of them saying "when the conspiracy is proven we will
> all be able to take credit". There were HUGE egos on those panels.
> Looking back at it I thought that maybe they should of had a sign at
> the entrance "Please Leave Your Egos at the Door".
For what it`s worth, by going to one of these things establishes
your kook credentials to me.
lazu...@webtv.net
dishonesty of lone nutters - if you are leaning towards the official
story fair enough, just don't ever tell us there isn't helluva lot of
evidence against the SBT, and the headshot only from the rear and myriad
CIA connections of Oswald and associates and of conspiracy.Trying to
make these points like it's an esoteric kooky idea.That's why I give
them some of their own medicine.
curtjester1
> A recently-discovered color film of JFK's motorcade (on Main Street)
> has just been donated to the Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza.
>
> Gary Mack of the Museum has made the crystal-clear and colorful 39-
> second film available on the Internet as well. (The Sixth Floor
> Museum's Main Page has info on the film and a link to it.)
>
> The film was taken approximately 90 seconds before the shooting by a
> Mr. George Jefferies, and is most notable for the ultra-clear view we
> can get of the very-noticeably BUNCHED-UP coat/jacket of President
> Kennedy just as he passes Jefferies' camera.
>
> When freeze-framing some of these frames (at the 0:23 and 0:25 marks),
> the "bunching" of the suit coat is very vivid.
>
> Here's a direct link to this new film.....
>
> www.jfk.org/research/jefferies/George_Jefferies_film.wmv
It's really a bogus issue. All one has to do is hold up the shirt and
the coat side by side and one can see that the holes are in the same
spot. Look for a pic in Anson's, They've Killed The President.
Of course you can say that the shirt bunched as well. But is that
likely?
CJ
Fidel
thought it was appropriate to have such an extensive portion of it
focused on the Texas School Book Depository and also to film it in
such a way as to show the 6th floor.
At the time of the assassination, or 90 seconds before who would have
known that the School Book Depository would have historical interest?
No other building was filmed in this sequence.
Why not?
Matt
gvravel
I do somewhat recall the mock trial but I don't remember it enough to
form an opinion. That's probably a show I'd like to re-watch.
He did a book on the OJ Simpson trial (why OJ got away with murder).
So, in my own mine, that's a big plus for him.
Actually, I will probably get his new book "Reclaiming History" when
it comes out this summer. I figure that I've read more than a dozen
books on the conspiracy side I might as well read one from the anti-
conspiracy side.
David Von Pein
Good heavens, if all you've read are pro-CT books, I must applaud you
for keeping your head on straight and not being fully duped by the
likes of Lane, Fetzer, Marrs, Garrison, et al. That's a big feather in
your cap right there, IMO.
VB's large tome will be the last book you'll need to read on the
subject.
Also: You can watch portions of the '86 LHO Trial here:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bugliosi+assassination&search=Search
~~~~~~
"In any political assassination, ladies and gentlemen, almost as
inevitably as death and taxes, there is always a chorus of critics
screaming the word 'conspiracy' before the fatal bullet has even come
to rest.
"The evidence that will be presented at this trial will show that
there
is no substance to the persistent charge by these critics that Lee
Harvey Oswald was just a patsy, set up to take the fall by some
elaborate conspiracy.
"We expect the evidence -- ALL of the evidence -- to show that Lee
Harvey Oswald, acting alone, was responsible for the assassination of
John F. Kennedy.
"We expect the defense -- in an anemic effort to deflect suspicion
away
from Mr. Oswald -- to offer theory, speculation, conjecture, but not
one speck of credible evidence that any other person or group murdered
President Kennedy and framed Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder that
they
committed. As this trial unfolds, you will see how utterly
preposterous
the allegation of a frame-up is." -- V. Bugliosi; 1986
David Von Pein
Jefferies' brief TSBD footage was filmed from a different location
than his JFK Main St. footage...with the TSBD footage also obviously
being filmed AFTER the assassination, when all the attention in the
Plaza was being focused on that building.
You don't actually think the Main St. footage and the DP/TSBD footage
were taken at the same time and from the same location...do you?
Martin Shackelford
attended one around the same time. Another LNer, who wrote a book on the
case, even spoke at one.
Martin
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1171993386....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Fidel" <mdub...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172020261.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
sed...@gmail.com
> What I do not understand is why the person who shot this footage
> thought it was appropriate to have such an extensive portion of it
> such a way as to show the 6th floor.
>
> At the time of the assassination, or 90 seconds before who would have
> known that the School Book Depository would have historical interest?
No mystery: That footage was shot the day after.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16736951.htm
David Von Pein
I've read that too. However.....
The Jefferies footage shows the Hertz sign, with a temperature reading
of "66" degrees visible.
Now, since the temperature WAS "66 degrees" on the Hertz sign just 10
minutes after 12:30 on Nov. 22 (per a photo snapped by Jim Murray,
where the "66" is plainly visible on the sign)...it leads me to
believe that Jefferies might have filmed the TSBD on Nov. 22, instead
of the next day.
Although, I suppose he could have filmed the Depository the following
day, and the temperature also just happened to be "66" when he filmed
the sign.
This matter, of course, isn't the slightest bit important, but I
thought I'd toss it out on the stoop anyway. It was merely a casual
observation.
Bud
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Nice to hear, Bud. That would make John McAdams a kook as well, as he
> attended one around the same time. Another LNer, who wrote a book on the
> case, even spoke at one.
At any asylum, Martin, you have your guards and you have your
inmates.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1172089641....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> McAdams was there under a fake name.
Can you blame him? Those places are known to be frequented by
kooks.
Martin Shackelford
well-treated.
Neither McAdams (who most people at the time didn't know from Adam) nor
Posner (who agreed to speak, then backed out) had the same courage.
Martin
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1172139806.1...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...