RARELY-SEEN VERSION OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM
David Von Pein
RARE VERSION OF Z-FILM:
www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1999.042
====================================
On November 22, 1963, Dallas dress manufacturer Abraham Zapruder took
the most famous home movie in history, when he captured the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.
The version of Mr. Zapruder's film linked above is quite rare, in that
it includes several seconds at the start of the movie that are not
generally seen by the public.
The first images seen in this version show Zapruder's secretary/
assistant, Lillian Rogers, at her desk in the Dal-Tex Building (across
the street from the Texas School Book Depository).
www.jfk.org/go/collections/online?f=qgUAAAAABA~~#qgUAAAAABAcc_1__
aeffects
all this on the 'B' side of the alleged in-camera original Zapruder
film, eh? Can you get anything right? What's on the 'A' side?
aeffects
so many Zapruder film versions, so little time <sigh> and ALL
magically color corrected for our viewing pleasure...
curtjester1
Looks like the same old fabricated Zapruder film to me with Mary and
Jean getting those real stylish white shoes (when they wore black that
day), and them standing way off the street in the grass when the
Muchmore film shows them in the street. And the same old vehicles
going the other way, err I should say not going at all but at a
completely frozen standstill. Yep, not even a little bob weave with a
few frames....it's a whole new cartoon. I am surprised the Sixth
Floor hasn't offered you a job yet VPB.
CJ
David Von Pein
Yeah, you're right Jester-Kook --- the film's fabricators thought it
was MUCH more important to monkey around with the color of Mary's and
Jean's shoes than it was to eliminate the rear head snap that still
exists in the faked version of the movie.
After they got done performing needless tasks such as changing
peoples' shoe colors, they just flat-out didn't have any time left to
phony-up anything really important--like that head snap that makes
everybody scream 'conspiracy' when they see it.
Right, Kook?
David Von Pein
I wonder who VPB is?
Timelord
news:457ad111-2ba7-434d...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
I wish to thank you David, For making my case for me...
--
Thanks,
Timelord
Charlie's Place BBS, Newsgroups - Games - Files - Gifs
--- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 2.03
Charlie's Place BBS - http://cpbbs.synchro.net:8080 - telnet://cpbbs.synchro.net.16:8023 - ftp://cpbbs.synchro.net:8021/00index.html
David Von Pein
>>> "I wish to thank you David, for making my case for me." <<<
Yeah, the conspiracy theorist calling himself (or herself) "Timelord"
can now theorize that Lillian Rogers was part of the plot after seeing
the rare version of the Zapruder Film that includes Rogers.*
* = At least the 6th-Floor Museum website claims that the woman in the
film is Lillian Rogers (Zapruder's secretary). That's the first time
I'd heard of the woman in the film being specifically identified. In
fact, in Richard Trask's 2005 Z-Film book, "National Nightmare On Six
Feet Of Film", Trask doesn't seem to know the identity of the woman in
the film either, only saying the unnamed person that we see at the
start of the film is "a female employee" (page 30).
I tend to trust Gary Mack and his Museum's caption, however, when it
comes to IDing the woman as Rogers.
www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1999.042
aeffects
> I wonder who VPB is?
someone named Dave Reitzes... he's got a twin brother living in a
closet in Indiana.... named Von Pain
curtjester1
> I wonder who VPB is?
I wonder if this is a new mole?! Everyone here knows what a
vonpeabrain is...:D
CJ
curtjester1
> Yeah, you're right Jester-Kook --- the film's fabricators thought it
> was MUCH more important to monkey around with the color of Mary's and
> Jean's shoes than it was to eliminate the rear head snap that still
> exists in the faked version of the movie.
>
It was not like they were 'trying' to do that. They had to make a lot
of things fit by adding backgrounds and such. They simply forgot
about ordinary details like the place they were filming, and that they
were not quite midgets. White wasn't an off color, and they just
chose the wrong one. A long way from penny loafers, indeed.
> After they got done performing needless tasks such as changing
> peoples' shoe colors, they just flat-out didn't have any time left to
> phony-up anything really important--like that head snap that makes
> everybody scream 'conspiracy' when they see it.
>
They knew people would argue over that, as you can see they do. All
they need is people to argue. Once they get folks on their side to
argue, all they have to do is sit areound and smile. Of course they
had to leave some stuff in, because the stopping of the limo was what
they were going for. And that blob. Nobody saw the blob. Nobody
there in Dealey, and nobody at Parkland.
> Right, Kook?
Yeth, DVPB.
CJ
Timelord
At least you admit you are not qualified to judge the shooting...
I suggest that you take a copy of the entire film of AZ to a professional
expert have him mark all edits in the film itself ( your will love this ).
You really should take the time to learn the importance of film evidence
Sorry about the misquote I must have bin over tired (
'Mcgruder','Zapruder' ). OOPS...
David Von Pein
>>> "It was not like they were 'trying' to do that. They had to make a lot of things fit by adding backgrounds and such. They simply forgot about ordinary details like the place they were filming, and that they were not quite midgets. White wasn't an off color, and they just chose the wrong one. A long way from penny loafers, indeed." <<<
Why did "they" have to mess around with the shoes of any witness?
BTW, as is quite obvious to anybody who isn't a total fruitcake, Mary
Moorman's dark shoes are merely obscured and blurred (and never quite
clearly visible) due to the constant panning motion of Zapruder's
camera. I can't make out a specific COLOR for Toni Foster's shoes in
this Z-Film frame either. Did "they" fuck around with her shoes too,
ya think?
The "white shoes" that the kooks think they're seeing here are
obviously Moorman's white SOCKS. Is it the contention of the Z-Film
alteration kooks that they can positively distinguish exactly where
Mary's socks END and where her white shoes BEGIN here?:
http://www.copweb.be/images/Moorman-all.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z299.jpg
curtjester1
> >>> "It was not like they were 'trying' to do that. They had to make a lot of things fit by adding backgrounds and such. They simply forgot about ordinary details like the place they were filming, and that they were not quite midgets. White wasn't an off color, and they just chose the wrong one. A long way from penny loafers, indeed." <<<
>
> Why did "they" have to mess around with the shoes of any witness?
>
had no shoes to go on, and didn't think of looking into other portions
of the day. At the time the shoes of the women weren't visible as
they were obscured by the limo passing and the curb from behind.
> BTW, as is quite obvious to anybody who isn't a total fruitcake, Mary
> Moorman's dark shoes are merely obscured and blurred (and never quite
> clearly visible) due to the constant panning motion of Zapruder's
> camera. I can't make out a specific COLOR for Toni Foster's shoes in
> this Z-Film frame either. Did "they" fuck around with her shoes too,
> ya think?
>
They wouldn't have to as Toni was on the grass. Of course they were
playing with the 'focus' of the whole grass itself, as she appears way
too tall in comparison to the Moorman and Hill gals. So that's what
investigators will do, they will find objects surrounding them like
lamposts and figure exactly what they were doing. They knew Toni
Foster was only 5'2", so they knew in comparison with all the
surrounding fixed height's that she would have been 6 and a half feet
tall. So the conspirators enlarged the area from the curb upward.
They also could figure out that Mary Moorman was in the street by the
fact of how her pictures came out, and exactly where she would have
been heighth-wise to make the picture points all come out. If she was
standing on the grass, the pictures would simply not have made sense.
And do you think that they would have known whether they were standing
on the grass or on the street, DVPB? Yet, you believe what the
conspirators want to present to you in the Z film, the section they
had to take out and refurbish with Chaney gone, the limo slowing/
stopping, the girls on the grass, the vehicles at a standstill, the
blob, the no blood on the back of the limo, and the no blood exiting
JFK's head. And of course they had to do another section earlier,
with JFK and Connally getting hit with too many shots by sticking by
enlarging the Stemmons sign and taking out specific frames of the
Zfilm. Of course they had to get a hold of the other photos and film
to rid of inconsistencies also, but one thing they didn't figure was
people would look at all of them so close and find things missing or
added on that would make their whole project so mistake-ridden and
identifiable.
> The "white shoes" that the kooks think they're seeing here are
> obviously Moorman's white SOCKS. Is it the contention of the Z-Film
> alteration kooks that they can positively distinguish exactly where
> Mary's socks END and where her white shoes BEGIN here?:
>
> http://www.copweb.be/images/Moorman-all.jpg
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z299.jpg
The white sox were visible while they were standing on the curb from
the Muchmore film. The shoes were not. They guessed wrong when they
finsished the cartoon.....or they just made them, all socks, eh?
CJ
David Von Pein
Geesh, what a kook (Jester this time).
curtjester1
> Geesh, what a kook (Jester this time).
Just like Johnnie Cochran....if the shoe's don't fit, you must acquit.
CJ
Timelord
>
> Geesh, what a kook (Jester this time).
>
That is all I needed to know, It is very clear to me now.
The USA needs to create an org. to restore freedom in America
Timelord
news:143d5d8f-dd6f-482f...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
CJ
Wrong, The shoe fits real well but no ones listening
Note: in the AZ film, The smoke report from the riffle is visible as are the
edits.
( so who pays attention? ) It does come to a point. Do you want to live in a
free country???
curtjester1
this> wrote:
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:143d5d8f-dd6f-482f...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 10:30 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Geesh, what a kook (Jester this time).
>
> Just like Johnnie Cochran....if the shoe's don't fit, you must acquit.
>
> CJ
>
> Wrong, The shoe fits real well but no ones listening
> Note: in the AZ film, The smoke report from the riffle is visible as are the
> edits.
> ( so who pays attention? ) It does come to a point. Do you want to live in a
> free country???
It really is a good but sad point. People, even those that are
conspiracy knowledgeable rather circle jerk with trolls or the words
of the WC that they deem to have to find anomalies or end runs, but
think that is the end of the means while the conspirators still run
their lives.
CJ
Bud
Yah, Johnnie was misrepresenting his situation also. But, if kooks
couldn`t make absolute assertions from blurry film, they`d have
nothing at all.
Bud
Obviously, the low shoes are lost in the shadow (but you can make
out the black shoe strap above her ankle). And with all the trickery,
they managed to align the photo Moremann took with the z-film frame
David produced.
But, the kooks might be on to something, I can`t clearly make out
one eyeball on any of the people in that z-frame, and I`m pretty sure
they all had `em.
curtjester1
Of course you have to invent shadows for some kinds of wacky
discoloration theory, but you avoid something way more glaring, and
that is the fact that they said they jumped down the curb onto the
street when the motorcade when JFK's limo approached. Also you avoid
the facts that they took pictures and calculated that the photo taken
at the time of the headshot couldn't have matched any position on the
grass. And of course everything else was in nice color except for the
feet. Also the ladies appear way to small for all the surrounding
objects. You can do better than 'the shadow knows', Bud.
CJ
Bud
Far be it from me to try a dissuade a kook when he thinks things
are fishy, CJ. Heres to 40 more years of "this don`t look right to me,
you better explain it to my satisfaction or I will believe stupid
shit".
David Von Pein
>>> "They [Jean Hill & Mary Moorman] said they jumped down the curb onto the street when JFK's limo approached." <<<
If Jester would just cross-reference a few things, he could easily see
how silly his position is re. the Z-Film fakery.
For some reason, CTers think that this frame from Marie Muchmore's
film PROVES that Jean Hill and Mary Moorman were standing IN THE
STREET at the moment of the fatal head shot:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/08th_Issue/muchmore.gif
Please tell us, O Great Conspiracy Kook, HOW the above photo proves
that Hill & Moorman were "in the street" at that moment?
Plus, is Charles Brehm supposedly standing in the street as well in
the Muchmore film? Chuck seems to be about parallel to H&M's position.
Plus (and this is a biggie from a "common sense" perspective)......
By taking just one quick look at the famous James Altgens photo
(linked below).....
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
.....a reasonable person would easily be able to determine the
following: There's no way that Jean Hill and Mary Moorman would have
even wanted to step down INTO THE STREET as JFK's limo passed by them
-- because if they were to have done that, the ladies would have been
running the risk of getting run over by one of the police motorcycles
that was riding alongside the Secret Service follow-up car just behind
Kennedy's limousine.
If the women had physically stepped out onto Elm Street at the exact
time when JFK passed them, Hill and Moorman would have practically
been touching the motorcycle that was to the left-rear of JFK's car.
In short -- Hill and Moorman never went into the street as JFK passed
them on November 22, 1963. It's silly to even think they would have
wanted to do that (given the location of the police motorcycle, as
seen in the Altgens picture).
Plus: There's also the fact that the same Altgens picture shows the
shadows of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman (and Charles Brehm)....and those
three witnesses are NOT in the street at all. They are on the grass,
just exactly where they were at Z-Frame 313 as well.
The Altgens photo was taken at the equivalent of approx. Z-Film frame
255. So the theorists who want to have Hill and Moorman "in the
street" when President Kennedy's car was passing their position need
the women to both make that move onto the Elm St. pavement in the 1 to
2 seconds that follow the taking of Altgens' picture.
Because the women would have surely stepped down into the street (for
a better view of the President) by at least Zapruder Frame 290 (shown
below), and probably even earlier than that:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z290.jpg
If they had waited until after approx. Z290, what would have been the
point of stepping into the street at all? The President's car would
have already passed them by.
So, the Altgens photograph (for the multiple reasons mentioned) is
just one more nail in the coffin of the idiotic "Hill & Moorman Were
In The Street" theory.
Or is Jim Altgens' picture supposedly a "fake" too?
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep, there are about a 100 things in the photographs and films AFTER
they have been messed with that still don't jibe with human logic.
So, don't just pick on the shoes Bud. If LNT'ers aren't going to get
passed one glaring event, what makes a CT'er think that there going to
get anywhere with the other 99 events?!
CJ
curtjester1
You simply have to read the account. Jean Lollis Hill just did that
in her book, The Last Dissenting Witness. She said that Mary, who she
was with, were there to take photos and we're granted special
permission to even be in that particular spot. That was because she
was dating the cop that was on the outside flank of the limo J.B.
Marshall. Her account clearly states as the limo approached them they
got off the curb, and got too close to the limo while in the street
and took even a step or two back (but still in the street) to say
something to the President to get his attention and to snap. The
Altgens photo was too early or he was not as far down as he was or who
knows if any of it was eventually doctored. The photo of the headshot
was after the limo had passed them.
CJ
Bud
Where are you going with them, Curt? Where can you go with "this
doesn`t look right to me? Should the government gather experts to
explain these things to you once more? Would that do any good, don`t
you prefer to think they are fishy?
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
The government has been gathering 'experts' for a long time, Bud. We
know they do this for a party-line reason. Basically it's called
selling your soul to the company. Why should I care if it does any
good? People have been stupid enough to believe the gov't guys are
good for far too long. You just have to face the fact that it was a
sunny day, and lots of shoes can be seen by other cameras just fine.
In fact, the Bronson photo looks like it has Mary's feet still white,
and I assume she is on the street, and Jean going toward the street
with something black on the bottom of her left leg appendage. Do you
think they might have caught her from a distance with her black
canvass boat shoe? When people come up with Shadow on a Sunny Day
excuses, we tend to think they should stop worrying about the JFK case
and worry about their own state of mind.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud, the government has imposed it's will on the witnesses, the police
force, by intimidating and killing when necessary when there was any
flak that went against the anything-other-than-Oswald theory. Of
course their 'experts'are people like you who simply sell their souls
to the company store and have the gall to act like they are doing
their patriotic duties. At least we can have the satisfaction of
knowing and occasionally letting people know just how evil they are
and what lengths they will go to propogate their will on the
citizenry. We don't have to depend on Sunshine to be the cause of
Bad Shadows. We can go to the evidence. People who say they were
out on the street trumps the camera. We have the Bronson film
showing all the pretty shoes from behind, and yet Mary is still white,
and Jean is at the curb stepping with something black on the bottom of
her long appedange instead of white. We don't run, hide, distort,
and make up wild theories, like you Bud.
CJ
Bud
> On Jul 7, 11:52 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 8:41 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jul 6, 8:14 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > passed one glaring event, what makes a CT'er think that there going to
> > > get anywhere with the other 99 events?!
>
> > > CJ
>
> > Where are you going with them, Curt? Where can you go with "this
> > doesn`t look right to me? Should the government gather experts to
> > explain these things to you once more? Would that do any good, don`t
> > you prefer to think they are fishy?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> know they do this for a party-line reason. Basically it's called
> selling your soul to the company. Why should I care if it does any
> good? People have been stupid enough to believe the gov't guys are
> good for far too long. You just have to face the fact that it was a
> sunny day, and lots of shoes can be seen by other cameras just fine.
> In fact, the Bronson photo looks like it has Mary's feet still white,
> and I assume she is on the street, and Jean going toward the street
> with something black on the bottom of her left leg appendage. Do you
> think they might have caught her from a distance with her black
> canvass boat shoe? When people come up with Shadow on a Sunny Day
> excuses, we tend to think they should stop worrying about the JFK case
> and worry about their own state of mind.
>
> CJ
Ah, there are no shadows on sunny days. Shadows only occur on
overcast days? Night?
Bud
> On Jul 7, 11:52 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 8:41 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jul 6, 8:14 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > passed one glaring event, what makes a CT'er think that there going to
> > > get anywhere with the other 99 events?!
>
> > > CJ
>
> > Where are you going with them, Curt? Where can you go with "this
> > doesn`t look right to me? Should the government gather experts to
> > explain these things to you once more? Would that do any good, don`t
> > you prefer to think they are fishy?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Bud, the government has imposed it's will on the witnesses, the police
> force, by intimidating and killing when necessary when there was any
> flak that went against the anything-other-than-Oswald theory.
Thats just stupid shit, Curt. What Dealy witness was killed for not
playing ball the day of the assassination? What TSBD witness? What Oak
Cliff witness?
> Of
> course their 'experts'are people like you who simply sell their souls
> to the company store and have the gall to act like they are doing
> their patriotic duties.
You think it should be left to idiots like yourself? "Duh, this
don`t look right to me." OK, it doesn`t look right to you. Now what?
> At least we can have the satisfaction of
> knowing and occasionally letting people know just how evil they are
> and what lengths they will go to propogate their will on the
> citizenry. We don't have to depend on Sunshine to be the cause of
> Bad Shadows. We can go to the evidence.
But you can`t understand the evidence, and resist all attempts at
explaining it to you.
> People who say they were
> out on the street trumps the camera.
People who say there was a dog in the limo must also trump the
camera. Yet the person was wrong, and the camera was right.
> We have the Bronson film
> showing all the pretty shoes from behind, and yet Mary is still white,
> and Jean is at the curb stepping with something black on the bottom of
> her long appedange instead of white. We don't run, hide, distort,
> and make up wild theories, like youBud.
You don`t understand photography, and the way details become
distorted in film. Experts are needed, not idiots with one finger up
their nose saying it doesn`t look right. Or junkies.
> CJ
curtjester1
mind. Jean was followed, staked out on, and phoned repeatedly for up
to two years following the assassination, .....just for not recanting
what she saw concerning the shooter on the Grassy Knoll. Oh, and her
mechanic said that her accident was caused by someone fiddling with
the nuts on the steering column which were made to appear that it
would be faulty driving. Oh, yes, and Lee Bowers comes to mind with a
similar 'accident'. Craig, shot at, lost his job, nd hounded for
years. Hill's boyfriend cop, J.B. Marshall basically said that the
Feds were so intimidating at DPD that most were afraid of breathing
and losing their jobs if they didn't follow the party line. Warren
Reynolds, who got shot in the head for not testify to Oswald's
identity at the Tippit murder....Benavides' brother and
Dad.....Aquilla Clemons....Ruby girls.......all the confiscation of
film so quickly and readily after the shots....
> > Of
> > course their 'experts'are people like you who simply sell their souls
> > to the company store and have the gall to act like they are doing
> > their patriotic duties.
>
> You think it should be left to idiots like yourself? "Duh, this
> don`t look right to me." OK, it doesn`t look right to you. Now what?
>
The pattern is clear and the intimidation still goes on today.
> > At least we can have the satisfaction of
> > knowing and occasionally letting people know just how evil they are
> > and what lengths they will go to propogate their will on the
> > citizenry. We don't have to depend on Sunshine to be the cause of
> > Bad Shadows. We can go to the evidence.
>
> But you can`t understand the evidence, and resist all attempts at
> explaining it to you.
>
Are you trying to explain something about shadows, Bud?
> > People who say they were
> > out on the street trumps the camera.
>
> People who say there was a dog in the limo must also trump the
> camera. Yet the person was wrong, and the camera was right.
>
Actually, what the camera showed was that it could have easily been
anything like a dog. It was something. Feet touching a street don't
need good eyesight, do they Bud? When it doesn't fit your shadow
theory, they must be wrong, huh Bud?
> > We have the Bronson film
> > showing all the pretty shoes from behind, and yet Mary is still white,
> > and Jean is at the curb stepping with something black on the bottom of
> > her long appedange instead of white. We don't run, hide, distort,
> > and make up wild theories, like youBud.
>
> You don`t understand photography, and the way details become
> distorted in film. Experts are needed, not idiots with one finger up
> their nose saying it doesn`t look right. Or junkies.
>
Oh, and like you do. Is your shadow theory based on photographic
expertism? What is needed to show that the color black is not white,
Bud?
CJ
>
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Wasn`t what they both had to say recorded the day of the
assassination?
> Jean was followed, staked out on, and phoned repeatedly for up
> to two years following the assassination, .....
Says who, Jean Hill?
>just for not recanting
> what she saw concerning the shooter on the Grassy Knoll.
She saw no grassy knoll shooter.
> Oh, and her
> mechanic said that her accident was caused by someone fiddling with
> the nuts on the steering column which were made to appear that it
> would be faulty driving.
What is the point of killing anyone after they give an affidavit
stating what they saw?
> Oh, yes, and Lee Bowers comes to mind with a
> similar 'accident'.
His statements would still be on record.
> Craig, shot at, lost his job, nd hounded for
> years.
His statements would still be on record.
> Hill's boyfriend cop, J.B. Marshall basically said that the
> Feds were so intimidating at DPD that most were afraid of breathing
> and losing their jobs if they didn't follow the party line.
List the names of those that the FBI caused to be fired.
> Warren
> Reynolds, who got shot in the head for not testify to Oswald's
> identity at the Tippit murder....
He was probably shot by a conspiracy kook.
>Benavides' brother and
> Dad.....
Again, Benavide`s brother was probably shot by a conspiracy kook.
>Aquilla Clemons....Ruby girls.......all the confiscation of
> film so quickly and readily after the shots....
You don`t think they should have gathered the photographic evidence
of the murder?
> > > Of
> > > course their 'experts'are people like you who simply sell their souls
> > > to the company store and have the gall to act like they are doing
> > > their patriotic duties.
>
> > You think it should be left to idiots like yourself? "Duh, this
> > don`t look right to me." OK, it doesn`t look right to you. Now what?
>
> The pattern is clear and the intimidation still goes on today.
The pattern is clear... kooks at work.
> > > At least we can have the satisfaction of
> > > knowing and occasionally letting people know just how evil they are
> > > and what lengths they will go to propogate their will on the
> > > citizenry. We don't have to depend on Sunshine to be the cause of
> > > Bad Shadows. We can go to the evidence.
>
> > But you can`t understand the evidence, and resist all attempts at
> > explaining it to you.
>
> Are you trying to explain something about shadows, Bud?
You seem unaware of the existance of them.
> > > People who say they were
> > > out on the street trumps the camera.
>
> > People who say there was a dog in the limo must also trump the
> > camera. Yet the person was wrong, and the camera was right.
>
> Actually, what the camera showed was that it could have easily been
> anything like a dog. It was something.
It showed the witness to be wrong. They film also showed her to be
wrong about anyone returning fire on the shooter.
> Feet touching a street don't
> need good eyesight, do they Bud?
<snicker> Now you are claiming your witness to a knoll shooter had
bad eyesight? She can`t tell a dog from flowers, but can spot a
shooter from a distance? A bush, maybe? And then she neglects to
provide this information about a shooter in her initial statements.
> When it doesn't fit your shadow
> theory, they must be wrong, huh Bud?
I`ve established that the film is more reliable than Jean Hill. The
dog, remember?
> > > We have the Bronson film
> > > showing all the pretty shoes from behind, and yet Mary is still white,
> > > and Jean is at the curb stepping with something black on the bottom of
> > > her long appedange instead of white. We don't run, hide, distort,
> > > and make up wild theories, like youBud.
>
> > You don`t understand photography, and the way details become
> > distorted in film. Experts are needed, not idiots with one finger up
> > their nose saying it doesn`t look right. Or junkies.
>
> Oh, and like you do. Is your shadow theory based on photographic
> expertism? What is needed to show that the color black is not white,
> Bud?
What part of "You don`t understand photography, and the way details
get distorted in film" didn`t you get?
aeffects
[...]
> What part of "You don`t understand photography, and the way details
> get distorted in film" didn`t you get?
now the DP films are distorted as well as altered? My oh-my....
Dudster you continually amaze... please keep up your excellent review
of all things DP film....
And do please, give us your extensive (sic) film interp
qualifications. We ALL need a laugh this Sunday mornong
[...]
David Von Pein
>>> "...just for not recanting what she saw concerning the shooter on the Grassy Knoll." <<<
Total bullshit. Jean Hill never "saw" any shooter on the Grassy Knoll
and everybody knows it....especially the late Mrs. Hill:
QUESTION: "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"
JEAN HILL: "No, I didn't see any person fire the weapon."
QUESTION: "You only heard it?"
JEAN HILL: "I only heard it."
Bud
> On Jul 13, 9:31 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What part of "You don`t understand photography, and the way details
> > get distorted in film" didn`t you get?
>
> now the DP films are distorted as well as altered?
No, idiot, distorted does not mean altered. Do you want to make the
case that all the detail in the film is clear?
> My oh-my....
> Dudster you continually amaze... please keep up your excellent review
> of all things DP film....
>
> And do please, give us your extensive (sic) film interp
> qualifications.
Do keep up. I didn`t claim to be an expert, I pointed out that CJ
wasn`t, is all.
> We ALL need a laugh this Sunday mornong
Looks like you are still high from Saturday naught.
> [...]
aeffects
perhaps you can have Gary enlighten you son. Hear-tell he's done a few
interviews with both Mary and Jean
p.s. why should we believe your bullshit? No cites little guy.... bad
habits run deep with Lone Neuter's
aeffects
> On Jul 13, 12:58 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 9:31 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > What part of "You don`t understand photography, and the way details
> > > get distorted in film" didn`t you get?
>
> > now the DP films are distorted as well as altered?
>
> No, idiot, distorted does not mean altered. Do you want to make the
> case that all the detail in the film is clear?
>
> > My oh-my....
> > Dudster you continually amaze... please keep up your excellent review
> > of all things DP film....
>
> > And do please, give us your extensive (sic) film interp
> > qualifications.
>
> Do keep up. I didn`t claim to be an expert, I pointed out that CJ
> wasn`t, is all.
if you don't know what your talking about, sit down and shut the fuck
up, ya moron... you're approaching the Von Pein upper limit of
idiocy... ya need a job Dudster and ya need to repent...
David Von Pein
>>> "No cites..." <<<
I guess the direct quotes that I provided--from Mrs. Hill herself--
aren't nearly good enough for a Mega-Kook, huh?
Bud's right.....Crackpipe is still high from Saturday night's acid
trip.
aeffects
> >>> "No cites..." <<<
>
> I guess the direct quotes that I provided--from Mrs. Hill herself--
> aren't nearly good enough for a Mega-Kook, huh?
oh sonny, now you display your complete lack of knowledge concerning
these matters..... cite, son, CITE. Your source son... for all we know
you quoting from a person 15 times removed from Jean Hill.
Ya wonder why no one takes your sorry ass serious
> Bud's right.....Crackpipe is still high from Saturday night's acid
> trip.
Now ya gotta hide behind the second biggest fraud posting to this
USENET board, Dudster the Budster.... ya ever wonder where old "BUD"
got that nickname? ROTFLMFAO... the guys been rolling joints for 30+
years you fucking Lone Nut idiot -- Bud the dudster doesn't give a
shit about the JFK murder, the Charles River tycoon is here to make
money.... pay off his student loans...
Get your brother (sic) in here Davey, someone has to talk to your
sorry ass and give you a few facts of life.....
David Von Pein
>>> "Cite, son, CITE. Your source son...for all we know [you're] quoting from a person 15 times removed from Jean Hill." <<<
LOL. Lovely! Now the kook who owns the industrial-sized crackpipe is
going to pretend that he's never once in his life heard either of the
two 11/22/63 Radio/TV interviews featuring Jean Hill's live statements
(which were recorded) about the assassination she had just witnessed a
very short time earlier.
A slightly-edited version of the first interview with Hill can be
heard at the link provided below (the segment with Hill is at the 4:30
mark of this WBAP audio file):
The second WBAP interview with Jean Hill on November 22nd (a recorded
TV interview) is the one that contains these exact words from the lips
of Mrs. Hill (which I posted previously):
QUESTION: "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"
JEAN HILL: "No, I didn't see any person fire the weapon."
QUESTION: "You only heard it?"
JEAN HILL: "I only heard it."
You can hear Hill's second interview in its entirety (including
comments made by Mary Moorman as well) at the NBC-TV link below,
approximately 13 minutes after the start of this audio file:
FOOTNOTES:
BTW/FYI, I "cite" evidence and testimony constantly in my various
forum posts, and I provide clickable links to specific documents,
etc., far more often than anyone else on these forums (at least since
mid-2006 at any rate, which was when my activity on the Google Groups
forums increased substantially). Anyone, therefore, who claims I don't
often provide "cites" for the evidence just flat-out doesn't know what
he is talking about. Period.
BTW #2, some people might be interested in reading Jean Hill's
11/22/63 affidavit....wherein she doesn't mention a thing about seeing
anybody shooting a gun from the Grassy Knoll.
She does say in that affidavit that she "thought [she] saw some men in
plain clothes shooting back", but that comment cannot possibly be
propped up by anyone in an effort to substantiate Hill's later claims
of having physically seen an ASSASSIN firing a weapon FROM THE KNOLL.
Based on Hill's obviously-inaccurate opinion with respect to the
SINGLE source of ALL the gunshots she heard that day (the Grassy
Knoll), any person whom Hill thought might have been "shooting back"
would surely have been doing so from a NON-Knoll location, and
therefore would have been shooting TOWARD the Knoll.
In any event, as we can see from Hill's official November 22 statement
below, she doesn't say a word about SEEING any killer or killers on
the Grassy Knoll. And this statement, btw, gels almost perfectly with
her WBAP taped interview from that same day, with some portions being
close to verbatim to the WBAP interview:
"Mary [Moorman] and I...were the only people in that area and we
were standing right at the curb. The President's car came around the
corner and it was over on our side of the street. Just as Mary Moorman
started to take a picture, we were looking at the President and Jackie
in the back seat and they were looking at a little dog between them.
Just as the President looked up toward us, two shots rang out and I
saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackie's lap,
and she fell across his back and said "My God he has been shot". There
was an instant pause between the first two shots and the motorcade
seemingly halted for an instant and three or four more shots rang out
and the motorcade sped away. I thought I saw some men in plain clothes
shooting back, but everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on
my leg saying "Get down they are shooting". I looked across the street
and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument and I
started running over there. By the time I got up to the railroad
tracks, some policeman that I suppose were [sic] in the motorcade or
nearby had also arrived and was turning us back, and as I came back
down the hill, Mr. Featherstone of the Times Herald had gotten to Mary
and ask[ed] her for her picture she had taken of the President, and he
brought us to the press room down at the Sheriff's office and ask
[sic] to stay."
/s/ Jean Hill [11/22/63]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hillj.htm
===========================================
MORE ABOUT A LIAR KNOWN AS MRS. JEAN LOLLIS HILL:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/01377bde4de2b5e4
www.jfk-info.com/whitmey3.htm
www.jfk-online.com/jfk100jeanhill.html
===========================================
Bud
> >>> "Cite, son, CITE. Your source son...for all we know [you're] quoting from a person 15 times removed from Jean Hill." <<<
>
> LOL. Lovely! Now the kook who owns the industrial-sized crackpipe is
> going to pretend that he's never once in his life heard either of the
> two 11/22/63 Radio/TV interviews featuring Jean Hill's live statements
> (which were recorded) about the assassination she had just witnessed a
> very short time earlier.
This is why Stoner sticks to sound bites. As soon as he says
anything about the evidence of the case, he exposes his complete
ignorance of it.
> A slightly-edited version of the first interview with Hill can be
> heard at the link provided below (the segment with Hill is at the 4:30
> mark of this WBAP audio file):
>
> www.box.net/shared/fktcgssg0g
>
> The second WBAP interview with Jean Hill on November 22nd (a recorded
> TV interview) is the one that contains these exact words from the lips
> of Mrs. Hill (which I posted previously):
>
> QUESTION: "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"
> JEAN HILL: "No, I didn't see any person fire the weapon."
> QUESTION: "You only heard it?"
> JEAN HILL: "I only heard it."
>
> You can hear Hill's second interview in its entirety (including
> comments made by Mary Moorman as well) at the NBC-TV link below,
> approximately 13 minutes after the start of this audio file:
>
> www.box.net/shared/f4m8y468ko
>
> FOOTNOTES:
>
> BTW/FYI, I "cite" evidence and testimony constantly in my various
> forum posts, and I provide clickable links to specific documents,
> etc., far more often than anyone else on these forums (at least since
> mid-2006 at any rate, which was when my activity on the Google Groups
> forums increased substantially). Anyone, therefore, who claims I don't
> often provide "cites" for the evidence just flat-out doesn't know what
> he is talking about. Period.
Yah, compare that to his hero, Ben Holmes, who never provides cites
for his claims, and requires others to find what he is talking about.
Recently in Ben`s discussion with JGL about Marina being threatened
with deportation, he didn`t offer a thing to support that she was
(other than repeatedly making the claim).
> BTW #2, some people might be interested in reading Jean Hill's
> 11/22/63 affidavit....wherein she doesn't mention a thing about seeing
> anybody shooting a gun from the Grassy Knoll.
>
> She does say in that affidavit that she "thought [she] saw some men in
> plain clothes shooting back", but that comment cannot possibly be
> propped up by anyone in an effort to substantiate Hill's later claims
> of having physically seen an ASSASSIN firing a weapon FROM THE KNOLL.
>
> Based on Hill's obviously-inaccurate opinion with respect to the
> SINGLE source of ALL the gunshots she heard that day (the Grassy
> Knoll), any person whom Hill thought might have been "shooting back"
> would surely have been doing so from a NON-Knoll location, and
> therefore would have been shooting TOWARD the Knoll.
>
> In any event, as we can see from Hill's official November 22 statement
> below, she doesn't say a word about SEEING any killer or killers on
> the Grassy Knoll. And this statement, btw, gels almost perfectly with
> her WBAP taped interview from that same day, with some portions being
> close to verbatim to the WBAP interview:
>
> "Mary [Moorman] and I...were the only people in that area and we
> were standing right at the curb.
BTW, the curb isn`t the street, CJ.
> The President's car came around the
> corner and it was over on our side of the street. Just as Mary Moorman
> started to take a picture, we were looking at the President and Jackie
> in the back seat and they were looking at a little dog between them.
She was what, 15-20 feet away from them when she saw this "dog"?
> Just as the President looked up toward us, two shots rang out and I
> saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackie's lap,
> and she fell across his back and said "My God he has been shot". There
> was an instant pause between the first two shots and the motorcade
> seemingly halted for an instant and three or four more shots rang out
> and the motorcade sped away. I thought I saw some men in plain clothes
> shooting back, but everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on
> my leg saying "Get down they are shooting". I looked across the street
> and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument and I
> started running over there. By the time I got up to the railroad
> tracks, some policeman that I suppose were [sic] in the motorcade or
> nearby had also arrived and was turning us back, and as I came back
> down the hill, Mr. Featherstone of the Times Herald had gotten to Mary
> and ask[ed] her for her picture she had taken of the President, and he
> brought us to the press room down at the Sheriff's office and ask
> [sic] to stay."
>
> /s/ Jean Hill [11/22/63]
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hillj.htm
>
> ===========================================
>
> MORE ABOUT A LIAR KNOWN AS MRS. JEAN LOLLIS HILL:
It`s funny that originally, she said she saw no shooter. Then she
is stalked, and threatened and her steering wheel is messed with. Then
she changes her story to seeing a shooter. One can only conclude that
all that intimidation was perpetrated by conspiracy kooks pressuring
her to say she saw a shooter.
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/01377bde4de2b5e4www.jfk-info.com/whitmey3.htmwww.jfk-online.com/jfk100jeanhill.html
>
> ===========================================
curtjester1
> On Jul 14, 1:53 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Cite, son, CITE. Your source son...for all we know [you're] quoting from a person 15 times removed from Jean Hill." <<<
>
> > LOL. Lovely! Now the kook who owns the industrial-sized crackpipe is
> > going to pretend that he's never once in his life heard either of the
> > two 11/22/63 Radio/TV interviews featuring Jean Hill's live statements
> > (which were recorded) about the assassination she had just witnessed a
> > very short time earlier.
>
> This is why Stoner sticks to sound bites. As soon as he says
> anything about the evidence of the case, he exposes his complete
> ignorance of it.
>
one shot coming from beyond the GK fence.
>
>
>
>
> > A slightly-edited version of the first interview with Hill can be
> > heard at the link provided below (the segment with Hill is at the 4:30
> > mark of this WBAP audio file):
>
> >www.box.net/shared/fktcgssg0g
>
> > The second WBAP interview with Jean Hill on November 22nd (a recorded
> > TV interview) is the one that contains these exact words from the lips
> > of Mrs. Hill (which I posted previously):
>
> > QUESTION: "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"
> > JEAN HILL: "No, I didn't see any person fire the weapon."
> > QUESTION: "You only heard it?"
> > JEAN HILL: "I only heard it."
>
Yet there is never been a denying that she saw a shadowy figure beyond
the fence after the head shot. It's obvious that she wouldn't have
been fixated on the fence before the shot was fired.
> > You can hear Hill's second interview in its entirety (including
> > comments made by Mary Moorman as well) at the NBC-TV link below,
> > approximately 13 minutes after the start of this audio file:
>
> >www.box.net/shared/f4m8y468ko
>
> > FOOTNOTES:
>
> > BTW/FYI, I "cite" evidence and testimony constantly in my various
> > forum posts, and I provide clickable links to specific documents,
> > etc., far more often than anyone else on these forums (at least since
> > mid-2006 at any rate, which was when my activity on the Google Groups
> > forums increased substantially). Anyone, therefore, who claims I don't
> > often provide "cites" for the evidence just flat-out doesn't know what
> > he is talking about. Period.
>
> Yah, compare that to his hero, Ben Holmes, who never provides cites
> for his claims, and requires others to find what he is talking about.
> Recently in Ben`s discussion with JGL about Marina being threatened
> with deportation, he didn`t offer a thing to support that she was
> (other than repeatedly making the claim).
>
>
>
>
>
> > BTW #2, some people might be interested in reading Jean Hill's
> > 11/22/63 affidavit....wherein she doesn't mention a thing about seeing
> > anybody shooting a gun from the Grassy Knoll.
>
> > She does say in that affidavit that she "thought [she] saw some men in
> > plain clothes shooting back", but that comment cannot possibly be
> > propped up by anyone in an effort to substantiate Hill's later claims
> > of having physically seen an ASSASSIN firing a weapon FROM THE KNOLL.
>
Actually she says that Moorman as well as her were handed blank
affidavits and told to sign them. She also says that she was
repeatedly bullied into to what she was saying was "wrong" and that
she had to change or their would be trouble and dire consequences.
They were there til 9:00 P.M, where they finally 'escaped' to the
parking lot. Also she did see the last photo that wasn't taken
without her permission like the other photos she was carrying, and she
saw the shadowy figure in that photo.
> > Based on Hill's obviously-inaccurate opinion with respect to the
> > SINGLE source of ALL the gunshots she heard that day (the Grassy
> > Knoll), any person whom Hill thought might have been "shooting back"
> > would surely have been doing so from a NON-Knoll location, and
> > therefore would have been shooting TOWARD the Knoll.
>
> > In any event, as we can see from Hill's official November 22 statement
> > below, she doesn't say a word about SEEING any killer or killers on
> > the Grassy Knoll. And this statement, btw, gels almost perfectly with
> > her WBAP taped interview from that same day, with some portions being
> > close to verbatim to the WBAP interview:
>
She was actually ordered not to give any media interviews or divulge
any information to what she claims she saw.
> > "Mary [Moorman] and I...were the only people in that area and we
> > were standing right at the curb.
>
> BTW, the curb isn`t the street, CJ.
>
No, she was quite clear that they went into the street right before
the throat shot...and almost got to the limo, and retracted toward the
curb by the last shot. The Zap film shows them way on the grass still
approaching the curb. Ooops.
> > The President's car came around the
> > corner and it was over on our side of the street. Just as Mary Moorman
> > started to take a picture, we were looking at the President and Jackie
> > in the back seat and they were looking at a little dog between them.
>
> She was what, 15-20 feet away from them when she saw this "dog"?
>
She also goes into clarity of what Jackie said after the last shot,
and other details of faces of the passengers. It's obvious that she
mistook Jackie holding flowers as for the so-called dog. Elizabeth
Taylor seen holding a dog in a car somehow got in her image. Of
course, detailing something that is very insignificant is just a way
to sidestep something more significant. The ruse is common.
She saw a lot. She was constantly phoned and harassed by Shanklin,
for a long time after the assassination, just to try her to change her
mind on Ruby and where the shots came from. She was a constant phone
prank with her name and home address broadcast on the Darnell TV
interview. Her cop boyfriend was constantly harassed too, and told of
that down at DPD. There was no tolerance for anything but Oswald-
only-TSBD-shots from the very onset. She had an FBI car on her street
a few houses down for everyday for a year and a half....just for
having an opinion that she couldn't turn turncoat on. All she had to
do was recant and all the harassment would go away. She didn't seek
any publicity, only shunned it, yet people like Bud, will invent
things like she was a kook seeking attention. A familiar ruse by the
Conspirator's Regime Community.
>
CJ
David Von Pein
Anyone who believes pretty much anything that was uttered by either of
the two proven liars in the JFK case (Jean Hill & Roger Craig) should
seek a brain transplant asap.
There were no bigger (and more PROVABLE) liars associated with the JFK
murder case than Hill and Craig.
Bud
> On Jul 14, 3:48 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> On Jul 14, 1:53 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "Cite, son, CITE. Your source son...for all we know [you're] quoting from a person 15 times removed from Jean Hill." <<<
>
> > > LOL. Lovely! Now the kook who owns the industrial-sized crackpipe is
> > > going to pretend that he's never once in his life heard either of the
> > > two 11/22/63 Radio/TV interviews featuring Jean Hill's live statements
> > > (which were recorded) about the assassination she had just witnessed a
> > > very short time earlier.
>
> > This is why Stoner sticks to sound bites. As soon as he says
> > anything about the evidence of the case, he exposes his complete
> > ignorance of it.
>
> And yet I don't believe there is any denying that she heard at least
> one shot coming from beyond the GK fence.
So what?
> > > A slightly-edited version of the first interview with Hill can be
> > > heard at the link provided below (the segment with Hill is at the 4:30
> > > mark of this WBAP audio file):
>
> > >www.box.net/shared/fktcgssg0g
>
> > > The second WBAP interview with Jean Hill on November 22nd (a recorded
> > > TV interview) is the one that contains these exact words from the lips
> > > of Mrs. Hill (which I posted previously):
>
> > > QUESTION: "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"
> > > JEAN HILL: "No, I didn't see any person fire the weapon."
> > > QUESTION: "You only heard it?"
> > > JEAN HILL: "I only heard it."
>
> Yet there is never been a denying that she saw a shadowy figure beyond
> the fence after the head shot. It's obvious that she wouldn't have
> been fixated on the fence before the shot was fired.
Now the shooter is a shadowy figure. Couldn`t be shrubbery?
Only an idiot would believe that. Are you such an idiot, Curt?
> She also says that she was
> repeatedly bullied into to what she was saying was "wrong" and that
> she had to change or their would be trouble and dire consequences.
She was bullied into changing what she wrote on her blank affidavit?
> They were there til 9:00 P.M, where they finally 'escaped' to the
> parking lot. Also she did see the last photo that wasn't taken
> without her permission like the other photos she was carrying, and she
> saw the shadowy figure in that photo.
A photo you can`t produce?
> > > Based on Hill's obviously-inaccurate opinion with respect to the
> > > SINGLE source of ALL the gunshots she heard that day (the Grassy
> > > Knoll), any person whom Hill thought might have been "shooting back"
> > > would surely have been doing so from a NON-Knoll location, and
> > > therefore would have been shooting TOWARD the Knoll.
>
> > > In any event, as we can see from Hill's official November 22 statement
> > > below, she doesn't say a word about SEEING any killer or killers on
> > > the Grassy Knoll. And this statement, btw, gels almost perfectly with
> > > her WBAP taped interview from that same day, with some portions being
> > > close to verbatim to the WBAP interview:
>
> She was actually ordered not to give any media interviews or divulge
> any information to what she claims she saw.
She did talk to the media.
> > > "Mary [Moorman] and I...were the only people in that area and we
> > > were standing right at the curb.
>
> > BTW, the curb isn`t the street, CJ.
>
> No, she was quite clear that they went into the street right before
> the throat shot...and almost got to the limo, and retracted toward the
> curb by the last shot. The Zap film shows them way on the grass still
> approaching the curb. Ooops.
Yah, Jean is wrong again.
> > > The President's car came around the
> > > corner and it was over on our side of the street. Just as Mary Moorman
> > > started to take a picture, we were looking at the President and Jackie
> > > in the back seat and they were looking at a little dog between them.
>
> > She was what, 15-20 feet away from them when she saw this "dog"?
>
> She also goes into clarity of what Jackie said after the last shot,
> and other details of faces of the passengers. It's obvious that she
> mistook Jackie holding flowers as for the so-called dog. Elizabeth
> Taylor seen holding a dog in a car somehow got in her image.
Are you saying that she draws from her imagination and inserts it
into what she relates? I think you are on to something.
> Of
> course, detailing something that is very insignificant is just a way
> to sidestep something more significant. The ruse is common.
<snicker> A ruse? If she can get a dog from flowers, she can get a
shadowy figure from any background feature.
curtjester1
They're all liars, Craig, Tilson, O'Donnell, Bowers, Hoffman, Hill,
Arnold, Murcer, Oliver, The Raiload Men. They came to a motorcade so
they could lie in the lurch..and plan their big LIES....LOL.
Peddle you DisInfosim somewhere else.
CJ
curtjester1
> On Jul 14, 7:40 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 3:48 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> On Jul 14, 1:53 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "Cite, son, CITE. Your source son...for all we know [you're] quoting from a person 15 times removed from Jean Hill." <<<
>
> > > > LOL. Lovely! Now the kook who owns the industrial-sized crackpipe is
> > > > going to pretend that he's never once in his life heard either of the
> > > > two 11/22/63 Radio/TV interviews featuring Jean Hill's live statements
> > > > (which were recorded) about the assassination she had just witnessed a
> > > > very short time earlier.
>
> > > This is why Stoner sticks to sound bites. As soon as he says
> > > anything about the evidence of the case, he exposes his complete
> > > ignorance of it.
>
> > And yet I don't believe there is any denying that she heard at least
> > one shot coming from beyond the GK fence.
>
> So what?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > A slightly-edited version of the first interview with Hill can be
> > > > heard at the link provided below (the segment with Hill is at the 4:30
> > > > mark of this WBAP audio file):
>
> > > >www.box.net/shared/fktcgssg0g
>
> > > > The second WBAP interview with Jean Hill on November 22nd (a recorded
> > > > TV interview) is the one that contains these exact words from the lips
> > > > of Mrs. Hill (which I posted previously):
>
> > > > QUESTION: "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"
> > > > JEAN HILL: "No, I didn't see any person fire the weapon."
> > > > QUESTION: "You only heard it?"
> > > > JEAN HILL: "I only heard it."
>
> > Yet there is never been a denying that she saw a shadowy figure beyond
> > the fence after the head shot. It's obvious that she wouldn't have
> > been fixated on the fence before the shot was fired.
>
> Now the shooter is a shadowy figure. Couldn`t be shrubbery?
>
>
Yeah, one with a rifle protruding. It must have been a 'growing
branch' huh, Bud?
Haven't numerous witnesses complained against tactics from their
interviews? Yes, it has been said in print that what came out wasn't
what she said. Of course it's nice to have one's way, and get to
explain things without being prodded as her interrogation was...and
that was in categorries of "Right" and "Wrong" answers. They
complained vigororously when the 'Wrong' answer was given. Seems like
they had an agenda from the beginning. Actually it's proven. They
shouldn't have been able to even pick people out in the crowd taking
pictures or videos...UNLESS they were looking at that before the
assassination took place!
> > She also says that she was
> > repeatedly bullied into to what she was saying was "wrong" and that
> > she had to change or their would be trouble and dire consequences.
>
> She was bullied into changing what she wrote on her blank affidavit?
>
An interview is different from an affadavit, isn't it?
> > They were there til 9:00 P.M, where they finally 'escaped' to the
> > parking lot. Also she did see the last photo that wasn't taken
> > without her permission like the other photos she was carrying, and she
> > saw the shadowy figure in that photo.
>
> A photo you can`t produce?
>
Of course, when all the photos were stolen and never returned before
that photo. Well all the photos were rounded up and don't have any
real credibility do they? At least that photo couldn't be doctored in
that time, and she gave an honest opinion of what it showed. That
same photo has been seen by others and reported on in book form in a
clandestine operation and have seen two figures behind the fence. Of
course a photo was taken directly of the TSBD during that time also,
and of course we can just imagine why that photo was never brought to
the public.
> > > > Based on Hill's obviously-inaccurate opinion with respect to the
> > > > SINGLE source of ALL the gunshots she heard that day (the Grassy
> > > > Knoll), any person whom Hill thought might have been "shooting back"
> > > > would surely have been doing so from a NON-Knoll location, and
> > > > therefore would have been shooting TOWARD the Knoll.
>
> > > > In any event, as we can see from Hill's official November 22 statement
> > > > below, she doesn't say a word about SEEING any killer or killers on
> > > > the Grassy Knoll. And this statement, btw, gels almost perfectly with
> > > > her WBAP taped interview from that same day, with some portions being
> > > > close to verbatim to the WBAP interview:
>
> > She was actually ordered not to give any media interviews or divulge
> > any information to what she claims she saw.
>
> She did talk to the media.
>
Yes, but didn't after all the harassment began shortly after.
> > > > "Mary [Moorman] and I...were the only people in that area and we
> > > > were standing right at the curb.
>
> > > BTW, the curb isn`t the street, CJ.
>
> > No, she was quite clear that they went into the street right before
> > the throat shot...and almost got to the limo, and retracted toward the
> > curb by the last shot. The Zap film shows them way on the grass still
> > approaching the curb. Ooops.
>
> Yah, Jean is wrong again.
>
Of course she has to be wrong. She can't be descriptive about her
feet being in the street, can they?
> > > > The President's car came around the
> > > > corner and it was over on our side of the street. Just as Mary Moorman
> > > > started to take a picture, we were looking at the President and Jackie
> > > > in the back seat and they were looking at a little dog between them.
>
> > > She was what, 15-20 feet away from them when she saw this "dog"?
>
> > She also goes into clarity of what Jackie said after the last shot,
> > and other details of faces of the passengers. It's obvious that she
> > mistook Jackie holding flowers as for the so-called dog. Elizabeth
> > Taylor seen holding a dog in a car somehow got in her image.
>
> Are you saying that she draws from her imagination and inserts it
> into what she relates? I think you are on to something.
>
No, it's obvious that she wanted to be there to notice everything from
such a short distance of only a few feet. She knew she was going to
get that opportunity. The fact that Jackie was holding something or
had something there (the flowers) shows that there was something
there.
> > Of
> > course, detailing something that is very insignificant is just a way
> > to sidestep something more significant. The ruse is common.
>
> <snicker> A ruse? If she can get a dog from flowers, she can get a
> shadowy figure from any background feature.
>
No she saw a human figure with a rifle pose.
David Von Pein
You think Roger Craig and Jean Hill WEREN'T liars about key, critical
components of the JFK case?
If you think that, you belong in a strait-jacket.
David Von Pein
>>> "Of course she [Jean "Saint" Hill] has to be wrong. She can't be descriptive about her feet being in the street, can they?" <<<
She was descriptive about the position of her feet on 11/22/63 --
quite descriptive in fact:
"We were standing right at the curb." -- J. Hill; Via Nov. 22
Affidavit
Maybe Willis thinks "at the curb" = "in the street [so we can then be
run down by the outboard police motorcycle which was just inches away
from us]."
Or:
Maybe Willis thinks that Jean's feet abandoned the rest of her body
that day for a few moments, and her FEET were "in the street", while
the rest of her body was up on the grass.
Any reasonable person can see that kooks like Donald W. are just
spittin' out theories to see where they'll splatter.
curtjester1
Well, if she was atop of the curb, then we could see those nice black
shoes, right? They in Zapruder were still on the way coming down,
which can't be true, as she was already snapping a picture at the TSBD
prior to even her famous headshot pic. And Altgents was in the
street too, wasn't he when he made his famous snap? Of course he
could snap, and still get away, like Moorman could. The motorcycle
riders were even further back than the limo so that wouldn't have been
a problem either.
CJ