JFK's "Blacked Out" Head -- Another Conspiracy Myth Bites The Dust

[David Von Pein]

RON ECKER SAID:

What is casting the black shadow on the back of JFK's head here, when he
is virtually face down? ....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h4UCIVH8Z5Y/VV02O2gFh9I/AAAAAAABGHY/0L_BxlVK91U/s1600/Z-Film.png


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What's causing the same kind of "blackness" to appear on the back of Clint
Hill's head in the very same Z-Film frame? Was Hill's head "blacked out"
by the conspirators too?....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WRG_oWq78nY/VV0vzhoToVI/AAAAAAABGHE/DEOg_1kI1_8/s1600/Z-Film-Clint-Hill.png


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Hill's head is turned far more to the north, and is in shadow. Look at
Altgens' shadow.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In this comparison I made below of the head positions of Secret Service
agent Clint Hill and JFK, it doesn't look to me as if Hill's head is in a
position (relative to the sun) that is all that much different than JFK's
head position. Does it? And yet I see the same **blackness** appearing at
the back of both of their heads. And with respect to the Z317 frame shown
here of President Kennedy's head, I've heard many conspiracy theorists say
that they think JFK's head has most certainly been artificially "blacked
out" here....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Lhb4XsvWSFw/VV02Oig3VJI/AAAAAAABGHU/arQQw61IHo8/s1600/Z-Film-BOH-Comparison--Clint-Hill-And-JFK.png

Looks like one more conspiracy myth debunked by merely examining other
parts of the same allegedly "altered" Zapruder home movie.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

That the best you can do, Davey? Comparing z317 to a photo further down
the road? Not only has the limo rounded a curve, JFK is, as Ron points
out, practically lying on his side in [Z340].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mighty weak, Bob. The two pictures in my comparison are only 1.25 seconds
apart in real time. Do you really think the degree of blackness (due to
shadow) is going to have changed THAT much in just 1.25 seconds?

Plus, as I mentioned before, many CTers think JFK's head has been "blacked
out" in ALL post-Z313 frames. (Of course they think that. It would be kind
of silly to believe in the "blacked out" theory and yet believe that only
SOME Z-frames showing the back of Kennedy's head AFTER the head shot have
been blacked out. Right?)

So my comparison of the Z317 and Z340 frames is perfectly appropriate,
given what many CTers believe about ALL of the post-Z313 frames depicting
JFK's head.

And as can be plainly seen in Z340, the back of Clint Hill's head is pitch
black....just exactly like Kennedy's head in Z317. And the only difference
that I can see in the two men's position (relating to the sun in the sky)
is that Hill's head is turned a little more to his right (north) in Z340
than JFK's head is in Z317.

So, quite obviously, since the back of JFK's head is still dark in Z340,
it must mean that the back of his head is still deep enough in shadow so
that the sunlight is not directly shining on that part of his cranium.

Try again, Bob. Maybe your next theory will make more sense. Because my
Clint Hill/JFK comparison photo destroys the "blacked out" theory, IMO.

And I realize that we're looking at Hill in that Z-frame through the
sprocket holes, which makes things a little "hazier" (if that's the right
word) when looking at objects in that part of the film strip, but that
"looking through the sprocket holes" fact doesn't change the BLACKNESS
that is most definitely apparent on the back of Clint Hill's head.

And, to emphasize again --- Since no plotter or conspirator bent on
altering or faking the Zapruder Film would possibly have had any need or
desire to alter any part of Clint Hill's image in the film, then I think
even most conspiracy believers would agree with me that the "blackness"
that we see at the back of Clint Hill's head in frame 340 is **legitimate,
unaltered blackness** being seen on his head.

Therefore, since Hill's "blackness" is real and legit in Z340, then why
would anybody think that the similar "blackness" at the back of President
Kennedy's head in Z317 (which is just 1.25 seconds earlier than Z340 in
the very same home movie) is blackness that must have been added to the
film by some unknown film-fakers?

It's time to stamp the "blacked out head" theory with this label ---
DEBUNKED!


RON ECKER SAID:

No plotter or conspirator would possibly have any need or desire to alter
Hill's image? Suppose the plotter wanted to add blackness to Hill's image
(and perhaps elsewhere) to match the blackness added to JFK's image, so
that in the future LNers could say, "you see, it's legitimate, unaltered
blackness."

Just a random thought.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Ron! Perfect timing! After writing my last post, I was hoping
and praying that some CTer would post something that says, in effect, the
alleged film-fakers DID, indeed, ALSO alter Clint Hill's head in the
Zapruder Film.

As we can see via Ron Ecker's last post, when a really silly idea gets
started (like the theory about JFK's head being "blacked out" in the
Z-Film), and when the silliness of that idea is brought to the forefront
by someone (which I have done in this discussion), then the conspiracy
theorists are forced to do a lot of scrambling and damage control in order
to still embrace and endorse the silly idea they want to endorse.

So, from now on, whenever Ron Ecker and all other conspiracy theorists
talk about this topic, the "New and Revised" theory has got to be this....

***Both JFK's and Clint Hill's heads (and maybe a lot more heads too that
nobody has even noticed yet) have been artificially blacked out in all
post-Z313 frames of the Zapruder Film.***

So, as we can see here, a dumb theory can easily snowball out of control.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

[Mike]

Yes a dumb theory can easily snowball out of control as proven by the
Single Bullet Theory (SBT)

[mainframetech]

Obviously Hill's head is turned more than JFK's, and he has darker hair
too. The point is well taken. The Hollywood Group of film experts
expanded the photos of JFK into extreme high definition after the final
shot and it became obvious that the BOH of JFK is badly painted over in
black to cover the 'large hole' left in the BOH of JFK that was seen by 65
witnesses.

But DVP will say anything to try to support the weak, tired, old WCR.
Including copying people's words out of context and putting them up on his
website to make more money from it.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

AT WHAT POINT DOES "CORROBORATION" INDICATE "PROOF"?:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-945.html

Oops! Sorry, Chris! It's just more "advertising" posted by DVP so he can
make more money! (That DVP's nothing but a bastard, isn't he? Imagine,
somebody wanting to promote their own website and their own work! Von Pein
oughta be shot with a Carcano from the sixth floor for doing such an
outlandish thing as that!)

So don't click the above link, Mr. Mainframe. You'll just be funding a
worthless money-hungry CIA Disinfo agent if you do.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe Clint Hill had premature balding and they were covering it up?
See, there's always an innocent explanation for everything.

> So, from now on, whenever Ron Ecker and all other conspiracy theorists
> talk about this topic, the "New and Revised" theory has got to be this....
>

You'r not trying hard enough. Where's your lust for kook blood gone?
You should be bringing up Tom Wilson.

[mainframetech]

Thanks for the advance warning! What would you think of a guy that
walked into a department store and paraded around with a sign telling
everyone that there were great things to be found at another department
store? It ain't nice. It can distract folks from the forum they're at,
and sometimes when they go away, they may not come back. Often not
pleasant to the forum manager. Especially if it's done in such a way that
the 'customers' don't know that the gimmick is to get them to move to a
specific location.

Chris

[Pamela Brown]

False. Everyone knows the Z-film(s) are altered. There are acknowledged
splices in at least two places on the "camera original". The question
then becomes with how much or how little malicious intent they were
altered.

Pamela Brown
ss100x.com

[Mike]

Even Robert Groden admits that he altered the version that he showed on
TV in 1975.

Here is what Robert Groden says in the introduction of his book "The
Killing of a President"...

"I created the first optically enhanced copies of the Zapruder film by
stabliizing and enlarging the images, applying several optical
techniques to make the film more coherent. First I rephotographed the
film, frame by frame, repositioning the President in each frame so the
motions were fluid. I zoomed in , making the images larger within a
frame, and used a technique called step framing to slow it down"

[mainframetech]

Lots of malicious intent. The alteration of the Z-film was proven by
witness and separate analyses.

The witness:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

The analyses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't work for the CIA.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

You said the Z-film(s), plural, are altered then you mention the camera
original and not other films.

Which of the three first generation copies that were made were altered?

By Z-films I assume you mean the in camera original and the three copies
made that day?

[mainframetech]

Of course all copies had to also be altered. It would be stupid to
alter only some of them.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

KOOKS

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

She mentioned the *accidental* destruction of some frames in the original
as proof it was altered. But she didn't say just the original was altered;
she said Z-films(s) plural were altered.

I'm asking her whether IN ADDITION to the accidental damage to some frames
in the original were the other three copies made on 11/22 also altered?

One of the alterations was accidental. Is she claiming that the an
additional copy was deliberately altered? Or deliberately altered?

When and where did these other alterations take place?

[Anthony Marsh]

The camera original was repaired, not altered. Which copies do you think
were altered? Are you talking about making a black and white copy?

> Pamela Brown
> ss100x.com
>

[Anthony Marsh]

What would you think of a Santa Claus who tells the kid's mother that she
can get the toy he wants at a different store? For you Milliennials that
was an allusion to the 1947 movie Miracle on 34th Street. None of you were
even born then.

[Anthony Marsh]

Stupid. How come the copies didn't have 4 frames cut out?

[mainframetech]

Alteration of the Z-film and copies occurred at the Kodak lab in
Rochester, NY. They were then carried down to the CIA department in
Washington for further work by an SS agent named 'Bill Smith' (FWIW).
When another CIA Film Analyst (Dino Brugione) saw the new film, after
having seen the original Z-film many times, he was 'shocked' at the
changes in the current version of it that we're familiar with. His
interview is here:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

The independent analyses are here:

[Mark Florio]

Damn fascinating, germane post. Should those of us born after that (very
good) movie was released apologize? Mark

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The in camera original and a first generation copy were never at this lab.

They were sent directly to Time/Life the day after the assassination when
Zapruder sold them to the publication. The original went to Chicago, the
copy went to New York.

[Bud]

Or to think they were altered at all.

[mainframetech]

There's a sucker born every minute. A number of CIA employees have
stated in interviews that they did work with the original film, and a film
they were told was the original, but that wasn't. Those interviews are
online. An SS courier was the one that gave away that the film went to
the CIA lab in Rochester, NY called "Hawkeye Works" by the CIA, and he
then brought the resultant film back to Washington to the CIA film lab
there called NPIC. They handled film from the U-2 and the Cuba flyovers.

An interview with Dino Brugione, CIA Film Analyst, explains what he did
with the ORIGINAL film, and his shock at later seeing what they had
changed in the film. Here it is:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

You can also watch the separate analyses of the phony film:

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

It's been proven that Brugioni worked with a copy and not the original.

Zapruder testified at the Clay Shaw trial and provided a copy of his film,
given to him by Time/Life, to the prosecution. He said the film showed the
same thing he saw when he took the film. No alterations.

Again: The man who was there, who took the film, said it was what he saw
that day.

Groden, working for Life, secretly made a copy of the film. It was that
copy that was shown on television.

End of story.

[mainframetech]

I see you talking but no cites anywhere. It's a nice story, but if you
think that Life magazine had no connections to the CIA, or that Zapruder
wanted anyone to think his film was altered, you're wrong. When Groden
got a copy may have been after the replacement of the film by the CIA and
SS. When was it he received his 'copy'?

So far, no one has proved Brugioni was wrong or lying. And he wasn't
the only witness to the original, and I see no refutation of the separate
analyses showing the film as altered:

[Anthony Marsh]

LIFE? Please cite exactly when Groden was working for LIFE. I assume
you've never met or talked to Groden. Because you are not a researcher.



The report of Jacequeline Kennedy?s bitterness toward Greer comes from the
1969 best-seller My Life With Jacqueline Kennedy, by Mary Gallagher,
secretary to Mrs. Kennedy. Gallagher wrote, ?She mentioned one Secret
Service man who had not acted during the crucial moment, and said bitterly
to me, ?He might just as well have been Miss Shaw!?,? a reference to the
Kennedy children?s nanny. It was later confirmed that the unnamed agent
was Greer.

This is in sharp contrast to Mrs. Kennedy?s reaction to Greer on the day
of the assassination. Author William Manchester reported in Death of a
President, without citation, that at Parkland Hospital, ?Those who had
been in the motorcade were racking their brains with if only this, if only
that. One of them came to her [Jackie Kennedy]. Bill Greer, his face
streaked with tears, took her head between his hands and squeezed until
she thought he was going to squeeze her skull flat. He cried, ?Oh, Mrs.
Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn?t mean to do it. I didn?t hear, I
should have swerved the car, I couldn?t help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon
as I saw it I swerved. If only I?d seen in time! Oh!? Then he released her
head and put his arms around her and wept on her shoulder.? [Death of a
President, p.290]

In fact, Mrs. Kennedy felt so sorry for Greer that she requested that he
drive the naval ambulance containing the casket to the naval hospital.
[O?Donnell and Powers with McCarthy, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, p.44]

> End of story.
>

No. Not good enough for Mr. 285. He wants to see the videotape from
Parkland or at least listen to the recording. As Piaget found in his
experiments, if Bob didn't SEE it himself in person then it didn't happen.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I can provide numerous citations - which you will reject - and you'll just
respond with more conspiracy-mongering.

So, I'll pass.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Groden worked on a project on the Z-film funded by Life. That is how he
was able to get access to the Zapruder film.

So, I was wrong: he did not work for Life but worked on a project FUNDED
by Life.

But if he worked on a project that was funded by the CIA we know what you
would say about his relationship to the CIA.

[Alex Foyle]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 7:34:08 PM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:

> So far, no one has proved Brugioni was wrong or lying. And he wasn't
> the only witness to the original, and I see no refutation of the separate
> analyses showing the film as altered:

Brugioni did not view the original. You should maybe check Craig Lamson
for this:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12235.0.html

"(Brugioni) tells us, in his own words that there is no inter sprocket
imagery.

The original HAS inter sprocket imagery.

THE FIRST DAY COPIES AND EVERYTHING MADE FROM THEM DO NOT HAVE
INTERSPROCKET IMAGERY.

Brugioni admits the film he viewed was a copy"

[Anthony Marsh]

Groden never worked at LIFE. Show me what you mean and I'll show you
where you're wrong. In the meantime look up Moses Weitzman.

> So, I was wrong: he did not work for Life but worked on a project FUNDED
> by Life.
>

Something like that. Have you ever taken any photographs and paid
Wallgreens to make copies for you? Does that mean that you work for
Walgreens? Do you hire the lab tech?

> But if he worked on a project that was funded by the CIA we know what you
> would say about his relationship to the CIA.
>

How do you know he didn't?
Some kooks claim that Oswald worked for the CIA because he worked for a
photo lab which did work for the CIA.
OK, so he was a janitor for the CIA.
How come you never talk about MY relationship to the CIA?
How come the cover-up?
Haven't you ever heard of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?

>

[mainframetech]

Effectively meaning that you have no cites. So much for that.

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! You call THAT some kind of proof? Lamson himself says that
Brugioni saw a copy, and you take that as meaning that Brugioni viewed a
copy? Geez! For all you know he meant that Brugioni saw a copy after
viewing the original, which we know happened. All we have is that guy
saying that. I don't get that warm comfy feeling about that as evidence
of anything.

But you seem willing to admit that Brugioni saw SOME version of the
film. So what was he talking about when he said he was "shocked' at what
had been done to the film after he saw the original? If he saw 2
versions, wouldn't one of them be the original and one the copy? And if
there's a copy, wouldn't that be the one that we see?

and do you read him as a liar, or too dimwitted to know what he's
talking about when you se him in the interview?

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Effectively meaning I consider your views on this matter worthless.

[Alex Foyle]

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 7:48:47 PM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 6:15:56 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
> > On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 7:34:08 PM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > > So far, no one has proved Brugioni was wrong or lying. And he wasn't
> > > the only witness to the original, and I see no refutation of the separate
> > > analyses showing the film as altered:
> >
> > Brugioni did not view the original. You should maybe check Craig Lamson
> > for this:
> >
> > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12235.0.html
> >
> > "(Brugioni) tells us, in his own words that there is no inter sprocket
> > imagery.
> >
> > The original HAS inter sprocket imagery.
> >
> > THE FIRST DAY COPIES AND EVERYTHING MADE FROM THEM DO NOT HAVE
> > INTERSPROCKET IMAGERY.
> >
> > Brugioni admits the film he viewed was a copy"
>

> Lamson himself says that Brugioni saw a copy, and you take that as meaning
> that Brugioni viewed a copy? Geez! For all you know he meant that Brugioni > saw a copy after viewing the original, which we know happened.

You seem to have Marsh reading comprehension problems. Did you understand
the bit about the intersprocket inmages? Brugioni did not view the
original, yet you said that "(Brugioni) wasn't the only witness to the
original", when in fact he wasn't. He did not view the original. Do you
understand the implications for the rest of his claims? There were several
informative threads about Brugioni at Duncan's forum if you want to check
there.

[mainframetech]

S'OK. It's allowed. You already know my opinion of your ideas, so I
won't embarrass you further.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The day I express an opinion on this topic that you agree with is the day
I seek psychological counseling.

[mainframetech]

Because someone makes statements like the one you've already pointed at
(Lamson) I saw nothing there to make me believe he had a lock on the
absolute truth. He offered no backup as to where he got such information.
Now, in the Brugioni interview, he gave exact information as to why he
thought he had the seen the original film. Lamson offered nothing like
that. He just made a statement. It could be his opinion for all we know.
Brugioni saw a different version of the film AFTER he had seen the
original. It fits and made sense.

Chris

[Alex Foyle]

On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 4:47:45 PM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:

> Because someone makes statements like the one you've already pointed at
> (Lamson) I saw nothing there to make me believe he had a lock on the
> absolute truth. He offered no backup as to where he got such information.
> Now, in the Brugioni interview, he gave exact information as to why he
> thought he had the seen the original film. Lamson offered nothing like
> that. He just made a statement. It could be his opinion for all we know.
> Brugioni saw a different version of the film AFTER he had seen the
> original. It fits and made sense.

Only in your fact resistent fantasy world. Brugioni did not view the
original, end of story.

[mainframetech]

So now its YOU who is making an opinion, and then acting like it has
meaning. Here most folks will ask for your backup, your proof of what you
say. So far, in essence, you've said nothing.


Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

No, you just haven't been paying attention.

It has been established that Brugioni could only have seen a copy.

[Alex Foyle]

On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 4:31:08 AM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:

> So now its YOU who is making an opinion, and then acting like it has
> meaning. Here most folks will ask for your backup, your proof of what you
> say. So far, in essence, you've said nothing.

Well, you have to click the backup link I provided to you and read the
quote I gave you, then it should also be clear to you that Brugioni did
not view the original, because he confirmed it himself. Maybe try this
link for comprehension:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12246.msg380061.html

If you still don't understand this simple logic, then register at Duncan's
forum and take it up with Craig Lamson, he will be more than happy to
explain it to you.

[Mark Florio]

What do you mean when you say it would be wrong to think "Zapruder wanted
anyone to think his film was altered . . ."? Mark

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

You're trying to reason with a person who knows that JFK's body was
switched from one casket to another while on Air Force One on the flight
back to Washington.

Yes, Jackie and Ken O'Donnell and everybody else didn't see that other
casket on the plane. And Dave Powers lied when he said that he stayed with
the body the entire flight and that it didn't happen.

Because Doug Horne says so.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 6/4/15 9:41 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 1:57:36 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 6/3/15 10:31 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 9:39:35 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 4:47:45 PM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because someone makes statements like the one you've already pointed at
>>>>> (Lamson) I saw nothing there to make me believe he had a lock on the
>>>>> absolute truth. He offered no backup as to where he got such information.
>>>>> Now, in the Brugioni interview, he gave exact information as to why he
>>>>> thought he had the seen the original film. Lamson offered nothing like
>>>>> that. He just made a statement. It could be his opinion for all we know.
>>>>> Brugioni saw a different version of the film AFTER he had seen the
>>>>> original. It fits and made sense.
>>>>
>>>> Only in your fact resistent fantasy world. Brugioni did not view the
>>>> original, end of story.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So now its YOU who is making an opinion, and then acting like it has
>>> meaning. Here most folks will ask for your backup, your proof of what you
>>> say. So far, in essence, you've said nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>
>> No, you just haven't been paying attention.
>>
>> It has been established that Brugioni could only have seen a copy.
>
> You're trying to reason with a person who knows that JFK's body was
> switched from one casket to another while on Air Force One on the flight
> back to Washington.

I'm not that quixotic. Just felt like saying that, for the benefit of
whomever. I'm pretty sure Chris the Mainframetech has me kill-filed.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 9:41:12 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 1:57:36 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> > On 6/3/15 10:31 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 9:39:35 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 4:47:45 PM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Because someone makes statements like the one you've already pointed at
> > >>> (Lamson) I saw nothing there to make me believe he had a lock on the
> > >>> absolute truth. He offered no backup as to where he got such information.
> > >>> Now, in the Brugioni interview, he gave exact information as to why he
> > >>> thought he had the seen the original film. Lamson offered nothing like
> > >>> that. He just made a statement. It could be his opinion for all we know.
> > >>> Brugioni saw a different version of the film AFTER he had seen the
> > >>> original. It fits and made sense.
> > >>
> > >> Only in your fact resistent fantasy world. Brugioni did not view the
> > >> original, end of story.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So now its YOU who is making an opinion, and then acting like it has
> > > meaning. Here most folks will ask for your backup, your proof of what you
> > > say. So far, in essence, you've said nothing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
> > No, you just haven't been paying attention.
> >
> > It has been established that Brugioni could only have seen a copy.
>
> You're trying to reason with a person who knows that JFK's body was
> switched from one casket to another while on Air Force One on the flight
> back to Washington.
>

From your comment its easy to see you have ignored all the evidence
piled up in front of you in favor of an emotional guess based on the
theories of the WC lawyers.

> Yes, Jackie and Ken O'Donnell and everybody else didn't see that other
> casket on the plane. And Dave Powers lied when he said that he stayed with
> the body the entire flight and that it didn't happen.
>
> Because Doug Horne says so.

Nope, wrong again! I can offer an explanation that Horne doesn't
mention. The excuse is useful that the press could be bypassed if they
switched caskets, and the help of some of the agents would be needed, and
they volunteered to help do the switch, and then gave solemn promises not
to talk about it because the public would be irritated about the, playing
musical caskets.

The casket switching would have to happen at the rear galley, where
there is an emergency door on the opposite side of the plane from where
they brought the Bronze casket out at Andrews AFB. The shipping casket
which is much smaller and lighter than a normal casket, could easily be
brought in and out through that door before anyone arrived at the plane.

At the point where Jackie entered the plane, she would go to the
private bedroom to 'powder her nose', and then she was called by LBJ to go
forward while he was sworn in. At that time there was plenty of time to
bring aboard the shipping casket and to make the switch. Jackie would
have no reason to go back to the rear galley, though she might want to
watch the casket. I wonder if she did, but I tend to think not.

When they arrived at Andrews, they could cover the shipping casket with
something, blanket or some such, and everyone would exit the rear exit on
the post side and take the Bronze casket with them. When that was gone, a
forklift could come to the emergency exit and take away the shipping
casket and deliver it to helicopters as had been planned on AF1 in flight.
(that's in the plane logs).

Once the helicopters landed and the shipping casket was taken to the
morgue loading dock at 6:35pm, we know from there what happened, and we
know from witnesses that JFK was in the shipping casket, because they
recognized him when they took him out.

Most of the above story is recorded in sworn testimony and statements
of the witnesses that saw various parts of the above. The only thing
that's not in the record is the switch itself in AF1, and I've offered a
possible solution for that above.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Zapruder knew what the value of his film was, if the word got around
that it was a copy with alterations, the value for a 'phony copy' would
drop dramatically.

[mainframetech]

I wouldn't want to register where they ma such amazing mistakes!
That's the same old clip you sent me to before. I read that and saw right
away the errors there. Much of the talking about the film and it's state
when viewed is on the film that was brought to be worked on by HOMER
McMAHON, who was the SECOND CIA Analyst that got the film that weekend.
Dino Brugioni got the ORIGINAL film a day before McMahon.

The story told by the SS agent that called himself "Bill Smith" doesn't
matter. The film that McMahon got was indeed exactly what Lamson said, a
copy made to look like an original. Which was what was supposed to
happen.

The sequence of events is important. The ORIGIBNAL film arrives and
is given to Dino Brugioni and his team to make briefing boards for higher
ups. They do their work and give back the film and the photos. Next day,
the film arrives in the hands of "Bill Smith", who needs briefing boards
for higher ups. That team makes up photos for briefing boards and gives
back the film and photos.

The 2 trams are not aware of each other, and only learn about the other
at a later time. Brugioni got the ORIGINAL film, did his work, the film
went away and was taken to the CIA special lab that has all the equipment
that anyone could want, and they alter the film and send the phonies back
via "Bill smith" for McMahon and his team to do their work.

Both teams made photos for briefing boards for higher ups. Now if the
higher ups saw the film shots from BEFORE and AFTER the alteration, they
could decided if the wanted to let the altered film out of their hands to
fool the public or not, and see how well the alteration looked compared
with the original. Simple. And that fits with Lamson's story. So that's
taken care of, unless you have more questions.

Brugioni has the original, and McMahon had the altered copies.
Remember that Brugioni was "shocked" when he saw the current version of
the Z-film, after seeing the ORIGINAL. So the 2 version had to be
original and altered copy. Otherwise why would there be a difference in
them?

Chris

[Mark Florio]

So Zapruder was a liar and took part in the cover-up? Mark

[mainframetech]

Nope, I'm not sure I was clear above. I doubt that Zapruder had
anything to do with any conspiracy, though some have suggested it. I
think he was a vendor that knew the value of his 'product' and didn't want
anyone to think badly of it, which might lower the monetary value.

Chris

[Mark Florio]

Ok, Chris, you don't think Zapruder was part of the cover-up. But aren't
you still saying Zapruder was a liar who knew his film had been altered,
but wouldn't say anything because it might devalue the film? Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Now, wait a minute. Didn't you read that conspiracy theory that Zapruder
had a gun in his camera?

[mainframetech]

I'm not convinced that Zapruder knew where his film got to after he
turned over the copies and the original. But he may have heard from the
public that the film was altered and so would want to combat that.

Chris

[Alex Foyle]

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 9:29:13 PM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 5:35:42 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:

> > Well, you have to click the backup link I provided to you and read the
> > quote I gave you, then it should also be clear to you that Brugioni did
> > not view the original, because he confirmed it himself. Maybe try this
> > link for comprehension:
> >
> > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12246.msg380061.html
> >
> > If you still don't understand this simple logic, then register at Duncan's
> > forum and take it up with Craig Lamson, he will be more than happy to
> > explain it to you.
>
> I wouldn't want to register where they ma such amazing mistakes!

Chicken much? The only one making amazing mistakes is you. Contrary to you
Craig Lamson knows what he's talking about when he discusses photographic
issues and he proved by using Brugioni's own words that Brugioni could not
have viewed the original, yet you harp on in typical CT style, absolutely
hopeless.

[mainframetech]

So you parrot someone else's words? Why not figure out what Lamson
meant and see yourself if he was just telling it like he guessed it might
be? I saw what he said, and I made my comments. I'm not going to sign on
where I need to provide my real name. I've had trouble when doing that.

What's hopeless is folks that hear a witness, then se analyses all that
day the Z-film has been altered, and then ignore all that and believe some
guy crooning a tune in a forum somewhere.

Obviously you've ignored anything I said on the subject, and I'm not a
photographer even. It was that obvious that his words couldn't be
trusted.


In the interview Horne asks Brugioni "was there any 'image bleedover'
in the sprocket holes", and Brugione says "No". Now please listen
carefully. Brugioni and his team did NOT have an 8mm projector because
they didn't normally work with 8mm. They had to send out and get one from
a shop late at night.

Brugioni says they viewed the film many times on that projector. If
you look at 8mm film on a projector, you can't see anything in the
intersprocket holes. The projector won't show it. It shows only the
frames, not any extra outside the frames. So Brugione's answer was
correct. They saw no intersprocket information. They narrowed down on
frames in their enlarger and got the photos wanted, and if there were any
intersprocket info seen at that time, they would have ignored it.

The next thing Lamson does is blat about McMahon being lied to by an SS
agent. All that has nothing to do with anything. So what that the SS
agent lied? The film he brought is what is important to determining what
happened. The original film that came to Brugione on Saturday was in 8mm
format, already slit from the 16mm form that 8mm is in in the camera.
When McMahon got the film from the SS agent on Sunday, it was in 16mm
form, meaning that it was not the same film, and was a copy. And I quote
Lamson who says:

"...it was a re-creation of the Zapruder film after its alteration at that
facility, intended to masquerade as an original out-of-camera, unslit (16
mm wide), "double 8" film". Which agrees very well with what we know.
Nothing new there.

At this point, Lamson says:

"Clearly Horne is claiming the film delivered to McMahon was to mimic a
camera original film."

Which is exactly what he said about the film himself just before. So he
is in agreement with Horne.

Then Lamson enters the Twilight Zone. He says:

"...the line that tells us there ARE NO INTERSPROCKET IMAGES!"

So he says there are no 'intersprocket images" on the film he got from
the SS agent that he has also said was a duplicate made to look like an
original. And yet we all can see the intersprocket images on the film
that is being shown currently pretending to be a direct copy of the
original. All very odd. Why would the SS or CIA bother to do the work
unless they intended to use the altered film to fool the public?

None of this proves that Brugioni lied or was mistaken that I can see.
He got the original film, and then later he saw a film that showed
entirely DIFFERENT information, and he KNEW it wasn't the same as the
original film.

The separate analyses shows that the Z-film has been altered, and so we
know that we are seeing the result of the duplication that Lamson says
happened.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

And who said tha Brugioni saw the camera original?

[Ace Kefford]

Problem is, with this bunch nothing ever bites the dust! Amazingly we
still have Oswald in the doorway and the Mauser (that apparently was left
behind by accident by the plotters). And how about those "faked" backyard
photos?

Not all conspiracy folks are like this, but too many of them don't realize
the value of giving up bad arguments or conceding that some speculations
have been answered. That's because they aren't seeking truth. They are
seeking psychological vindication for their beliefs.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Oy vey, the backyard photos....enough already. They are real.

They don't prove he shot JFK. Okay or even that it was his rifle. One can
even say it was part of his act, his "legend", his cover as a
pro-Castro/radical. It was staged and he really didn't hold radical
political beliefs (I think he did). Fine. But they are real.

Robert Oswald: "It's good that people raise questions and say, 'Wait a
minute. Let's take a second look at this.' I think that's great, you know?
But when you take the second look and the third and the fortieth and the
fiftieth-- hey, enough's enough. It's there. Put it to rest."

[mainframetech]

Well, since now that YOU put it to rest, you're done with the subject,
right? The rest of us can argue it to our heart's content.

Chris

[Ace Kefford]

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 9:36:42 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Great Robert Oswald quote. Showing once again who had the common sense in
that family.

[Anthony Marsh]

SHowing who was the government stooge.

[Mark Florio]

This is what extremists of the left and right do. Reduce people to
one-dimensional cardboard figures. Do you really believe Robert would
have allowed the government to convince him of his brother's guilt in the
murder of a president, if he had believed LHO was innocent?

There is so much more I could say about your smear, but you know what,
I'll end with this.

What evidence do you have that Robert Oswald was a "government stooge"?

Mark

[mainframetech]

I don't believe that Robert was a 'stooge' for anyone. But he may have
changed his beliefs for his own safety and peace of mind. Lee was dead
and didn't care anymore, and he was alive and had to deal with the
fallout.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

He said what they wanted him to say to frame Lee.

[Mark Florio]

Well, yeah. I assumed that's what you meant when you said he was a
government stooge.

The question is what evidence do you have? Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

What he said.

[Mark Florio]

Well now, that explains everything doesn't it. Amazing. I'll try again.
Who did he say it to? Mark