Kennedy's Head Did Move Forward

[John McAdams]

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

And it's very clear in those frames that there is no large hole in the back of JFK's head.

Not definitive evidence but one would think a large hole could be seen somewhere.

[slats]

stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:e052b7a6-f35b-4059...@googlegroups.com:

right you are

http://imageshack.us/a/img21/8826/d0lo.png

[Mike]

Yes there is no hole but you can see that the back of the head does not
look normal at all. It looks "wide" and "square".

The skull was folded back over itself under the scalp. It is more clear
in a profile view.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PYR5dX7DPTQ/UchT4LKR4wI/AAAAAAAABmA/6xkrBEPqyEc/s1600/z337wpng.png

[Anthony Marsh]

Same error as Itek. Measuring from the back of one object to the front
of another just measures the amount of BLUR in frame 313. See David
Wimp's presentation.
Or read my article which shows that EVERYONE in the limo was moving
forward just before the head shot.

[claviger]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:15:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:

CTs claim every passenger in the Limousine was moving forward at the same
time. Obviously not. This film clip confirms that didn't happen. The
President was shot in the head from a rifle located behind the Limousine.
There was no shot from the GK because there was no sniper on the GK. On
the infinitesimally small possibility there was a sniper on the GK he/she
missed, according to the HSCA. All shots wounding the President came from
behind the Limousine. This film is forensic evidence the bullet impact
caused the head to move forward before it resiled backward.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/15/2013 9:08 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:15:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>>
>>
>>
>> .John
>>
>> --
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> CTs claim every passenger in the Limousine was moving forward at the same
> time. Obviously not.

No, not all of us. Stop painting with a broad brush. There is only a
handful of us that believe that.

This film clip confirms that didn't happen. The

No, they don't. They don't mean whatever you think just because you
believe it. You have not made detailed measurement of each person's
movements. I have.

> President was shot in the head from a rifle located behind the Limousine.
> There was no shot from the GK because there was no sniper on the GK. On

Begging the question again.

[Bud]

None of which changes the fact stated in the header.

[mainframetech]

Unless the film was altered. Smartest thing they did was to fudge the
Z-film. It's fooled more people than straight facts. As a test, see how
many points where frames are missing that you can count.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:39:56 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

There was a group called the 'Hollywood Working Group' made up of film
specialists that were fully familiar with all the tricks used to alter
film. They were run by Sydney Wilkinson and her husband. One of the
things they did was to blow up the frames of the Z-film to humongous size
and then review it. They found a black blot placed on the film at the
point of the BOH of JFK from frame 313 to 337. At a few points it was
even squarish looking to the eye. They deemed it a fake effort and
probably done in haste.

But of course, new technology has also shown that many items in the
Z-film were enhanced or changed, most often by overpainting (not directly
on the film) and then refilming to make it look like an original film.
An expert stated that the 'Hawkeye Works' at the Kodak plant in Rochester,
NY which had the Z-film for a short period, had all the equipment needed
to do most anything with film.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 8:54:43 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Are you suggesting that the limo almost stopped suddenly and it caused
everyone to move forward?

Tell Claviger, because he doesn't believe it...:)

[mainframetech]

If a film has been altered after the fact, then it's not any kind of
"forensic evidence", it's just baloney that is made to take in the
suckers.

Here's an example of all people in the limo lurching forward (including
Greer, the driver) when Greer dramatically slows the car as many witnesses
have stated. Count down to the 6th little video to see the lurch:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html

What we have above is a bunch of your opinions about the film and the
murder, with no evidence.

As to snipers on the GK, 2 fellows were seen there behind the fence
with a rifle by Ed Hoffman. He reported it to authorities right away, but
the FBI didn't want to hear it and told him to shut up. He did, for a
couple years before he told his story again.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I agree that in that frame his head looks distorted. And it's somewhat
similarly misshaped in a few others. Whether that was due to the picture
or the pressure on the skull or something in between, his head looks
"abnormally" shaped.

But that's not evidence of a large hole in the back of the head.

We combined the Z film, the x-rays, the autopsy photos - the physical
evidence as best as we can assemble it - and there simply wasn't a large
hole in the BOH.

The witnesses - including highly trained ones - must be mistaken.

[claviger]

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:41:59 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 9:08 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:15:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> >> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
> >> .John

> >> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> > CTs claim every passenger in the Limousine was moving forward at the same
> > time. Obviously not.
>
> No, not all of us. Stop painting with a broad brush. There is only a
> handful of us that believe that.
>
> This film clip confirms that didn't happen. The
>
> No, they don't. They don't mean whatever you think just because you
> believe it. You have not made detailed measurement of each person's
> movements. I have.
>
> > President was shot in the head from a rifle located behind the Limousine.
> > There was no shot from the GK because there was no sniper on the GK. On
>
> Begging the question again.
>
> > the infinitesimally small possibility there was a sniper on the GK he/she
> > missed, according to the HSCA. All shots wounding the President came from
> > behind the Limousine. This film is forensic evidence the bullet impact
> > caused the head to move forward before it resiled backward.

We can see the film and watch it with our own eyes. When are you going to
learn the Svengali approach doesn't work on this debate forum? Neither
does the Dr Fritz Fasbender shtick you keep trying to use. The old "Who
you gonna believe, your own lying eyes of ME ?!" is an old joke.

It is patently obvious the President's head accelerates while everyone
else remains the same. It's not even worthy of debate. You may convince
yourself but everyone else with normal eyesight and a brain can see what
really happened.

[Mike]

This is a myth that Itek made a mistake.

Itek has never said they made a mistake on this. A few of the
researchers are claiming that Itek made a mistake.

Itek performed several analysis. One of them statistical.

[cmikes]

Actually, Ed Hoffman's original claim was that he saw two men running from
the back of the TSBD, but it was pointed out to him that he couldn't see
the back of the building from that position. Years later, in the 1970's,
after the conspiracy focus changed to the Grassy Knoll, that's when he
changed his story to match the new place that buffs were interested in.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/16/2013 9:54 PM, Mike wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 7:54 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/15/2013 4:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>>>
>>> .John
>>> --
>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>
>>
>>
>> Same error as Itek. Measuring from the back of one object to the front
>> of another just measures the amount of BLUR in frame 313. See David
>> Wimp's presentation.
>> Or read my article which shows that EVERYONE in the limo was moving
>> forward just before the head shot.
>>
>>
>
>
> This is a myth that Itek made a mistake.
>

No,fact.

> Itek has never said they made a mistake on this. A few of the
> researchers are claiming that Itek made a mistake.
>

Ok, so what? It's not a mistake unless they admit it? Juvenile.

[claviger]

> Are you suggesting that the limo almost stopped
> suddenly and it caused everyone to move forward?
>
> Tell Claviger, because he doesn't believe it...:)

Doesn't believe what? I believe the Limousine came to almost a stop because Greer stepped on the brake pedal. This caused Halfback to suddenly brake making Hickey lose balance and accidentally fire his rifle. The film proves the President's head moves violently forward because of the bullet entrance wound in back of the skull.

[Anthony Marsh]

You have not studied the Zapruder film. I have. In depth. I am the one
who proved that it is authentic. If you can't see that frame 313 is
heavily blurred then YOU need to get YOUR eyes examined and there is no
point in debating it with you.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/16/2013 6:30 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:39:56 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:15:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> .John
>>
>>>
>>
>>> --
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> And it's very clear in those frames that there is no large hole in the back of JFK's head.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not definitive evidence but one would think a large hole could be
>> seen somewhere.
>
>
> There was a group called the 'Hollywood Working Group' made up of film
> specialists that were fully familiar with all the tricks used to alter
> film. They were run by Sydney Wilkinson and her husband. One of the
> things they did was to blow up the frames of the Z-film to humongous size
> and then review it. They found a black blot placed on the film at the
> point of the BOH of JFK from frame 313 to 337. At a few points it was
> even squarish looking to the eye. They deemed it a fake effort and
> probably done in haste.
>

GIGO

[Anthony Marsh]

I am stating as a fact that Alavarez was right when his study found that
the limo suddenly slowed down from about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/16/2013 6:32 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, November 15, 2013 9:08:43 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:15:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> .John
>>
>>>
>>
>>> --
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> CTs claim every passenger in the Limousine was moving forward at the same
>>
>> time. Obviously not. This film clip confirms that didn't happen. The
>>
>> President was shot in the head from a rifle located behind the Limousine.
>>
>> There was no shot from the GK because there was no sniper on the GK. On
>>
>> the infinitesimally small possibility there was a sniper on the GK he/she
>>
>> missed, according to the HSCA. All shots wounding the President came from
>>
>> behind the Limousine. This film is forensic evidence the bullet impact
>>
>> caused the head to move forward before it resiled backward.
>
>
>
> If a film has been altered after the fact, then it's not any kind of
> "forensic evidence", it's just baloney that is made to take in the
> suckers.

How can you alter it BEFORE the fact?

>
> Here's an example of all people in the limo lurching forward (including
> Greer, the driver) when Greer dramatically slows the car as many witnesses
> have stated. Count down to the 6th little video to see the lurch:
>
> http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html
>

I don't ever endorse anything from Assassination Science, but I was
pointing out the same thing back in 1992.

[Dave Reitzes]

The Harris-style "La la la, I can't hear you" stuff gets old, Anthony. Of
course the film blurs, but JFK's head clearly moves forward at least a
couple of inches: compare the back of his head to the pink color of
Jackie's outfit behind him, and look how much more of the pink becomes
visible as the head moves forward. JFK's torso blurs but shows no
perceptible movement. The other people in the frame blur but show no
perceptible movement. Only JFK's head moves clearly towards the front of
the car. Itek got it right, as anyone can see:

http://www.jfk-online.com/Closeup_312-313.gif

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

Dave

[The Dutchman]

I just ran the Z-film DVD frame by frame. From z290 to 313. There may be
forward movement of JFK's head in relation to the car he's in--from 290 to
312, but the forward movement becomes DRAMATIC as you click 313. This is
like witnessing a football player run 5 yards out of bounds but the ref
calling it in-bounds. Tony is the ref.

[Mike]

It is not a fact.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, not clear. Blurrily. And half of your couple of inches is the amount
of blue in frame 313. I don't see how you can seriously say that you
can't see the blur of frame 313.

> Jackie's outfit behind him, and look how much more of the pink becomes
> visible as the head moves forward. JFK's torso blurs but shows no
> perceptible movement. The other people in the frame blur but show no
> perceptible movement. Only JFK's head moves clearly towards the front of
> the car. Itek got it right, as anyone can see:
>

Itek lied and you support them.

[mainframetech]

All 39+ of them? C'mon!

Why is it that you refuse to consider alteration of the Z-film, especially since there was every motive and opportunity to do it, and the lab that did it is known and a courier with the Z-film stated it came from there? The film was developed in Dallas, why take it to do all that special processing? The techniques were known and weren't difficult to do.


Among the witnesses that you threw away were 2 motorcycle cops that were back and to the left of the limo, and they both were splattered with blood, brains and fluids from the large hole in the BOH of JFK. It was all over their uniforms.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Thank the gods for your good health. However, "not worthy of debate" has long been a excuse to escape from facts that someone keeps quoting at you, which I feel compelled to do. You see, I'm not making a joke, I'm making statements, and I'm willing (as you know) to back them up. I don't use emotion or yelling to accomplish my task, just logic, common sense and facts.

I couldn't care less if the head moved forward or back first, or second or at all. I'm interested in where the bullet came from, and where it hit. The mess that pelted 2 motorcycle cops that were riding back and to the left of the limo are testimony to where the bullet came from, and where it hit and what it did to the BOH.

I'm not sure of what you're accusing me of with Fassbender and 'shtick' and all that, but you've obviously gone off the reservation spouting that stuff. I like to think I'm using common sense and facts. If I come out with any that you don't 'approve' of, let me know and we can work it out.

You have to appreciate that saying to me "We can see the film and watch it with our own eyes." Only says you've been taken in by an altered film. Most people will swear by 'what they saw' in a film, it's the best kind of faked evidence. Altering a film will convince all kinds of people of all kinds of things, they 'think' they saw.

Tell me, why do you NOT allow for the possibility that the film had been altered? Did enough LNers run the idea down so that you don't feel it's acceptable as an answer? Of course, this will be yet another question you won't answer, but I like to be hopeful.

Chris

[mainframetech]

If you listen to the way Ed Hoffman tells it, he spoke up right away about what he saw, and was told to shut up by the FBI (he's not the only one), which he did for years. Oddly enough, you can see the TSBD from his position. Whether you can see the actual rear building face, I don't know, but you should be able to see the building and anyone that came out of it. However, the story I heard was the one with 2 men behind the fence.

Where is his other story recorded? I'd like to take a look at it, since I hadn't heard of it until now.

Chris

[mainframetech]

What entrance wound in the back of his skull? Someone misled you. I don't know how you believe a rifle in the motorcade killed JFK. It's waaay out. The kill shot hit in the right forehead just in the hairline. The wound had been seen by a few people, but it was small. It was about .25 inches across, just enough for an assault rifle bullet, like AR-15 or Carcano. The shot blew out the BOH. The wound was seen by over 39+ people, and no one saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH except 2 of the prosectors. The autopsy photo labelled 'Groden Superior' shows the spot being overlaid by a squarish patch.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 1:59:20 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

The phrase "no point in debating it" is used as an escape so as not to have to deal with a difficult point.

I can't imagine how you were able to 'prove' the Z-film was "authentic". Especially since it was altered just to fool folks that believe that what they see in a film is real.

While I have looked at the Z-film many times, it's true that I haven't "studied" it "in depth" since it was faked and would be misleading.

Would you care to tell me your secret as to how to authenticate a home made film? Or will that be another one of your answers you never get around it giving?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 2:08:51 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/16/2013 6:32 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 15, 2013 9:08:43 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> >> On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:15:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> .John
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> --
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> CTs claim every passenger in the Limousine was moving forward at the same
>
> >>
>
> >> time. Obviously not. This film clip confirms that didn't happen. The
>
> >>
>
> >> President was shot in the head from a rifle located behind the Limousine.
>
> >>
>
> >> There was no shot from the GK because there was no sniper on the GK. On
>
> >>
>
> >> the infinitesimally small possibility there was a sniper on the GK he/she
>
> >>
>
> >> missed, according to the HSCA. All shots wounding the President came from
>
> >>
>
> >> behind the Limousine. This film is forensic evidence the bullet impact
>
> >>
>
> >> caused the head to move forward before it resiled backward.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If a film has been altered after the fact, then it's not any kind of
>
> > "forensic evidence", it's just baloney that is made to take in the
>
> > suckers.
>
>
>
> How can you alter it BEFORE the fact?
>
>

did you hear someone say alter it before the fact? Obviously the
alteration had to be after the fact of the filming. And your earlier
statement that you 'authenticated' the film is humorous since the film WAS
altered.

>
> >
>
> > Here's an example of all people in the limo lurching forward (including
>
> > Greer, the driver) when Greer dramatically slows the car as many witnesses
>
> > have stated. Count down to the 6th little video to see the lurch:
>
> >
>
> > http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html
>
> >
>
>
>
> I don't ever endorse anything from Assassination Science, but I was
>
> pointing out the same thing back in 1992.
>
>

LOL! I bet you were present to introduce Adam and Eve too...:)

>
> > What we have above is a bunch of your opinions about the film and the
>
> > murder, with no evidence.
>

Welp, you also have the little video of everyone lurching forward at the
same time. That's golden to you, since if it's in a video it must be
true.

[mainframetech]

That first video is a wowser! Look carefully at the face of JFK before
each iteration and tell me who it really is...:) Or is it just bad
painting?

For our purposes, it doesn't matter if the head moved back or forward
first. and the burst of pink/red material going a bit forward doesn't
matter either. If you read Vincent DiMaio, the forensic pathologist and
wound ballistics expert, then you've heard of 'tail splash'. That occurs
when a high speed bullet hits a living thing and there is a 'splash back
the way the bullet came from before it goes on to do the usual damage.

That would fit perfectly with the Frame 313 and subsequent damage to the
BOH, which is also in a DiMaio talk. The bullet hits the person, splashes
back then tunnels forward for inches, then from built up pressure causes
an expansion of the area around the bullet and in this case, the blow out
of the BOH. Works perfectly just as he stated it. Although my opinion is
that the Z-film was altered...:)

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Because the z-film simply was not altered.

It just wasn't.

There may have bee a hole in the BOH; but the Z-file doesn't show one.

And as far as I know, there isn't a single picture or x-ray anywhere that
shows one.

Were all of those altered too?

[BT George]

On Monday, November 18, 2013 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, November 18, 2013 12:43:53 AM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, November 17, 2013 1:59:20 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On 11/16/2013 9:52 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:41:59 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> On 11/15/2013 9:08 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > >>> On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:15:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrotev:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>>> .John
v>

OK. ...It is hard to withdraw totally from posting so close to the 50th.
However, your comments bring up a few questions in my mind.

If the Z film was altered, why did not *NUMEROUS* witnesses back in 1976
when if first went public not start *screaming* about how clearly this
diverged from their memories? The only outcry I remember---and one fully
embraced by the CT community for decades since---is that "back and to the
left" proved a frontal shot.

Likewise, if the plotters had the ablity to alter the Zfilm in the ways
you seem to suggest (like covering up a hole in the BOH) then why not do
something about "back and to the left" while they were at it? Seems to me
that either exagerating the forward lurch upon impact and/or minimizing
the snapback would be a lot smarter on their part.

Also, just how did they know to alter the video in ways that would support
the SBT when the theory hadn't beed developed at first, and when many of
the ways it corroborates it were not widely noted or appreciated until
many, many year later? Just some good luck on their part?

BT George

[cmikes]

Stuff Trimmed

>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Actually, Ed Hoffman's original claim was that he saw two men running from
>
> >
>
> > the back of the TSBD, but it was pointed out to him that he couldn't see
>
> >
>
> > the back of the building from that position. Years later, in the 1970's,
>
> >
>
> > after the conspiracy focus changed to the Grassy Knoll, that's when he
>
> >
>
> > changed his story to match the new place that buffs were interested in.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If you listen to the way Ed Hoffman tells it, he spoke up right away about what he saw, and was told to shut up by the FBI (he's not the only one), which he did for years. Oddly enough, you can see the TSBD from his position. Whether you can see the actual rear building face, I don't know, but you should be able to see the building and anyone that came out of it. However, the story I heard was the one with 2 men behind the fence.
>
>
>
> Where is his other story recorded? I'd like to take a look at it, since I hadn't heard of it until now.
>
>

Follow the above link, it has links to all the FBI reports about the
different variations of Hoffman's story. One big indicator that a
witness's story is not true is if they're constantly adding to it,
particularly if the additions make it fall more in line with the the
conspiracy buffs hopes and dreams. As a general rule, memories fade as
time goes by, not get clearer and much, much, more detailed.

> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Huh? Explain that. You concede my point and then you say I am wrong?

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 5:54:43 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 11/15/2013 4:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> >
>
> > .John
>
> > --
>
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>

> Same error as Itek. Measuring from the back of one object to the front
>
> of another just measures the amount of BLUR in frame 313. See David
>
> Wimp's presentation.
>
> Or read my article which shows that EVERYONE in the limo was moving
>
> forward just before the head shot.

***The limo was moving forward just before the head shot. At Z313, JFK's
head moved forward and down, compared to Z312, unlike everyone else in the
limo. The movement of JFK's head was related to a bullet striking him in
the head.


***Ron Judge

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 3:27:15 PM UTC-8, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:39:56 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>

> > On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:15:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > .John
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > And it's very clear in those frames that there is no large hole in the back of JFK's head.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Not definitive evidence but one would think a large hole could be
>
> > seen somewhere.
>
>
>
>
>

> Unless the film was altered. Smartest thing they did was to fudge the
>
> Z-film. It's fooled more people than straight facts. As a test, see how
>
> many points where frames are missing that you can count.
>
>
>
> Chris


***There are no frames missing in the camera original except for the
splice at Z207.


***Ron Judge

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 3:30:33 PM UTC-8, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:39:56 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:15:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > .John
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And it's very clear in those frames that there is no large hole in the back of JFK's head.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Not definitive evidence but one would think a large hole could be
>
> > seen somewhere.
>
>
>
>
>

> There was a group called the 'Hollywood Working Group' made up of film
>
> specialists that were fully familiar with all the tricks used to alter
>
> film. They were run by Sydney Wilkinson and her husband. One of the
>
> things they did was to blow up the frames of the Z-film to humongous size
>
> and then review it. They found a black blot placed on the film at the
>
> point of the BOH of JFK from frame 313 to 337. At a few points it was
>
> even squarish looking to the eye. They deemed it a fake effort and
>
> probably done in haste.
>
>
>

> But of course, new technology has also shown that many items in the
>
> Z-film were enhanced or changed, most often by overpainting (not directly
>
> on the film) and then refilming to make it look like an original film.
>
> An expert stated that the 'Hawkeye Works' at the Kodak plant in Rochester,
>
> NY which had the Z-film for a short period, had all the equipment needed
>
> to do most anything with film.
>
>
>
> Chris

***The camera original has no black blot on the back of JFK's head.

You can't over paint the film grain on the camera original, without it
being obvious on the film itself, as it is something being added onto the
physical film. There is nothing as clear as the camera original, as any
copy is film grain recording the image of film grain, not the original
subject.

The camera original was used for digital remastering, to create the MPI
"Image of an Assassination."


***Ron Judge

[Anthony Marsh]

The ghost images. Why haven't you read my article?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/zapruder.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean when they were not allowed to see it?

[mainframetech]

It was obvious early on that Hoover liked the 'lone nut' theory, and he
pushed it to his people and to LBJ. But those that were conspirators had
it planned in advance that the 'patsy' had to be seen as the ONLY shooter.
Anything else would begin to put the various agencies in doubt of the
public. And having a 'lone nut' was perfect for letting shooters and
other conspirators to go on about their business without any difficulty.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Hoffman's memories were in line with other people that knew that
something was wrong up on the GK. Anytime the whole LN community gets
behind ruining a person's statements, you know you should pay more
attention to it, because it probably proved something of the conspiracy.

It's like Mark Lane, who has brought forward many witnesses that were
ignored by the WC an others. He has been vilified day after day in some
forums. An while he may be the lowest dirtbag (I don't know that) going,
his witnesses have the ring of truth and shouldn't be painted with the
same brush, but that's exactly the intent. Ruin the reputation of the
interviewer, then easily ridicule the witness.

Those tactics are as bad as the people selected to use them on.

Chris

[Dave Reitzes]

On Monday, November 18, 2013 1:44:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/18/2013 12:43 AM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, November 17, 2013 1:59:20 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> You have not studied the Zapruder film. I have. In depth. I am the one
>
> >>
>
> >> who proved that it is authentic.

(Slow, building applause.)

Now, if you could only prove the shots on the Dictabelt to be authentic...

If you can't see that frame 313 is
>
> >>
>
> >> heavily blurred then YOU need to get YOUR eyes examined and there is no
>
> >>
>
> >> point in debating it with you.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The Harris-style "La la la, I can't hear you" stuff gets old, Anthony. Of
>
> > course the film blurs, but JFK's head clearly moves forward at least a
>
> > couple of inches: compare the back of his head to the pink color of
>
>
>
> No, not clear. Blurrily. And half of your couple of inches is the amount
>
> of blue in frame 313.

So you agree that the President's head moves forward about an inch in
Z312-313, while his torso does not perceptibly move forward, and no one
else in the frame perceptibly moves forward?

I can only assume that Tony misspoke, because this would have to be --
both literally and figuratively -- the first time I have ever seen Anthony
Marsh give an inch in any argument.

> I don't see how you can seriously say that you> can't see the blur of frame 313.

"La la la, I can't heeeeeear you," sings Tony.

Here's what I said:


> Of course the film blurs, but JFK's head clearly moves
> forward at least a couple of inches: compare the back of

> his head to the pink color of Jackie's outfit behind him,

> and look how much more of the pink becomes visible as the
> head moves forward. JFK's torso blurs but shows no
> perceptible movement. The other people in the frame blur
> but show no perceptible movement. Only JFK's head moves
> clearly towards the front of the car. Itek got it right,
> as anyone can see:
>
>
> Itek lied and you support them.

Everyone Tony disagrees with a liar. How could I forget?

I'm pretty sure Itek saw -- and quantified (or measured) -- exactly what I

see:

http://www.jfk-online.com/Closeup_312-313.gif

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tony's right, and the
bullet entry to the back of the head (as agreed upon by all the
pathologists who examined the wounds on the body of the slain president
AND every one of the numerous forensic experts commissioned to study the
original autopsy materials -- yes, even Cyril Wecht) only caused the head
to move forward about an inch -- or let's even say it did not cause the
victim's head to move noticeably forward between frames Z312-313 at all.

What difference would it make? We know there was a bullet entry wound on
the back of the head. We know there is no medical evidence of a shot from
anywhere else -- as even Cyril Wecht reluctantly acknowledged. The only
forensic evidence of a shot from anywhere else is the discredited
acoustical theory, which Tony refuses to let go, and which -- even if it
were valid -- concluded that the theoretical knoll shot MISSED the
President. (Anthony says his experts were wrong about that.)

So how does Tony's "liar, liar" claim support his deeply held conviction
that JFK was shot from the front?

Dave

[bigdog]

On Monday, November 18, 2013 2:56:05 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> Why is it that you refuse to consider alteration of the Z-film, especially since there was every motive and opportunity to do it, and the lab that did it is known and a courier with the Z-film stated it came from there?

Maybe because there isn't a shred of evidence that happened.

The film was developed in Dallas, why take it to do all that special
processing? The techniques were known and weren't difficult to do.

>

When you find out the answer to that question, let us know and then tell
us how it indicates a conspiracy.

>
> Among the witnesses that you threw away were 2 motorcycle cops that were back and to the left of the limo, and they both were splattered with blood, brains and fluids from the large hole in the BOH of JFK. It was all over their uniforms.

Who threw them away. Motorcycle cops driving through a cloud of blood and
brain that came from the exploding head of a guy who was riding just in
front of them is perfectly logical.

[BT George]

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see much significant effort to
address the *specific* questions/issues I just raised. It is easy enough
to embark on a theory that the film was altered, but there are certain
ramifications to any theory and an overarching logic should apply.

If this really happened then the "ripples" that should be expected to come
from having cast such an "alteration" rock into the JFK Assassination pond
should play out in certain understandable ways. I'm asking why the actual
course of events since that fateful day has often produced---or failed to
produce---certain ripples that one migh reasonably infer as flowing from
your premise.

BT George

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 6:32:07 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> Hoffman's memories were in line with other people that knew that
> something was wrong up on the GK.

Of course they were. He tailored them to fit what others had already said.
Of course he had to keep reworking his story as people kept pointing out
parts that didn't fit the evidence. I think by the time he died, he was up
to version 5.3.

> Anytime the whole LN community gets
> behind ruining a person's statements, you know you should pay more
> attention to it, because it probably proved something of the conspiracy.
>

It's proved how gullible some people are.

[cmikes]

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 6:32:07 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> On Monday, November 18, 2013 10:20:58 PM UTC-5, cmikes wrote:
>
> > Stuff Trimmed
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Actually, Ed Hoffman's original claim was that he saw two men running from
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > the back of the TSBD, but it was pointed out to him that he couldn't see
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > the back of the building from that position. Years later, in the 1970's,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > after the conspiracy focus changed to the Grassy Knoll, that's when he
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > changed his story to match the new place that buffs were interested in.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If you listen to the way Ed Hoffman tells it, he spoke up right away about what he saw, and was told to shut up by the FBI (he's not the only one), which he did for years. Oddly enough, you can see the TSBD from his position. Whether you can see the actual rear building face, I don't know, but you should be able to see the building and anyone that came out of it. However, the story I heard was the one with 2 men behind the fence.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Where is his other story recorded? I'd like to take a look at it, since I hadn't heard of it until now.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Follow the above link, it has links to all the FBI reports about the
>
> >
>
> > different variations of Hoffman's story. One big indicator that a
>
> >
>
> > witness's story is not true is if they're constantly adding to it,
>
> >
>
> > particularly if the additions make it fall more in line with the the
>
> >
>
> > conspiracy buffs hopes and dreams. As a general rule, memories fade as
>
> >
>
> > time goes by, not get clearer and much, much, more detailed.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> Hoffman's memories were in line with other people that knew that
>
> something was wrong up on the GK. Anytime the whole LN community gets
>
> behind ruining a person's statements, you know you should pay more
>
> attention to it, because it probably proved something of the conspiracy.
>

You're missing the point, though. Why did Hoffman's 'memories' change so
much over time? When everyone knew that the shots had come from the TSBD,
then he saw two men running from the back of the TSBD, even though his
view was blocked from where he was. Then, years later, when the buffs had
changed the story to the Grassy Knoll, all of a sudden Hoffman's
'memories' are completely different, and what do you know, it matches up
perfectly with the buffs new dreams. What are the odds? Was he lying when
he said he looked through a fence to see two men running out of the TSBD?
When did he 'remember' he saw two men on the Grassy Knoll? If he
'remembered' them from the start, why did he change it to the TSBD? He
went directly to the FBI about the men he saw at the time, why didn't he
tell them about the men on the Grassy Knoll at the time? Why wait so many
years?

>
> It's like Mark Lane, who has brought forward many witnesses that were
>
> ignored by the WC an others. He has been vilified day after day in some
>
> forums. An while he may be the lowest dirtbag (I don't know that) going,
>
> his witnesses have the ring of truth and shouldn't be painted with the
>
> same brush, but that's exactly the intent. Ruin the reputation of the
>
> interviewer, then easily ridicule the witness.
>
>
>
> Those tactics are as bad as the people selected to use them on.

The biggest problem with taking anything Lane says seriously is that you
never know when he's lying. He's been caught so many times lying over the
years, you can't take anything he says at face value. Lane has been
proven to be a liar so many times that I would confirm it if he told me
the sky was blue.

[Anthony Marsh]

What you don't know is that Hoover thought Oswald was the lone shooter,
but paid by Castro to kill Kennedy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/19/2013 9:36 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Monday, November 18, 2013 1:44:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/18/2013 12:43 AM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 17, 2013 1:59:20 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> You have not studied the Zapruder film. I have. In depth. I am the one
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> who proved that it is authentic.
>
>
> (Slow, building applause.)
>
> Now, if you could only prove the shots on the Dictabelt to be authentic...
>
>
> If you can't see that frame 313 is
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> heavily blurred then YOU need to get YOUR eyes examined and there is no
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> point in debating it with you.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The Harris-style "La la la, I can't hear you" stuff gets old, Anthony. Of
>>
>>> course the film blurs, but JFK's head clearly moves forward at least a
>>
>>> couple of inches: compare the back of his head to the pink color of
>>
>>
>>
>> No, not clear. Blurrily. And half of your couple of inches is the amount
>>
>> of blue in frame 313.
>
>
> So you agree that the President's head moves forward about an inch in
> Z312-313, while his torso does not perceptibly move forward, and no one
> else in the frame perceptibly moves forward?
>
> I can only assume that Tony misspoke, because this would have to be --
> both literally and figuratively -- the first time I have ever seen Anthony
> Marsh give an inch in any argument.
>

Don't be ridiculous. I have written about this hundreds of times. But as
usual you don't pay attention to the qualifiers. I said "about" an inch.
Not exactly an inch. You said a couple of inches. Itek said 2.3 inches.

>
>> I don't see how you can seriously say that you> can't see the blur of frame 313.
>
>
> "La la la, I can't heeeeeear you," sings Tony.
>
> Here's what I said:
>
>
>> Of course the film blurs, but JFK's head clearly moves
>> forward at least a couple of inches: compare the back of
>> his head to the pink color of Jackie's outfit behind him,
>> and look how much more of the pink becomes visible as the
>> head moves forward. JFK's torso blurs but shows no
>> perceptible movement. The other people in the frame blur
>> but show no perceptible movement. Only JFK's head moves
>> clearly towards the front of the car. Itek got it right,
>> as anyone can see:
>>
>>
>> Itek lied and you support them.
>
>
> Everyone Tony disagrees with a liar. How could I forget?
>

I didn't call you a liar. You are an enabler.

> I'm pretty sure Itek saw -- and quantified (or measured) -- exactly what I
> see:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/Closeup_312-313.gif
>

No. You didn't say 2.3 inches.

> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tony's right, and the
> bullet entry to the back of the head (as agreed upon by all the
> pathologists who examined the wounds on the body of the slain president
> AND every one of the numerous forensic experts commissioned to study the
> original autopsy materials -- yes, even Cyril Wecht) only caused the head
> to move forward about an inch -- or let's even say it did not cause the
> victim's head to move noticeably forward between frames Z312-313 at all.
>

Again you misrepresent what I said. I said the inch came from the limo
suddenly slowing down. Not from a bullet.

> What difference would it make? We know there was a bullet entry wound on
> the back of the head. We know there is no medical evidence of a shot from
> anywhere else -- as even Cyril Wecht reluctantly acknowledged. The only
> forensic evidence of a shot from anywhere else is the discredited
> acoustical theory, which Tony refuses to let go, and which -- even if it
> were valid -- concluded that the theoretical knoll shot MISSED the
> President. (Anthony says his experts were wrong about that.)
>

No, WE don't. I know there was no wound of any type on the back of JFK's
head.

> So how does Tony's "liar, liar" claim support his deeply held conviction
> that JFK was shot from the front?
>

Because I know the autopsy photos are genuine and show the entrance hole
on the forehead above the right eye.

> Dave
>

[Dave Reitzes]

That is correct.

So you agree that the head moved forward. Thank you.

> >> I don't see how you can seriously say that you> can't see the blur of frame 313.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "La la la, I can't heeeeeear you," sings Tony.
>
> >
>
> > Here's what I said:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> Of course the film blurs, but JFK's head clearly moves
>
> >> forward at least a couple of inches: compare the back of
>
> >> his head to the pink color of Jackie's outfit behind him,
>
> >> and look how much more of the pink becomes visible as the
>
> >> head moves forward. JFK's torso blurs but shows no
>
> >> perceptible movement. The other people in the frame blur
>
> >> but show no perceptible movement. Only JFK's head moves
>
> >> clearly towards the front of the car. Itek got it right,
>
> >> as anyone can see:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Itek lied and you support them.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Everyone Tony disagrees with a liar. How could I forget?
>
> >
>
>
>
> I didn't call you a liar. You are an enabler.

I understand.

> > I'm pretty sure Itek saw -- and quantified (or measured) -- exactly what I
>
> > see:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.jfk-online.com/Closeup_312-313.gif
>
> >
>
>
>
> No. You didn't say 2.3 inches.

Bitch, bitch, bitch.

> > http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> >
>
> > But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tony's right, and the
>
> > bullet entry to the back of the head (as agreed upon by all the
>
> > pathologists who examined the wounds on the body of the slain president
>
> > AND every one of the numerous forensic experts commissioned to study the
>
> > original autopsy materials -- yes, even Cyril Wecht) only caused the head
>
> > to move forward about an inch -- or let's even say it did not cause the
>
> > victim's head to move noticeably forward between frames Z312-313 at all.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Again you misrepresent what I said. I said the inch came from the limo
>
> suddenly slowing down. Not from a bullet.

Yet no one else moved forward an inch. Or do you allege otherwise?

> > What difference would it make? We know there was a bullet entry wound on
>
> > the back of the head. We know there is no medical evidence of a shot from
>
> > anywhere else -- as even Cyril Wecht reluctantly acknowledged. The only
>
> > forensic evidence of a shot from anywhere else is the discredited
>
> > acoustical theory, which Tony refuses to let go, and which -- even if it
>
> > were valid -- concluded that the theoretical knoll shot MISSED the
>
> > President. (Anthony says his experts were wrong about that.)
>
> >
>
>
>
> No, WE don't. I know there was no wound of any type on the back of JFK's
>
> head.

Ah. And you know this how?

> > So how does Tony's "liar, liar" claim support his deeply held conviction
>
> > that JFK was shot from the front?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Because I know the autopsy photos are genuine and show the entrance hole
>
> on the forehead above the right eye.

Ah. Another self-taught medical expert.

So you have a better understanding of the medical evidence than the
pathologists who conducted the autopsy and the forensic experts
commissioned to study the original autopsy evidence.

These guys, I mean:

Clark Panel: William M. Carnes, M.D., Professor of Pathology, Salt Lake
City, Utah; Russell S. Fisher, M.D., Professor of Forensic Pathology,
University of Maryland, and Chief Medical Examiner of the State of
Maryland; Russell H. Morgan, M.D., Professor of Radiology, School of
Medicine, and Professor of Radiological Science, School of Hygiene and
Public Health, The Johns-Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Alan R.
Moritz, M.D., Professor of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio.

Rockefeller Commission: Lieutenant Colonel Robert R. McMeekin, MC, USA,
Chief, Division of Aerospace Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Washington, D.C.; Richard Lindenberg, M.D., Director of
Neuropathology & Legal Medicine, Department of Mental Health, State of
Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Werner U. Spitz, M.D., Chief Medical
Examiner, Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan; Fred J. Hodges III, M.D.,
Professor of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore,
Maryland; and Alfred G. Olivier, V.M.D., Director, Department of
Biophysics, Biomedical Laboratories, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving
Grounds, Maryland.

HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel: John I. Coe, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner
of Hennepin County, Minnesota; Joseph H. Davis, M.D., Chief Medical
Examiner of Dade County, Miami, Florida; George S. Loquvam, M.D., Director
of the Institute of Forensic Sciences, Oakland, California; Charles S.
Petty, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Dallas County, Dallas, Texas; Earl
Rose, M.D., LL.B., Professor of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City,
Iowa; Werner V. Spitz, M.D., Medical Examiner of Detroit, Michigan; Cyril
H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; James T.
Weston, M.D., Chief Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico School
of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Panel Chairman Michael M. Baden,
M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, New York City.

Sorry, I forgot: they were all lying, right?

Funny how many self-taught medical experts there are who claim to know
what the autopsy materials show, and how no two of them agree on anything.

Dave

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 6:32:07 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> On Monday, November 18, 2013 10:20:58 PM UTC-5, cmikes wrote:
>
> > Stuff Trimmed
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Actually, Ed Hoffman's original claim was that he saw two men running from
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > the back of the TSBD, but it was pointed out to him that he couldn't see
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > the back of the building from that position. Years later, in the 1970's,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > after the conspiracy focus changed to the Grassy Knoll, that's when he
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > changed his story to match the new place that buffs were interested in.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If you listen to the way Ed Hoffman tells it, he spoke up right away about what he saw, and was told to shut up by the FBI (he's not the only one), which he did for years. Oddly enough, you can see the TSBD from his position. Whether you can see the actual rear building face, I don't know, but you should be able to see the building and anyone that came out of it. However, the story I heard was the one with 2 men behind the fence.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Where is his other story recorded? I'd like to take a look at it, since I hadn't heard of it until now.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Follow the above link, it has links to all the FBI reports about the
>
> >
>
> > different variations of Hoffman's story. One big indicator that a
>
> >
>
> > witness's story is not true is if they're constantly adding to it,
>
> >
>
> > particularly if the additions make it fall more in line with the the
>
> >
>
> > conspiracy buffs hopes and dreams. As a general rule, memories fade as
>
> >
>
> > time goes by, not get clearer and much, much, more detailed.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> Hoffman's memories were in line with other people that knew that
>
> something was wrong up on the GK.

Just because he was deaf doesn`t mean he couldn`t read a newspaper.

> Anytime the whole LN community gets
>
> behind ruining a person's statements, you know you should pay more
>
> attention to it, because it probably proved something of the conspiracy.

The more reasons offered to doubt Hoffman will only cause you to cling
to him even more, just to spite reality.

> It's like Mark Lane, who has brought forward many witnesses that were
>
> ignored by the WC an others. He has been vilified day after day in some
>
> forums. An while he may be the lowest dirtbag (I don't know that) going,
>
> his witnesses have the ring of truth and shouldn't be painted with the
>
> same brush, but that's exactly the intent. Ruin the reputation of the
>
> interviewer, then easily ridicule the witness.

Show us where we can see the full, uncut, unaltered interviews of these
witnesses.

[mainframetech]

Any one frame on a roll of film should blur or not blur about the same
as the frames before and after when shooting the same scene and moving
continuously. Look for differences. You will also find many places where
there are frames missing, and you can find at least 2 places where part of
the left side over exposure was missing. All odd abnormal events with a
film.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Nope. Won't do. You seem to conveniently forget that the limo was
traveling slowly at that point, and at the kill shot had almost stopped.
No cloud to drive through for the cops. It was blasted at them from the

'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.

As to there being no shred of evidence that the Z-film went to a CIA
location, that's false as usual. Here is an article that discusses how it
was done and who had worked with the film (Dino Brugioni, Homer McMahon)
of NPIC who were not aware of each other on 2 different days (Sat. and
Sun.). It gives all the documentation needed to prove what is being said:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-fi
lm-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/

The Z-film chain of custody was in reality much different than what
most people had thought over the years. Sample frames were run off from
the film supplied before CIA processing, and then after. I suppose that
would allow for higher ups to see if the alteration was done right.

Chris

[mainframetech]

If the film alteration were done well and secretly, there wouldn't be
any ripples. Some of the information of where the film was really at
during the succeeding 2-3 days didn't come out until the 90's. Though the
alteration was not of high quality and done in haste, for the time, and
even now with some determined researchers, it's still the gold standard!!

The story and the proof will slowly come out and be accepted over time.
Some will reject it and be left behind.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Indeed. Maybe if they had followed up on his report the first day when
he made it, we might be a little farther ahead on the case.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I've caught Bugliosi lying. That has nothing to do with the witnesses
that he interviewed. If you see the videos of the Mark Lane witnesses
they are convincing, and it has nothing to do with Mark Lane's being
decent or a dirtbag.

We can't allow people to manipulate us by denigrating the interviewer
and expecting us to then ignore the witnesses the interviewer has dug up
and put on tape. Too much useful evidence may get lost that way, as may
be the intention. We need to judge the witnesses like a jury would as to
whether they are telling the truth or not.

Chris

[mainframetech]

It's not terribly important to solve whether the head moved forward
first or back first. More important to determine the general source of
the kill shot (from the front, or course). A 'tail splash' can be caused
by a high speed bullet as it enters the head. That is material from
inside splashing back the way the bullet has come from. In frame 313 we
see exactly that, just as Vincent DiMaio has stated.

The entrance wound on the right forehead was described by Tom Robinson,
the mortician. He figured it at .25 inches, which is just right for some
assault rifle bullets. It would work out very well if a bullet came into
that entry wound and tunneled through the brain with pressure building by
the time it got to the rear of the brain and blew out the BOH. That fits
a scenario put forward by Vincent DiMaio, forensic pathologist and wounds
ballistics expert.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I've shown the witnesses many times in the course of debate of
discussion. Here's a few:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true.

[Anthony Marsh]

They ALL moved forward at about the same time about the same amount.
Kellerman moved forward an inch.

>
>>> What difference would it make? We know there was a bullet entry wound on
>>
>>> the back of the head. We know there is no medical evidence of a shot from
>>
>>> anywhere else -- as even Cyril Wecht reluctantly acknowledged. The only
>>
>>> forensic evidence of a shot from anywhere else is the discredited
>>
>>> acoustical theory, which Tony refuses to let go, and which -- even if it
>>
>>> were valid -- concluded that the theoretical knoll shot MISSED the
>>
>>> President. (Anthony says his experts were wrong about that.)
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, WE don't. I know there was no wound of any type on the back of JFK's
>>
>> head.
>
>
> Ah. And you know this how?
>
>
>>> So how does Tony's "liar, liar" claim support his deeply held conviction
>>
>>> that JFK was shot from the front?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Because I know the autopsy photos are genuine and show the entrance hole
>>
>> on the forehead above the right eye.
>
>
> Ah. Another self-taught medical expert.

Dr. Lawrence Angel.

>
> So you have a better understanding of the medical evidence than the
> pathologists who conducted the autopsy and the forensic experts
> commissioned to study the original autopsy evidence.
>

Yes, I do. Because I am an honest person.

I've seen all of the original Fox set. You haven't.

> Dave
>

[mainframetech]

Ah. Another useless one liner. Ignored.

Chris

[Dave Reitzes]

Sorry, ad hominem is not going to cut it.

The "original Fox set" is a set of mediocre, B&W copies.

As for me, I'm not rendering any lay interpretations of the forensic
evidence at all. I'm going with what the world-class forensic experts who
examined the original autopsy materials said. You know, the guys I listed
above. If you have better evidence, feel free to share it.

Dave

[Anthony Marsh]

The original Fox set were first generation prints made from Black and
white negatives.

> As for me, I'm not rendering any lay interpretations of the forensic
> evidence at all. I'm going with what the world-class forensic experts who
> examined the original autopsy materials said. You know, the guys I listed
> above. If you have better evidence, feel free to share it.
>

I have. You refuse to read it.

> Dave
>

[mainframetech]

The evidence comes from you. All the experts in the world can't offer a
decent diagnosis of elements in a murder if half or more of the reviewed
item were altered to suit the wrong scenario. If the very photographs
were altered, hjow would an expert use them to see the truth? Fact is
they can't, and any result they would put pout would be tainted by this
real problem.

"Seeing is NOT believing" when a photo or film is involved, but many
folks can't face that truth.

[Dave Reitzes]

If you say so.

Dave

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:49:18 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > Who threw them away. Motorcycle cops driving through a cloud of blood and
> > brain that came from the exploding head of a guy who was riding just in
> > front of them is perfectly logical.

> Nope. Won't do. You seem to conveniently forget that the limo was
> traveling slowly at that point, and at the kill shot had almost stopped.
> No cloud to drive through for the cops. It was blasted at them from the
> 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
>

HUH??? Are you saying they couldn't have driven through a cloud of tissue
because it wasn't moving forward fast enough? The Z-film clearly shows the
the blood and brain exiting forward and upward from the exit wound on the
side of the head. Since this evidnece contradicts what you believe, your
resort to the standard CT ploy of claiming the evidence is phony because
you know your theory is right.

>
> As to there being no shred of evidence that the Z-film went to a CIA
> location, that's false as usual. Here is an article that discusses how it
> was done and who had worked with the film (Dino Brugioni, Homer McMahon)
> of NPIC who were not aware of each other on 2 different days (Sat. and
> Sun.). It gives all the documentation needed to prove what is being said:

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-fi=
> lm-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/
>
Doug Horne??? <chuckle> Another CT making the same outlandish claims you are is not evidence of anything.

>
>
> The Z-film chain of custody was in reality much different than what
> most people had thought over the years. Sample frames were run off from
> the film supplied before CIA processing, and then after. I suppose that
> would allow for higher ups to see if the alteration was done right.
>

Now that's funny.

[bigdog]

Do you think it will come out before the next ice age? My money's on the
ice age.

[Bud]

Conspiracy hobbyists create their own truths to suit themselves. Just a
silly game that doesn`t amount to anything.

[mainframetech]

Thank you.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:24:06 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:49:18 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > Who threw them away. Motorcycle cops driving through a cloud of blood and
>
> > > brain that came from the exploding head of a guy who was riding just in
>
> > > front of them is perfectly logical.
>
>
>
> > Nope. Won't do. You seem to conveniently forget that the limo was
>
> > traveling slowly at that point, and at the kill shot had almost stopped.
>
> > No cloud to drive through for the cops. It was blasted at them from the
>
> > 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
>
> >
>
>
>
> HUH??? Are you saying they couldn't have driven through a cloud of tissue
>
> because it wasn't moving forward fast enough? The Z-film clearly shows the
>
> the blood and brain exiting forward and upward from the exit wound on the
>
> side of the head. Since this evidnece contradicts what you believe, your
>
> resort to the standard CT ploy of claiming the evidence is phony because
>
> you know your theory is right.
>
>

Since someone provided you with a film you can point to, you stop
thinking and point to the film. I'm asking a question where your
intelligence is required. The film has been proven to have been altered,
but forget that, I'm asking that you get a thinking cap and answer the
question. Here's the sentence with the implied question:

"No cloud to drive through for the cops. It was blasted at them from

the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK." Just knowing the facts immediately
makes the film suspicious. The limo almost stopped and then the kill shot
blasted through and sprayed the cops with the blood, brains and fluids
from the huge wound in the BOH of JFK.

Thoughts? And not the usual one-liners, I hope.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh sure. The story has already come out, it's only a matter of people
checking it carefully and then accepting it. A huge amount of pages were
devoted to the Z-film and the special processing it got in Rochester, NY.
See Douglas Horne's 4th volume "Inside the Assassination Records Review
Board" where all the information is spelled out clearly.

A customer review of the set of books is here:
http://www.amazon.com/review/RNUQYZNJC8J7R/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RNUQYZNJC8J7R

Chris

[cmikes]

They did. Hoffman dropped it when it was pointed out to him that he
couldn't see the back of the TSBD from where he was. He, of course,
changed his story later to the Grassy Knoll. How could anyone follow up
on his "report" when he didn't report his seeing anyone on the GK until
the 1970's?

[loon killer]

His head popped forwarded then exploded like plastic soda pop bottle out
the right side.

LHO was an above average shot and at 150 ft it really wasn't that hard -
many have duplicated it.

He hit a 6 inch moving target 2 out of three shots.... not bad. Either
would have been fatal in most circumstances.

The marines know how to train the lowest skilled morons to be killers.
Look at the current crop doing Texaco and Hallburgen dirty work now.

[loon killer]

Only thing you have to do is prove it.

[Mike]

Yes his head did move forward but is also moved downward( "bobbed down" )

But the bullet struck the top of the head, not the back of the head. If
some want to say the head did not move too far forward this is why. The
vector had a strong downward component as well as a strong left to right
component.

The bullet exited the right side of the head.

The brain matter did explode to the right side but the top of the skull
was removed as well.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/26/2013 12:12 AM, loon killer wrote:
> Only thing you have to do is prove it.
>

Prove what? Kennedy's head did move.

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that. Can you show us any examples?

>
>

[mainframetech]

No bullet came down from 'above', and no top of the head was blown off.
The top of the head left Parkland in good shape with NO damage as per some
of the staff there. The damage to the top of head was done at Bethesda.

Given the possible bullet strikes, there's no telling which way the
head would move. If the head moved forward or back ward, it won't prove
anything.

There's more chance the head would move backward if the bullet came from
in front (it did), but not that much. Watch it happen here:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/423513/

Chris