How come there's a mic in Beers but no mic in Jackson?

Ralph Cinque

unread,

Jun 26, 2016, 1:44:36 PM6/26/16

to

How come in the Beers photo, we see a microphone hanging on the upper
right, but we don't see it in the Jackson photo, which was reportedly
taken just .6 second later?

http://tinypic.com/r/17s7xw/9

And please, no one try to claim that it was higher up in the Jackson photo
because we also have frames from the videos that go up to the ceiling that
show no mic. Ed Chiarni considers the mic incriminating because it shows
an expectation of some audio to record from that spot. Otherwise, why have
that mic there? And, what's the explanation for the inconsistency?

Ed takes it as proof that they did multiple takes- sometimes with the mic;
sometimes without. Yeah, that's a possibility. But, isn't it also possible
they just photoshopped the mic out of the Jackson photo? They definitely
didn't photoshop the mic into the Beers photo. And I realize that they
didn't have Photoshop or anything digital back then, but I am using the
word generically. They had other ways of doing it. I suspect that would
have been easy to do even back then considering the sparseness and
simplicity of the background.

So, what do you think? Were there multiple takes or did they photoshop it
out?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jun 27, 2016, 5:02:05 PM6/27/16

to

On 6/26/2016 1:44 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> How come in the Beers photo, we see a microphone hanging on the upper
> right, but we don't see it in the Jackson photo, which was reportedly
> taken just .6 second later?
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/17s7xw/9
>
> And please, no one try to claim that it was higher up in the Jackson photo
> because we also have frames from the videos that go up to the ceiling that
> show no mic. Ed Chiarni considers the mic incriminating because it shows
> an expectation of some audio to record from that spot. Otherwise, why have
> that mic there? And, what's the explanation for the inconsistency?
>
> Ed takes it as proof that they did multiple takes- sometimes with the mic;
> sometimes without. Yeah, that's a possibility. But, isn't it also possible
> they just photoshopped the mic out of the Jackson photo? They definitely

Photoshopped? WTF are you babbling about? In 1963? Is that what they
call anachronism? Or do you think it was time travel?

> didn't photoshop the mic into the Beers photo. And I realize that they
> didn't have Photoshop or anything digital back then, but I am using the
> word generically. They had other ways of doing it. I suspect that would

You don't know anything about photography. Stick to science fiction.

> have been easy to do even back then considering the sparseness and
> simplicity of the background.
>
> So, what do you think? Were there multiple takes or did they photoshop it
> out?
>

I think you're loony.

>

Mark OBLAZNEY

unread,

Jun 27, 2016, 5:02:29 PM6/27/16

to

Well, if Ed said so, Ralph, there's only one way to go. I'm going to go
with Ed Chiarini, the DallasGoldBug. It's a lock. It's a done deal.
It's a real hum-dinger. You did it, Ralph. You're the greatest.

Steve Barber

unread,

Jun 27, 2016, 7:38:23 PM6/27/16

to

You've opened yourself up wide for this, Ralph. The microphone is there.
It was hanging from the ceiling. It's there whether it appears in photos
taken of Ruby shooting Oswald, or doesn't appear. It's still there.

Alex Foyle

unread,

Jun 28, 2016, 12:03:50 AM6/28/16

to

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 7:44:36 PM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> So, what do you think? Were there multiple takes or did they photoshop it
> out?

I think you really need a new hobby, because every new theory of yours is
more stupid than the one before.

Ralph Cinque

unread,

Jun 28, 2016, 3:08:08 PM6/28/16

to

We have images that go all the way up to the ceiling with no mic.

http://tinypic.com/r/539qv4/9

Stop denying it. You can't.

Ralph Cinque

unread,

Jun 28, 2016, 3:12:07 PM6/28/16

to

I tell you, there is blood in this forum. For people to dismiss the fact
that there is a discrepancy between two images of the same thing except
taken .6 second apart: one with a mic and the other without, is pitiful.

And you can't say it was cropped out because we have images that go all
the way up to the ceiling in which there is no mic. Yet, there it is in
the Beers photo. If you don't care, it means only one thing: blood.

Mark OBLAZNEY

unread,

Jun 30, 2016, 12:45:11 AM6/30/16

to

You are suffering from pareidolia, Dr. Cinque.

Ever been bathed in the Blood of the Lamb, Ralph? Go, and sin no more.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 30, 2016, 2:40:50 PM6/30/16

to

I doubt very much that it's a microphone hanging from the ceiling. That
seems unlikely (and unnecessary, since all the radio/TV people had their
own hand-held microphones while reporting from the basement; such as
Pettit, Pappas, and Huffaker).

The item that I've circled here could be the "microphone"-like object
hanging from the ceiling, but I'm not entirely certain....

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2TvHRnKS3rQ/V3PBWhC4_DI/AAAAAAABKMk/QMHucOpYKo8vh6_0m1L5vWXzUsb7aSi6wCLcB/s1600/DPD-Basement-NBC.png

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 1, 2016, 11:36:19 AM7/1/16

to

So you're going to take their bait?
What do you can it when WC defenders take the bait from conspiracy kooks?
Why don't you discuss their theory that aliens did it?

bpete1969

unread,

Jul 1, 2016, 2:08:15 PM7/1/16

to

You sure seem to have an unhealthy fascination with blood.

If the President could have been shot in 6 seconds (Thanks Tink, you got a
lot of people started), don't you think it remotely possible that the guy
with the boom mic moved it in 6 seconds?

You have a lousy sense of perspective Raff*, you've proven many times
over. Figure out which person the mic is above amd you may find your
answer.

Mark OBLAZNEY

unread,

Jul 1, 2016, 3:26:03 PM7/1/16

to

That looks plausible to me, D. Je suis d'accord.

Jonny Mayer

unread,

Jul 1, 2016, 7:10:15 PM7/1/16

to

It's a valid question. Seems highly unlikely that it could have been
filmed multiple times although possible. Ralph is merely asking
questions.