info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Doug Horne's latest on the execution of the Zapruder film (link provided)
97 views
Skip to first unread message
Hans Trayne
May 28, 2012, 9:14:40 AM5/28/12
to
Distressing news for some & confirmation of years of suspicion & hours
invested studying the Zapruder film & seeing things that don’t add up
for others:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
within the article.
The weekend the Zapruder film was (murdered/tampered with/re-
constructed/disguised, etc) the 3 copies were floating around and
people were viewing them. The Dallas FBI copy was flown to Washington,
the SS had another and either Time, Inc had theirs or Zapruder was
hanging onto it (depending on what version of the chain of custody is
correct). People were looking at these copies being projected;
increasing the number of witnesses to what the camera original
contained each time it was viewed when & where it was projected. The
opportunity existed to copy Zapruder’s original copies wherever each
copy was residing at the moment.
Doug Horne doesn’t say what happened to the Zapruder camera original
or the 3 original Zapruder copies either. It’s possible they weren’t
destroyed and someone is sitting on them.
Add the number of persons involved in moving the camera original to
Hawkeye & NPIC plus the technicians involved in alteration of the
camera original & processing that creation to supervisors present &
unknown supervisors directing the Federal operatives with the camera
original in their possession and you have a multitude of people
involved in this black operation.
Others & I feel today’s government can get the monkey off its back of
sins committed by its predecessors by releasing the camera original to
the public. This can be done anonymously on the Internet & would
demonstrate persons working within the government have improved since
1963.
Until that is done, the challenge is there for amateur & professional
researchers to decode what was done to the Zapruder film Sunday, 24
Nov 1963 (same day Oswald was murdered on live TV and one day before
President Kennedy was laid to rest).
The government of today cannot expect people to accept the “Oswald did
it alone” scenario when misdeeds & criminal activity of the kind
described by Doug Horne perpetrated by former operatives have rendered
the case against Lee Harvey Oswald fraudulent. In short: the
government of 1963-1964 created the problem. Will the government of
2012 fix it & we all move on with our lives?
invested studying the Zapruder film & seeing things that don’t add up
for others:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
within the article.
The weekend the Zapruder film was (murdered/tampered with/re-
constructed/disguised, etc) the 3 copies were floating around and
people were viewing them. The Dallas FBI copy was flown to Washington,
the SS had another and either Time, Inc had theirs or Zapruder was
hanging onto it (depending on what version of the chain of custody is
correct). People were looking at these copies being projected;
increasing the number of witnesses to what the camera original
contained each time it was viewed when & where it was projected. The
opportunity existed to copy Zapruder’s original copies wherever each
copy was residing at the moment.
Doug Horne doesn’t say what happened to the Zapruder camera original
or the 3 original Zapruder copies either. It’s possible they weren’t
destroyed and someone is sitting on them.
Add the number of persons involved in moving the camera original to
Hawkeye & NPIC plus the technicians involved in alteration of the
camera original & processing that creation to supervisors present &
unknown supervisors directing the Federal operatives with the camera
original in their possession and you have a multitude of people
involved in this black operation.
Others & I feel today’s government can get the monkey off its back of
sins committed by its predecessors by releasing the camera original to
the public. This can be done anonymously on the Internet & would
demonstrate persons working within the government have improved since
1963.
Until that is done, the challenge is there for amateur & professional
researchers to decode what was done to the Zapruder film Sunday, 24
Nov 1963 (same day Oswald was murdered on live TV and one day before
President Kennedy was laid to rest).
The government of today cannot expect people to accept the “Oswald did
it alone” scenario when misdeeds & criminal activity of the kind
described by Doug Horne perpetrated by former operatives have rendered
the case against Lee Harvey Oswald fraudulent. In short: the
government of 1963-1964 created the problem. Will the government of
2012 fix it & we all move on with our lives?
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
May 28, 2012, 1:48:55 PM5/28/12
to
assassin visible. The limo moved down the street and as Zapruder said, he
heard a shot and the film itself showed JFK react to being shot, as
Zapruder described. The occupants of the limo reacted in various ways,
then JFK's head exploded.
There is nothing for the government to fix. People who want to believe
the film was altered, are going to do so, even if the film you seek was to
be released. People will rationalize that the original was somehow
altered, or that it isn't really the original, just another fake.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
May 28, 2012, 5:12:27 PM5/28/12
to
On 5/28/2012 1:48 PM, r2bz...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On May 28, 6:14 am, Hans Trayne<trayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Distressing news for some& confirmation of years of suspicion& hours
> On May 28, 6:14 am, Hans Trayne<trayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> invested studying the Zapruder film& seeing things that don’t add up
>> for others:
>>
>> http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
>>
>> There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
>> within the article.
>>
>> The weekend the Zapruder film was (murdered/tampered with/re-
>> constructed/disguised, etc) the 3 copies were floating around and
>> people were viewing them. The Dallas FBI copy was flown to Washington,
>> the SS had another and either Time, Inc had theirs or Zapruder was
>> hanging onto it (depending on what version of the chain of custody is
>> correct). People were looking at these copies being projected;
>> increasing the number of witnesses to what the camera original
>> contained each time it was viewed when& where it was projected. The
>>
>> http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
>>
>> There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
>> within the article.
>>
>> The weekend the Zapruder film was (murdered/tampered with/re-
>> constructed/disguised, etc) the 3 copies were floating around and
>> people were viewing them. The Dallas FBI copy was flown to Washington,
>> the SS had another and either Time, Inc had theirs or Zapruder was
>> hanging onto it (depending on what version of the chain of custody is
>> correct). People were looking at these copies being projected;
>> increasing the number of witnesses to what the camera original
>> opportunity existed to copy Zapruder’s original copies wherever each
>> copy was residing at the moment.
>>
>> Doug Horne doesn’t say what happened to the Zapruder camera original
>> or the 3 original Zapruder copies either. It’s possible they weren’t
>> destroyed and someone is sitting on them.
>>
>> Add the number of persons involved in moving the camera original to
>> Hawkeye& NPIC plus the technicians involved in alteration of the
>> copy was residing at the moment.
>>
>> Doug Horne doesn’t say what happened to the Zapruder camera original
>> or the 3 original Zapruder copies either. It’s possible they weren’t
>> destroyed and someone is sitting on them.
>>
>> Add the number of persons involved in moving the camera original to
>> camera original& processing that creation to supervisors present&
>> unknown supervisors directing the Federal operatives with the camera
>> original in their possession and you have a multitude of people
>> involved in this black operation.
>>
>> Others& I feel today’s government can get the monkey off its back of
>> original in their possession and you have a multitude of people
>> involved in this black operation.
>>
>> sins committed by its predecessors by releasing the camera original to
>> the public. This can be done anonymously on the Internet& would
>> demonstrate persons working within the government have improved since
>> 1963.
>>
>> Until that is done, the challenge is there for amateur& professional
>> 1963.
>>
>> researchers to decode what was done to the Zapruder film Sunday, 24
>> Nov 1963 (same day Oswald was murdered on live TV and one day before
>> President Kennedy was laid to rest).
>>
>> The government of today cannot expect people to accept the “Oswald did
>> it alone” scenario when misdeeds& criminal activity of the kind
>> Nov 1963 (same day Oswald was murdered on live TV and one day before
>> President Kennedy was laid to rest).
>>
>> The government of today cannot expect people to accept the “Oswald did
>> described by Doug Horne perpetrated by former operatives have rendered
>> the case against Lee Harvey Oswald fraudulent. In short: the
>> government of 1963-1964 created the problem. Will the government of
>> 2012 fix it& we all move on with our lives?
>> the case against Lee Harvey Oswald fraudulent. In short: the
>> government of 1963-1964 created the problem. Will the government of
>
>
> ***There wasn't anything to be tampered with, in the film. There was no
> assassin visible. The limo moved down the street and as Zapruder said, he
How do you know that there was no assassin visible if you've never
>
> ***There wasn't anything to be tampered with, in the film. There was no
> assassin visible. The limo moved down the street and as Zapruder said, he
studied the original film?
> heard a shot and the film itself showed JFK react to being shot, as
> Zapruder described. The occupants of the limo reacted in various ways,
> then JFK's head exploded.
>
couldn't even tell us the frame numbers.
You have presented the kindergarten version. "The President was riding
in a car and he was shot by a very bad man."
> There is nothing for the government to fix. People who want to believe
them $5,000 and they need to spend that money on torturing babies.
Anthony Marsh
May 28, 2012, 5:39:37 PM5/28/12
to
On 5/28/2012 9:14 AM, Hans Trayne wrote:
> Distressing news for some& confirmation of years of suspicion& hours
> invested studying the Zapruder film& seeing things that don’t add up
have been examined by experts. You also left out the fact that National
Geographic recently showed a digitized version of one of the 35 mm
copies made.
> Add the number of persons involved in moving the camera original to
> Hawkeye& NPIC plus the technicians involved in alteration of the
> camera original& processing that creation to supervisors present&
> Others& I feel today’s government can get the monkey off its back of
think Watergate would be all over if only Nixon had apologized?
> Until that is done, the challenge is there for amateur& professional
Is that alteration? When you take your negatives to the photo lab and
have them make prints for you is that ALTERING the original?
> The government of today cannot expect people to accept the “Oswald did
> it alone” scenario when misdeeds& criminal activity of the kind
>
The government of today is not even interested in this case.
Why do they keep all the files still secret and never let the public see
the evidence for themselves?
Why did the CIA continue to keep Top Secret files from WWI?
>
>
>
>
> Distressing news for some& confirmation of years of suspicion& hours
> invested studying the Zapruder film& seeing things that don’t add up
> for others:
>
> http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
>
>
> There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
> within the article.
>
> The weekend the Zapruder film was (murdered/tampered with/re-
> constructed/disguised, etc) the 3 copies were floating around and
> people were viewing them. The Dallas FBI copy was flown to Washington,
> the SS had another and either Time, Inc had theirs or Zapruder was
> hanging onto it (depending on what version of the chain of custody is
> correct). People were looking at these copies being projected;
> increasing the number of witnesses to what the camera original
> contained each time it was viewed when& where it was projected. The
>
> http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
>
>
> There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
> within the article.
>
> The weekend the Zapruder film was (murdered/tampered with/re-
> constructed/disguised, etc) the 3 copies were floating around and
> people were viewing them. The Dallas FBI copy was flown to Washington,
> the SS had another and either Time, Inc had theirs or Zapruder was
> hanging onto it (depending on what version of the chain of custody is
> correct). People were looking at these copies being projected;
> increasing the number of witnesses to what the camera original
> opportunity existed to copy Zapruder’s original copies wherever each
> copy was residing at the moment.
>
> Doug Horne doesn’t say what happened to the Zapruder camera original
> or the 3 original Zapruder copies either. It’s possible they weren’t
> destroyed and someone is sitting on them.
>
It's also possible that they are sitting in the National Archives and
> copy was residing at the moment.
>
> Doug Horne doesn’t say what happened to the Zapruder camera original
> or the 3 original Zapruder copies either. It’s possible they weren’t
> destroyed and someone is sitting on them.
>
have been examined by experts. You also left out the fact that National
Geographic recently showed a digitized version of one of the 35 mm
copies made.
> Add the number of persons involved in moving the camera original to
> camera original& processing that creation to supervisors present&
> unknown supervisors directing the Federal operatives with the camera
> original in their possession and you have a multitude of people
> involved in this black operation.
>
Yeah, so what?
> original in their possession and you have a multitude of people
> involved in this black operation.
>
> Others& I feel today’s government can get the monkey off its back of
> sins committed by its predecessors by releasing the camera original to
> the public. This can be done anonymously on the Internet& would
> demonstrate persons working within the government have improved since
> 1963.
>
No way. One act of kindness does not erase decades of deceit. So you
> 1963.
>
think Watergate would be all over if only Nixon had apologized?
> Until that is done, the challenge is there for amateur& professional
> researchers to decode what was done to the Zapruder film Sunday, 24
> Nov 1963 (same day Oswald was murdered on live TV and one day before
> President Kennedy was laid to rest).
>
Nothing was done other than making slides from the individual frames.
> Nov 1963 (same day Oswald was murdered on live TV and one day before
> President Kennedy was laid to rest).
>
Is that alteration? When you take your negatives to the photo lab and
have them make prints for you is that ALTERING the original?
> The government of today cannot expect people to accept the “Oswald did
> described by Doug Horne perpetrated by former operatives have rendered
> the case against Lee Harvey Oswald fraudulent. In short: the
> government of 1963-1964 created the problem. Will the government of
> 2012 fix it& we all move on with our lives?
> the case against Lee Harvey Oswald fraudulent. In short: the
> government of 1963-1964 created the problem. Will the government of
>
The government of today is not even interested in this case.
Why do they keep all the files still secret and never let the public see
the evidence for themselves?
Why did the CIA continue to keep Top Secret files from WWI?
>
>
>
>
John McAdams
May 28, 2012, 5:48:27 PM5/28/12
to
On 28 May 2012 09:14:40 -0400, Hans Trayne <tray...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Distressing news for some & confirmation of years of suspicion & hours
>invested studying the Zapruder film & seeing things that don’t add up
>for others:
>
>http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
>
>
>There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
>within the article.
>
It has, but you folks simply refuse to accept it.
>Distressing news for some & confirmation of years of suspicion & hours
>invested studying the Zapruder film & seeing things that don’t add up
>for others:
>
>http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
>
>
>There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
>within the article.
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Hans Trayne
May 30, 2012, 10:02:12 PM5/30/12
to
On May 28, 4:48 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
Here are some topic suggestions that have come to me from friends in
private email that may be helpful to some while discussing Doug
Horne’s 2009 and most recent declarations concerning the Zapruder
film:
(1) Horne hasn’t taken into consideration that the 2 copies of
Zapruder’s film he lent to the Secret Service (who in turn lent the
Dallas FBI 1 copy who in turn flew that copy to Hoover in Washington)
were LOANS. They still belonged to Zapruder until he made his mega-
buck deal Monday, 25 Nov 1963 with the media giant (in which Zapruder
turned over all rights & ownerships to the camera original & all 3
copies to Time, Inc.). Under those circumstances it would be quite
reasonable to expect copies to be made for study and in-house
presentations simply because the folks in possession of Zapruder’s
copy knew at some time they’d be losing it back to Zapruder or
whomever he sold his rights to it to. In short, Horne has taken an
innocent case of the SS copying Zapruder’s copy (lent to the SS by
Zapruder) and turned into a sinister case of film alteration.
(2) Doug Horne does not even touch the surface of what some serious
Zapruder film alterationists believe was done to distort Zapruder’s
film. Some feel the entire film is a collection of composite images
that, when run in motion as a movie, present a fantasy that never
really happened.
(3) Horne doesn’t show where an effort was made to verify with the
head of the SS that the persons identifying themselves as SS agents at
NPIC were real SS agents nor does he show what response from the SS
that inquiry brought him.
(4) Why would the SS want to remove evidence of a crossfire that its
agents were caught in the middle of? Remember, the agents are just a
few feet behind JFK when we was attacked. Wouldn’t the SS want to
LEAVE IN the film that the agents were caught in a dangerous, helpless
situation (bullets flying from every direction) as opposed to creating
a scenario that suggested to the public JFK had a slight chance of
survival during the attack and his guards could have saved him?
(5) Horne places the alteration suspicion & blame on the SS and
unknown operatives at Hawkeye works as well as elements of the CIA and
leaves out the media giant as suspect. In Horne’s version of events
those bad, unknown Federal guys are distorting the truth in Zapruder’s
film behind the backs of those nice, unsuspecting media giant people.
Some suspect it was the media giant that monkeyed with the film, not
the Feds.
(6) The media giant has not confirmed that Federal operatives took
Zapruder’s camera original from them in Chicago nor explained how it
was done (gunpoint?, threat or actual bodily harm?, extortion?, etc.)
To be fair to all I wanted to toss these ideas into the mix for
thought & debate.
private email that may be helpful to some while discussing Doug
Horne’s 2009 and most recent declarations concerning the Zapruder
film:
(1) Horne hasn’t taken into consideration that the 2 copies of
Zapruder’s film he lent to the Secret Service (who in turn lent the
Dallas FBI 1 copy who in turn flew that copy to Hoover in Washington)
were LOANS. They still belonged to Zapruder until he made his mega-
buck deal Monday, 25 Nov 1963 with the media giant (in which Zapruder
turned over all rights & ownerships to the camera original & all 3
copies to Time, Inc.). Under those circumstances it would be quite
reasonable to expect copies to be made for study and in-house
presentations simply because the folks in possession of Zapruder’s
copy knew at some time they’d be losing it back to Zapruder or
whomever he sold his rights to it to. In short, Horne has taken an
innocent case of the SS copying Zapruder’s copy (lent to the SS by
Zapruder) and turned into a sinister case of film alteration.
(2) Doug Horne does not even touch the surface of what some serious
Zapruder film alterationists believe was done to distort Zapruder’s
film. Some feel the entire film is a collection of composite images
that, when run in motion as a movie, present a fantasy that never
really happened.
(3) Horne doesn’t show where an effort was made to verify with the
head of the SS that the persons identifying themselves as SS agents at
NPIC were real SS agents nor does he show what response from the SS
that inquiry brought him.
(4) Why would the SS want to remove evidence of a crossfire that its
agents were caught in the middle of? Remember, the agents are just a
few feet behind JFK when we was attacked. Wouldn’t the SS want to
LEAVE IN the film that the agents were caught in a dangerous, helpless
situation (bullets flying from every direction) as opposed to creating
a scenario that suggested to the public JFK had a slight chance of
survival during the attack and his guards could have saved him?
(5) Horne places the alteration suspicion & blame on the SS and
unknown operatives at Hawkeye works as well as elements of the CIA and
leaves out the media giant as suspect. In Horne’s version of events
those bad, unknown Federal guys are distorting the truth in Zapruder’s
film behind the backs of those nice, unsuspecting media giant people.
Some suspect it was the media giant that monkeyed with the film, not
the Feds.
(6) The media giant has not confirmed that Federal operatives took
Zapruder’s camera original from them in Chicago nor explained how it
was done (gunpoint?, threat or actual bodily harm?, extortion?, etc.)
To be fair to all I wanted to toss these ideas into the mix for
thought & debate.
Anthony Marsh
May 31, 2012, 5:28:58 PM5/31/12
to
On 5/30/2012 10:02 PM, Hans Trayne wrote:
> On May 28, 4:48 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 28 May 2012 09:14:40 -0400, Hans Trayne<trayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Distressing news for some& confirmation of years of suspicion& hours
> On May 28, 4:48 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 28 May 2012 09:14:40 -0400, Hans Trayne<trayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> invested studying the Zapruder film& seeing things that don?t add up
>>> for others:
>>
>>> http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
>>
>>> There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
>>> within the article.
>>
>> It has, but you folks simply refuse to accept it.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Here are some topic suggestions that have come to me from friends in
> private email that may be helpful to some while discussing Doug
> Horne?s 2009 and most recent declarations concerning the Zapruder
>>
>>> http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
>>
>>> There is hope the unaltered Zapruder film may surface in our lifetime
>>> within the article.
>>
>> It has, but you folks simply refuse to accept it.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Here are some topic suggestions that have come to me from friends in
> private email that may be helpful to some while discussing Doug
> film:
>
> (1) Horne hasn?t taken into consideration that the 2 copies of
> Zapruder?s film he lent to the Secret Service (who in turn lent the
> Dallas FBI 1 copy who in turn flew that copy to Hoover in Washington)
> were LOANS. They still belonged to Zapruder until he made his mega-
> buck deal Monday, 25 Nov 1963 with the media giant (in which Zapruder
> turned over all rights& ownerships to the camera original& all 3
> were LOANS. They still belonged to Zapruder until he made his mega-
> buck deal Monday, 25 Nov 1963 with the media giant (in which Zapruder
> copies to Time, Inc.). Under those circumstances it would be quite
> reasonable to expect copies to be made for study and in-house
> presentations simply because the folks in possession of Zapruder?s
> reasonable to expect copies to be made for study and in-house
> copy knew at some time they?d be losing it back to Zapruder or
> whomever he sold his rights to it to. In short, Horne has taken an
> innocent case of the SS copying Zapruder?s copy (lent to the SS by
> Zapruder) and turned into a sinister case of film alteration.
No, Horne is not talking about altering a COPY of the Zapruder film.
He is suggesting that the camera original was altered.
What he doesn't explain is how Zapruder's copy in his safe was altered.
> (2) Doug Horne does not even touch the surface of what some serious
> film. Some feel the entire film is a collection of composite images
> that, when run in motion as a movie, present a fantasy that never
> really happened.
Some of the alterationists think the whole film was an animation done
> that, when run in motion as a movie, present a fantasy that never
> really happened.
personally by hand by Walt Disney. So frackin what?
> (3) Horne doesn?t show where an effort was made to verify with the
> head of the SS that the persons identifying themselves as SS agents at
> NPIC were real SS agents nor does he show what response from the SS
> that inquiry brought him.
Who said anything about the SS agents at the NPIC? The only SS agents
> NPIC were real SS agents nor does he show what response from the SS
> that inquiry brought him.
involved were the courier and guard. The allegation was that the personnel
at NPIC were actually CIA agents, slightly different from SS. The CIA did
not disclose the fact that the NPIC was a CIA facility until years later.
> (4) Why would the SS want to remove evidence of a crossfire that its
> agents were caught in the middle of? Remember, the agents are just a
crossfire. So what if one person was? He could be ignored and the whole
thing covered up since he was CIA. It was not up to the SS to tamper with
the film. You are confused or conflating. The allegation is that the CIA
tampered with the film. Never the SS.
Can you explain how 6-8 shots could NOT be a conspiracy? I predict that
all WC defenders will duck this question. They can't even explain the
shooting as a lone nut attack without the need of a Single Bullet Theory.
> few feet behind JFK when we was attacked. Wouldn?t the SS want to
> LEAVE IN the film that the agents were caught in a dangerous, helpless
> situation (bullets flying from every direction) as opposed to creating
> a scenario that suggested to the public JFK had a slight chance of
> survival during the attack and his guards could have saved him?
No, that's silly.
> situation (bullets flying from every direction) as opposed to creating
> a scenario that suggested to the public JFK had a slight chance of
> survival during the attack and his guards could have saved him?
The allegation is NOT that the SS altered the film. If you want to
attack the kooky theory, fine. But don't misrepresent what that theory is.
> (5) Horne places the alteration suspicion& blame on the SS and
> unknown operatives at Hawkeye works as well as elements of the CIA and
> leaves out the media giant as suspect. In Horne?s version of events
No, he doesn't. Please leave the SS out of it. They were only couriers
not technicians.
> those bad, unknown Federal guys are distorting the truth in Zapruder?s
> film behind the backs of those nice, unsuspecting media giant people.
> Some suspect it was the media giant that monkeyed with the film, not
> the Feds.
Because they don't believe the story that the damage was done
> Some suspect it was the media giant that monkeyed with the film, not
> the Feds.
accidentally. Alteration theories go way beyond a couple of missing frames.
> (6) The media giant has not confirmed that Federal operatives took
> was done (gunpoint?, threat or actual bodily harm?, extortion?, etc.)
>
Why should they? They are CIA agents who were quite happy to work with
>
the CIA. And look at how many years it took LIFE to admit that they
damaged the film.
> To be fair to all I wanted to toss these ideas into the mix for
> thought& debate.
>
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
Jun 3, 2012, 8:00:52 PM6/3/12
to
On May 28, 2:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
***Why does one need to study the original film, when the copies contain
the same details? Do you see an assassin in the copies? I don't. There
wouldn't be on in the original, either.
>
> > heard a shot and the film itself showed JFK react to being shot, as
> > Zapruder described. The occupants of the limo reacted in various ways,
> > then JFK's head exploded.
>
> Boy, such meticulous detail. Just as we'd expect from the WC, which
> couldn't even tell us the frame numbers.
> You have presented the kindergarten version. "The President was riding
> in a car and he was shot by a very bad man."
***It is rather accurate. Zapruder said JFK slumped over to his left
after the first shot. That is what the film showed. Five seconds later
JFK's head exploded. Hargis thought the first shot hit Connally, by the
way he turned around to look at JFK. A connection to a single bullet
hitting both men. Zapruder's film showed both men simultaneously reacting
in a manner consistent with their non fatal gunshot wounds.
***Ron Judge
the same details? Do you see an assassin in the copies? I don't. There
wouldn't be on in the original, either.
>
> > heard a shot and the film itself showed JFK react to being shot, as
> > Zapruder described. The occupants of the limo reacted in various ways,
> > then JFK's head exploded.
>
> Boy, such meticulous detail. Just as we'd expect from the WC, which
> couldn't even tell us the frame numbers.
> You have presented the kindergarten version. "The President was riding
> in a car and he was shot by a very bad man."
after the first shot. That is what the film showed. Five seconds later
JFK's head exploded. Hargis thought the first shot hit Connally, by the
way he turned around to look at JFK. A connection to a single bullet
hitting both men. Zapruder's film showed both men simultaneously reacting
in a manner consistent with their non fatal gunshot wounds.
***Ron Judge
bigdog
Jun 3, 2012, 9:50:05 PM6/3/12
to
was the first shot.
> Five seconds later
> JFK's head exploded. Hargis thought the first shot hit Connally, by the
> way he turned around to look at JFK. A connection to a single bullet
> hitting both men. Zapruder's film showed both men simultaneously reacting
> in a manner consistent with their non fatal gunshot wounds.
>
heard a shot that hadn't hit him.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 4, 2012, 9:05:34 AM6/4/12
to
not instantly recognize the first loud sound as a gunshot.
>
>> Five seconds later
>> JFK's head exploded. Hargis thought the first shot hit Connally, by the
>> way he turned around to look at JFK. A connection to a single bullet
>> hitting both men. Zapruder's film showed both men simultaneously reacting
>> in a manner consistent with their non fatal gunshot wounds.
>>
> It certainly does. And that shot came several seconds after Connally
> heard a shot that hadn't hit him.
>
then the second shot hit him.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 4, 2012, 6:24:46 PM6/4/12
to
You can see things in the original which you can't see in poor copies.
That's why the WC defenders keep complaining about conspiracy believers
interpreting the autopsy photos because they are only looking at very
poor quality copies and not the original, all the while they are
supporting the government withholding the originals.
>>
>>> heard a shot and the film itself showed JFK react to being shot, as
>>> Zapruder described. The occupants of the limo reacted in various ways,
>>> then JFK's head exploded.
>>
>> Boy, such meticulous detail. Just as we'd expect from the WC, which
>> couldn't even tell us the frame numbers.
>> You have presented the kindergarten version. "The President was riding
>> in a car and he was shot by a very bad man."
>
> ***It is rather accurate. Zapruder said JFK slumped over to his left
> after the first shot. That is what the film showed. Five seconds later
> JFK's head exploded. Hargis thought the first shot hit Connally, by the
> way he turned around to look at JFK. A connection to a single bullet
> hitting both men. Zapruder's film showed both men simultaneously reacting
> in a manner consistent with their non fatal gunshot wounds.
>
The Zapruder film shows that JFK had already reacted BEFORE we see him
emerge from behind the sign, but Connally had not yet reacted when we
see him emerge from behind the sign.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
deke
Jun 4, 2012, 6:27:25 PM6/4/12
to
I think Horne's work is interesting because he deals mainly with the chain
of custody issue rather than the anomalies in the film which just about
all the other alterationists focus on. I believe he lays out a plausable
timeline regarding the provinance of the film. The only thing about his
thesis that bothers me is the use of "Hawkeye" or "Hawkeyeworks" as a
secret code word. I've lived in Rochester all my life and I can say there
is nothing secret about Hawkeye - it was the official name of one of four
plants operated by Kodak until recently (the building is now occupied by
ITT). It is also no secret, however, that Kodak did a lot of work for the
government back in the 1960's.
of custody issue rather than the anomalies in the film which just about
all the other alterationists focus on. I believe he lays out a plausable
timeline regarding the provinance of the film. The only thing about his
thesis that bothers me is the use of "Hawkeye" or "Hawkeyeworks" as a
secret code word. I've lived in Rochester all my life and I can say there
is nothing secret about Hawkeye - it was the official name of one of four
plants operated by Kodak until recently (the building is now occupied by
ITT). It is also no secret, however, that Kodak did a lot of work for the
government back in the 1960's.
0 new messages