Connecting witnesses to the Zapruder film

[Robert Harris]

This animation covers the statements of key witnesses and how they
connected to their actions and reactions in the Zapruder film.

Actually, it's easier just to look at it than for me to explain it:-)

http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif

[curtjester1]

What does this one frame have to do with witnesses, Z223? What the
depiction says is just a wild theory in itself. JBC could be very well
turning to or back from JFK and have his clothing slightly out of order.
Jackie is already looking at JFK in a concerned way. That would have to
be way after a shot. We already know that JFK had his hands up by his
throat at this time. This is just so ridiculous.

CJ

[Robert Harris]

Curt, you're basing your beliefs on wishful thinking if you deny that
Connally was hit at 223. Look at this animation:

http://jfkhistory.com/pix/jbc.gif

Also, how do you explain why he said he began to shout, "Oh, no, no,
no", AFTER he was hit? He began to shout no earlier than 240 and
probably a tad before then.

Nellie, OTOH, did believe he was hit later, at frame 285, which is about
a thousand times more important than the SBT issue.

That's why she said he began to shout BEFORE he was hit. If you watch
the entire http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif you will see why they
contradicted one another then.

Of course, as the victim, JBC was the one who had it right.





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/30/2013 9:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> curtjester1 wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 10:20 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> This animation covers the statements of key witnesses and how they
>>> connected to their actions and reactions in the Zapruder film.
>>>
>>> Actually, it's easier just to look at it than for me to explain it:-)
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif
>>
>> What does this one frame have to do with witnesses, Z223? What the
>> depiction says is just a wild theory in itself. JBC could be very well
>> turning to or back from JFK and have his clothing slightly out of order.
>> Jackie is already looking at JFK in a concerned way. That would have to
>> be way after a shot. We already know that JFK had his hands up by his
>> throat at this time. This is just so ridiculous.
>>
>> CJ
>>
>
> Curt, you're basing your beliefs on wishful thinking if you deny that
> Connally was hit at 223. Look at this animation:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/pix/jbc.gif
>
> Also, how do you explain why he said he began to shout, "Oh, no, no,
> no", AFTER he was hit? He began to shout no earlier than 240 and
> probably a tad before then.
>

Because he didn't shout anything with a collapsed lung.

[curtjester1]

On Apr 30, 9:15 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> curtjester1 wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 10:20 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> This animation covers the statements of key witnesses and how they
> >> connected to their actions and reactions in the Zapruder film.
>
> >> Actually, it's easier just to look at it than for me to explain it:-)
>
> >>http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif
>
> > What does this one frame have to do with witnesses, Z223?  What the
> > depiction says is just a wild theory in itself.  JBC could be very well
> > turning to or back from JFK and have his clothing slightly out of order.
> > Jackie is already looking at JFK in a concerned way.  That would have to
> > be way after a shot.  We already know that JFK had his hands up by his
> > throat at this time.  This is just so ridiculous.
>
> > CJ
>
> Curt, you're basing your beliefs on wishful thinking if you deny that
> Connally was hit at 223. Look at this animation:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/pix/jbc.gif
>

There are many opinions, Robert, and some of the reasons, are that the
Zapruder film is not purported to be a real film and some say a re-put
together collage, and these sequences of a JBC getting hit are so given to
many scenarios with many being problematic. Here are just a few that are
highly interested in this sequence, and you will see all have differing
takes. If you look at a link inside, I'm sure you will see a Z film, and
for one I would like you to see that the crowd on the north side of the
street is not even moving like a happy crowd, and waving. It's obvious to
me that this sequence was taken prior to the President getting there, and
then pasted in. People wave like crazy when they see a President
approaching and you can see that all in this motorcade. On JBC, I have a
hard time contemplating he got hit when way after 223, he is seen I would
almost say, casually, at JFK to check on him. How would he be doing this
if he was getting his body wracked with a ravaging bullet going through
him?

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/rb_letter.html
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/proving_conspiracy.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fchat/1725590/postshttp://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th_Issue/connally.http
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th_Issue/connally.html

I have even looked at your Dealey Plaza movie last night til the 40 minute
mark when I lost sound. I actually like something very much. It's the
part of the first shot and your Dal-Tex third floor scenario. A recent
book, by Barry Ernest who had complled years of evidence through logic and
whim from the 60's said he visited the missed shot on the right hand part
of the street, and noticed the trail of the bullet closely. It led to the
Dal-Tex building. Recommended reading.

> Also, how do you explain why he said he began to shout, "Oh, no, no,
> no", AFTER he was hit? He began to shout no earlier than 240 and
> probably a tad before then.
>

Do you actually see him mouthing this with his lips? Please show me as I
usually can read lips fairly well, and don't see this. In fact if one
times themselves saying this at length phrase, how long do you think it
would be to even say it? Can you say it less than two seconds?

> Nellie, OTOH, did believe he was hit later, at frame 285, which is about
> a thousand times more important than the SBT issue.
>

And Helper in the last link I posted has him hit even later, and tells you
when he is really grimmacing. And yes, even if the SBT were true, it
doesn't satisfy what one really needs, and that is to prove there were one
gunman and a SBT. I really think with all the evidence more than one
gunman and a SBT for a JFK/JBC one shot strike is it's only possible
potential, and that isn't a potential when you look at say JFK getting hit
vs. angle to reach a turned JBC and many more physical issues that are
brought up.

> That's why she said he began to shout BEFORE he was hit. If you watch

> the entirehttp://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gifyou will see why they
> contradicted one another then.
>

He could have been yelling this way before the Stemmons sign. I think JFK
was hit during the 'splicing', and then everything was taken out and
replaced with an enlarged Stemmons sign coupled with a new sequence. I
don't feel the JFK arm raising was some reaction due to a certain
vertebrae being struck, as a closer look at Gil Jesus' video shows that
JFK is trying to yank on his tie and cough up something. All that is going
to take a second or two at least for reaction to a bullet to do what's
instinctive in dealing with the problem and pain. And Jackie herself,
would need time to hear, and look over to see her husband. That's not
going to happen at z223 IMO for all that to unfold.

CJ

[Robert Harris]

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/30/2013 9:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> curtjester1 wrote:
>>> On Apr 28, 10:20 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> This animation covers the statements of key witnesses and how they
>>>> connected to their actions and reactions in the Zapruder film.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it's easier just to look at it than for me to explain it:-)
>>>>
>>>> http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif
>>>
>>> What does this one frame have to do with witnesses, Z223? What the
>>> depiction says is just a wild theory in itself. JBC could be very well
>>> turning to or back from JFK and have his clothing slightly out of order.
>>> Jackie is already looking at JFK in a concerned way. That would have to
>>> be way after a shot. We already know that JFK had his hands up by his
>>> throat at this time. This is just so ridiculous.
>>>
>>> CJ
>>>
>>
>> Curt, you're basing your beliefs on wishful thinking if you deny that
>> Connally was hit at 223. Look at this animation:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/pix/jbc.gif
>>
>> Also, how do you explain why he said he began to shout, "Oh, no, no,
>> no", AFTER he was hit? He began to shout no earlier than 240 and
>> probably a tad before then.
>>
>
> Because he didn't shout anything with a collapsed lung.

You're right about that. I suspect that's why he used the lung that
didn't collapse.

Have you considered other hobbies, Tony?





Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Hard to get information with the Z-film because of the fiddling
with it that occurred. How much can we believe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you a doctor?

[Robert Harris]

These people had their backs to Zapruder, so many of them were applauding
but their hands were just not visible. There are several however, that you
can see clapping but you have to look very carefully because you only get
an occasional glimpse of a hand.

Notice that on the other side of the street, we see lots of people
clapping. Of course, they are turned toward Zapruder, so their hands are
visible. Do you think that the perps pasted the limo into previous film
from one side of the street but not the other?

The other problem is that your theory would have Zapruder mindlessly
filming a section of road that contained no vehicles and slowly panning as
he did so. If he was filming just motorcycles then the perps had a lot of
erasing to do before superimposing the limo.

I seriously doubt that it was possible to do that kind of thing in 1963.
But it if was, it was godawful difficult. Years ago, I challenged Fetzer &
co in the Ed forum to simply film traffic going by in a scenario similar
to DP and then edit it as they claimed was done in '63, to prove that this
was even possible. After roughly 6 years there have been no takers. And in
fact, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been able to do
something like that, though I will give you good odds that it's been
tried.

> On JBC, I have a
> hard time contemplating he got hit when way after 223, he is seen I would
> almost say, casually, at JFK to check on him.

Well, you have a right to your subjective opinion I suppose, but I don't
see that at all. I see a man in great pain.

> How would he be doing this
> if he was getting his body wracked with a ravaging bullet going through
> him?

I don't think his motions then were voluntary.

>
> http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/rb_letter.html
> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/proving_conspiracy.htm
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fchat/1725590/postshttp://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th_Issue/connally.http
> http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th_Issue/connally.html
>
> I have even looked at your Dealey Plaza movie last night til the 40 minute
> mark when I lost sound. I actually like something very much. It's the
> part of the first shot and your Dal-Tex third floor scenario. A recent
> book, by Barry Ernest who had complled years of evidence through logic and
> whim from the 60's said he visited the missed shot on the right hand part
> of the street, and noticed the trail of the bullet closely. It led to the
> Dal-Tex building. Recommended reading.
>
>> Also, how do you explain why he said he began to shout, "Oh, no, no,
>> no", AFTER he was hit? He began to shout no earlier than 240 and
>> probably a tad before then.
>>
>
> Do you actually see him mouthing this with his lips?

Yes and so did professional lip readers who were recruited by Martin
Shackleford.

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

> Please show me as I
> usually can read lips fairly well, and don't see this. In fact if one
> times themselves saying this at length phrase, how long do you think it
> would be to even say it? Can you say it less than two seconds?
>
>
>> Nellie, OTOH, did believe he was hit later, at frame 285, which is about
>> a thousand times more important than the SBT issue.
>>
>
> And Helper in the last link I posted has him hit even later, and tells you
> when he is really grimmacing. And yes, even if the SBT were true, it
> doesn't satisfy what one really needs, and that is to prove there were one
> gunman and a SBT.

Of course there was more than one gunman. And if you saw my video
presentation, you should know that the angles for a SBT shot from the
alleged sniper's nest was virtually impossible. That shot had to have come
from a lower elevation. The alignment from that third floor window I
suggested, is perfect.

I have had more than enough wars of words over the years, so I will
refrain from commenting on the "JFK was coughing up a bullet" theory or
other alterationist theories, which I am quite sure, were not possible.
Perhaps the strongest corroboration of that fact is that no one can
demonstrate otherwise.




Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Here's an example of doing the difficult, and the comment that it
was possible back in '63:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA
Are we all going to ignore it?

> > On JBC, I have a
> > hard time contemplating he got hit when way after 223, he is seen I would
> > almost say, casually, at JFK to check on him.
>
> Well, you have a right to your subjective opinion I suppose, but I don't
> see that at all. I see a man in great pain.
>
> > How would he be doing this
> > if he was getting his body wracked with a ravaging bullet going through
> > him?
>
> I don't think his motions then were voluntary.
>
>
>

> >http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/rb_letter....
> >http://www.jfkmontreal.com/proving_conspiracy.htm
>
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fchat/1725590/postshttp://www.acorn...

> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Anthony Marsh]

Which kook has the theory that the spectators on the north side of Elm
as not real, but only cardboard cutouts?

> The other problem is that your theory would have Zapruder mindlessly
> filming a section of road that contained no vehicles and slowly panning
> as he did so. If he was filming just motorcycles then the perps had a
> lot of erasing to do before superimposing the limo.
>

Someone has theory that Zapruder did not even have any film in his
camera and Walt Disney fabricated it.

> I seriously doubt that it was possible to do that kind of thing in 1963.
> But it if was, it was godawful difficult. Years ago, I challenged Fetzer
> & co in the Ed forum to simply film traffic going by in a scenario
> similar to DP and then edit it as they claimed was done in '63, to prove
> that this was even possible. After roughly 6 years there have been no
> takers. And in fact, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been
> able to do something like that, though I will give you good odds that
> it's been tried.
>

Zavada filmed traffic driving down Elm with the same type of camera and
film.
You can edit and splice 8mm film, but we would see the process on the
film stock.

[Robert Harris]

I am not a young man any more and I take medication for high blood
pressure. So, I tried very hard to remain calm and collected as I sat
through nine of the most shamefully dishonest minutes since the last
time I visited Duncan McCrae's forum.

Pretty much EVERYTHING in that video is wrong, from their claim that a
blurred background and clear foreground prove alteration, to the easily
disproven assertion about the position of the lamp post relative to the
background. Go stand along the road somewhere, say 70 feet or so from a
telephone pole and pan across the landscape like Zapruder did. You tell
me if their assertion was legitimate.

And they repeated the ancient BS about people in the background being
too large. Yes, the limo people are seated and the people behind them
are standing, but you can measure their heads. Count the pixels like I
did, then tell me why Jackie's head measures larger than Brehm's.

And they actually repeated the long disproven claim that the limo came
to a full stop, in spite of the fact that a large majority of witnesses
originally stated that it only slowed down.

And why is it that the limo didn't come to a full stop in the Muchmore,
Nix and Bronson films? Those must have been some very busy perps.

And I loved the part where they said that they superimposed the limo
over film that depicted an earlier part of the "real" film, using the
segment in which we see Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. Of course, they
don't explain why Zapruder had decided to point his camera up the road
where the limo wasn't present, and then pan is if it was. But I guess
Zapruder did a lot of that, eh:-)

And then we see Moorman following the the nonexistent limo with her
camera, as it if was the real thing! I guess she was suffering
hallucinations of some kind.

And my challenge was NOT that someone just blurt out how easy this would
be to alter, by selecting a frame in which the limo only covered a very
small section at the bottom. My challenge is to film something similar
to the DP scenario, using a similar camera, and then edit it as it was
claimed to have been done.

I got my first digital copy of the Zapruder film in 1995 when I hijacked
a low res copy from the Medio CD. A few years later, I rented a third
generation copy on professional videotape from the Zapruder family. And
there were times when I put a LOT of study into the thing.

I have also examined many of the alteration claims, and I can tell you
that every one of them either fails because they are idiotic like the
ones I just mentioned, or there are infinitely better explanations that
require no alteration at all.

I just hate the fact that people put crap like that out on Youtube and
convince people to believe it. We've gone long past the point in which
any kind of legitimate analysis is buried under a mountain of
sensationalistic BS.




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Tony, it absolutely scares me to death that you and I agree on something.

Maybe I need to take another look at this :-)




Robert Harris

[curtjester1]

Here's where I suggest to start. The Z film for those who have watched it
umpteen million times doesn't even remotely seem real when there is so
many things wrong when viewing and things that 'seem' out of order from
witness testimony as well.

One thing is for sure, there are people who did see the original film, and
it is not the film we see today.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html

CJ

[Chuck Schuyler]

Bob? In all seriousness, if you're letting something like this affect your
health, it's time to find a new hobby. I know it's engrossing to see if
you can infer who killed JFK based on the science of startle reactions,
and I certainly spend more time on this subject than I should, but
c'mon....JFK has been dead almost 50 years. Have fun with your YouTube
videos, the books you read, etc. but if your health is being impacted by
something someone produced at a forum Duncan McRae hosts, it's time to
move on. Looks like something fishy is going on with that whole Marathon
Bomber thing. Maybe you can get in on the "ground floor" of that one.

[Robert Harris]

Your concern is touching Chuck.

But what do I do about my disgust for trolls who I find even less
impressive than the craziest conspiracy promoters?




Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

You wouldn't see it in the kind of work they did at the
'HawkeyeWorks'. They specialized in making films to fool enemies,
like Russians, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

> >> On JBC, I have a
> >> hard time contemplating he got hit when way after 223, he is seen I would
> >> almost say, casually, at JFK to check on him.
>
> > Well, you have a right to your subjective opinion I suppose, but I don't
> > see that at all. I see a man in great pain.
>
> >> How would he be doing this
> >> if he was getting his body wracked with a ravaging bullet going through
> >> him?
>
> > I don't think his motions then were voluntary.
>

> >>http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/rb_letter....
> >>http://www.jfkmontreal.com/proving_conspiracy.htm
>
> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fchat/1725590/postshttp://www.acorn...
>

[Chuck Schuyler]

All I'm saying is that if what someone posts on this subject is bothering
you as much as you noted, then it's time for a new hobby or pastime. Your
health isn't worth it. Hobbies and diversions from the day-to-day
grind---like your songwriting---make life more relaxing and interesting,
and if you're taking the JFK hobby so seriously that it's causing health
issues, please consider putting away your JFK secret conspiracy decoder
ring.

[Robert Harris]

I've heard this one before. This guy was obviously, shown one of the
originals made on 11/22/63 and then later, shown a copy, probably made to
protect the original, which was in 8mm format with no images in the
sprocket holes.

He also made the claim, "the head explosion he viewed multiple times on
11/23/63 was of such a great size, and duration (in terms of time), that
there should be many more frames depicting that explosion"

Tell me something, Curt, what did that head explosion look like to you,
the very first time you saw it? Does it impact you nearly as much today,
after seeing it numerous times? I think it's perfectly natural that his
subjective opinion was of seeing a greater and longer lasting explosion
than he did later, when he was less sensitive to the horror of the
explosion.

The other thing to keep in mind is, that explosions like this are not
supposed to last very long. Look at these frames from a video of a hostage
taker being shot by a police sniper. The explosion remains visible for 2
frames. The video was probably shot at 30 fps.

http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1268954517076/elasticrecoil.jpg

BTW, did this guy mention the limo coming to a complete stop?

Did he describe sequences of Zapruder panning Elm St. in areas in which
the limo was not visible?

Horne also mentions one Sydney Wilkinson, who supposedly made some
incredibly high tech scans of a "35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film
from the National Archives in 2008" and saw much different damage, lacking
the "blacked out" parts of the head.

The "35 mm dupe negative" was made by Life Magazine in 1967. For this to
be relevant, we would need to have proof that the copy in the Archives in
2008, was made on 11/22/63, prior to all the "alteration" that is being
alleged.

But there is no way the perps would permit a genuine negative to remain in
existence, is there? And if the copy at the archives really was an
original, any of us can go there and with the right equipment, easily
expose the scam.

Since no one has done that, I guess we have to assume that Wilkinson was
taking scans of a negative that had already been worked over by the perps.
So, how could he have seen anything different?

And why don't we get to see these revealing, "hi tech" scans? Is there a
link to them somewhere?

Curt, if you believe nothing else I tell you, believe that you have to
apply the same amount of skepticism to what someone on your side of the
argument claims as you do to the guys in the black hats.

After studying this stuff for a very long time, I have yet to see an
argument for alteration that holds up to a critical analysis.

(Damn, I would have made a great nutter, wouldn't I :-)



Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Robert, I didn't hear your nutter analysis of this video,
especially the man standing with legs open that instantly closes
them. The sequence begins at 4:00, but the whole thing is
interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

Chris

[Robert Harris]

Ok, Chris. Do you REALLY want to get this stuff right? I mean that
seriously, because most people don't. They just enjoy believing whatever
it is that they like to believe.

But on the off chance that you do, download Quicktime for PC. I presume
you don't have an Apple, and install it.

Then download this copy of the wide version of the Zapruder film.

http://jfkhistory.com/zfilms/Wide%20frames.mov

Or if you prefer, you can probably just view it in your browser. I am
suggesting this, first because Quicktime allows you to single step
through the film, backward and forward, using the arrow keys on your
keyboard.

Also, I set this one up to run at exactly one frame per click, so you
don't have to hit the key more than once to move to the next frame.

Ok, now to the point. Go to frame 379. Single step back and forth a few
times between say 371 and 379. I will not tell you what is wrong with
the argument you just presented.

You tell me.


Robert Harris

[curtjester1]

And yet most spots in the parade they are waving with enthusiam and
passion. These people look like they're at a funeral, and are very
stoic. It really looks like they are waiting for the motorcade to
come.

> Notice that on the other side of the street, we see lots of people
> clapping. Of course, they are turned toward Zapruder, so their hands are
> visible. Do you think that the perps pasted the limo into previous film
> from one side of the street but not the other?
>

They don't seem to me to. They are so many anomiles that have been noted
as physically impossible, small people looking big, to say a Hll looking
like she's not even looking at the limo. I don't know how they did things
camerawise, but it's fun reading about it anyway. These people have
devoted much of their lives to all the technical and idiosync's of
cameras, and many think they just created a whole new film with putting
what of the old into they could. And they point out so many screw up's,
and the reason what the perps would have in mind to do them.

> The other problem is that your theory would have Zapruder mindlessly
> filming a section of road that contained no vehicles and slowly panning as
> he did so. If he was filming just motorcycles then the perps had a lot of
> erasing to do before superimposing the limo.
>

It's not my theory, it's a great part of the CT community, and its
dealt with a lot because it would be the greatest issue ensuring
control and conspiracy of the whole JFK case, and a greater
magnitude.

> I seriously doubt that it was possible to do that kind of thing in 1963.
> But it if was, it was godawful difficult. Years ago, I challenged Fetzer &
> co in the Ed forum to simply film traffic going by in a scenario similar

It's purported they didn't have to be hugely technical, as they had
control of the film, and I'm sure didn't want it viewed because of all the
inconsistencies even after working on it a good while. I don't think the
playing field would be the same for a re-do, as you would have to have the
hair pin turn, etc. I suppose you could take a portion..like from the
headshot...313...and go to the TU...should be just about..a lil under 10
seconds to get there.

> to DP and then edit it as they claimed was done in '63, to prove that this
> was even possible. After roughly 6 years there have been no takers. And in
> fact, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been able to do
> something like that, though I will give you good odds that it's been
> tried.
>

There has been a lot written on it. Most are quite confident that it
could have been done...if not exquistely then...the many years they would
have had to do it.

> > On JBC, I have a
> > hard time contemplating he got hit when way after 223, he is seen I would
> > almost say, casually, at JFK to check on him.
>
> Well, you have a right to your subjective opinion I suppose, but I don't
> see that at all. I see a man in great pain.
>
> > How would he be doing this
> > if he was getting his body wracked with a ravaging bullet going through
> > him?
>
> I don't think his motions then were voluntary.
>
>

He's quite animated when starting to go down in his seat, and hardly
noticeable prior.

>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/rb_letter....
> >http://www.jfkmontreal.com/proving_conspiracy.htm
>
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fchat/1725590/postshttp://www.acorn...

And yet JBC's wounds seem to need more than one bullet. Homer McMahon who
made stills of the Z film very soon after the assassination, who was a
decorate marksman said there were 6-8 hit and 3 different directions for
the shots.. He viewed the film many many times. Most of the early
watchers noticed a full film coming from around the corner and not just
starting at 133..the lead car by Curry coming through, more than one head
shot, brain matter going backwards, no blobs...etc. etc.

> I have had more than enough wars of words over the years, so I will
> refrain from commenting on the "JFK was coughing up a bullet" theory or
> other alterationist theories, which I am quite sure, were not possible.
> Perhaps the strongest corroboration of that fact is that no one can
> demonstrate otherwise.
>

It doesn't have to be coughing it up, but on closer examination, he is
laboring with his mouth, and seems to be trying to move his tie away.

I don't have time to tell people what to believe. I just try to point out
some bigger events of what I see, and hope ones are motivated enough to
take it further to people who know much more than I do.

CJ

[mainframetech]

Nope, I'm not going to do that at this time. I asked about your
analysis of the video I supplied and I'm honestly interested in
whether you have any opposing view about the fellow who went from
closed legs to open legs in a single frame, which is impossible in
reality. Naturally, I'm also interested in your analysis of the rest
of the video, since it shows how the Z-film could be modified to give
a wrong impression to the very impressionable forum members here.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

You cannot judge my "opposing view" unless you look at what I'm telling
you to look at.

And if you do that, YOU WON'T HAVE TO ASK ME. You will KNOW that it's
absolute BS.

If that's too much trouble for you, then you ought to find another hobby.





Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

I have done what you asked, although you were unable to accord me
the same. There are also the usual video formats that also allow
single step with the arrow keys and sprocket hole images, which I also
looked at. I stepped between 370 and 379 with Quicktime and I saw
that it verified what I saw in the special video I showed you that you
refused to speak about. Now, since they show basically the same
thing, you need to explain what it is you would like me to see, since
nothing shows itself as invalidating the video I showed.

Chris
> Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Robert, I'm waiting for you to reply.

Chris

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 1:11:28 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/30/2013 9:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> > curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >> On Apr 28, 10:20 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> This animation covers the statements of key witnesses and how they
>
> >>> connected to their actions and reactions in the Zapruder film.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Actually, it's easier just to look at it than for me to explain it:-)
>
> >>>
>
> >>> http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif
>
> >>
>
> >> What does this one frame have to do with witnesses, Z223? What the
>
> >> depiction says is just a wild theory in itself. JBC could be very well
>
> >> turning to or back from JFK and have his clothing slightly out of order.
>
> >> Jackie is already looking at JFK in a concerned way. That would have to
>
> >> be way after a shot. We already know that JFK had his hands up by his
>
> >> throat at this time. This is just so ridiculous.
>
> >>
>
> >> CJ
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Curt, you're basing your beliefs on wishful thinking if you deny that
>
> > Connally was hit at 223. Look at this animation:
>
> >
>
> > http://jfkhistory.com/pix/jbc.gif
>
> >
>
> > Also, how do you explain why he said he began to shout, "Oh, no, no,
>
> > no", AFTER he was hit? He began to shout no earlier than 240 and
>
> > probably a tad before then.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Because he didn't shout anything with a collapsed lung.

***Jackie suddenly turned her rapt attention to Connally, staring intently
at him. I know i read somewhere that Jackie said that Connally was
screaming like a stuck pig.

***Ron Judge

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

***The camera original exists and MPI used that to create a digital copy.
What is in each frame is what the camera recorded on each film frame as it
occurred while Zapruder operated the camera, as the limo traveled down Elm
street.

The splice is the only alteration to the film. what is on each frame is
what the camera recorded on the film.

***Ron Judge

[curtjester1]

The MPI and what other's have said about the film as claimed to be
viewed early on, cannot be the same based on their descriptions of the
film.

CJ

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

***There is only one camera original. It has not been tampered with as
far as the images recorded on the film. If you are looking at frame Z313
on the MPI, you are looking at the digital image of the camera original
frame.

Ignore what people said about the film and look at the original images

[curtjester1]

I would just say to go to youtube where you can view all the Zapruder
'original' stuff you want, and still find many points of alteration.

CJ

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

***I have the MPI DVD which was made from the camera original, which does
not have any points of alteration to the images the Zapruder camera
recorded. The camera original is the actual recording. The images in the
original recording are not altered, they are the images recorded onto the
film grain within the emulsion on the strip of film, as it ran through the
camera.

***Ron Judge

[curtjester1]

And that didn't have the four frames snipped at 207-210?

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Damaged and cut out.
8 mm film often gets mangled in the projector. It's a fact of life.

[curtjester1]

So 'original' is maybe not what one wants it to be defined as?

CJ