The Shifting Single-Bullet Theory--It Always "Works" No Matter What

[Michael T. Griffith]

According to this, it was 2 1/4 seconds:

https://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappD.html

The short answer is no.

One second is equal to 18.333 Zapruder frames.
One second divided by 18.333 equates to 0.0545464462990236 seconds per Zapruder frame.
30 Zapruder frames multiplied by 0.0545464462990236 seconds equates to 1.636393388970709 seconds.

The human response time to external stimulus is quicker than 1.636393388970709 seconds.

Sorry, the emperor is naked. Why keep insisting that he has new clothes?

One, JFK's waving motion freezes in Z200 at the latest.

Two, there is no way on this Earth that JFK's visible Z225 reaction could have been in response to a Z224 hit. That is sheer fantasy and delusion.

Three, if we discard the magic-bullet myth, and if we assume that Connally was hit as late as Z239, as the WC absurdly posited, and if we assume that JFK was hit at Z199 and magically began freezing his waving motion 1/18th/second later, this would allow only 40 frames to work the rifle's bolt, aim, and squeeze the trigger. 40 divided by 18.3 is 2.18 seconds. In the WC's rifle test, the three Master-rated riflemen missed the head and neck area of the target boards 18 out of 21 times, and their second and third shots were the most inaccurate, and two of them took 6.75. 7.0, and 8.25 seconds in three of the shot series.

The FBI firing test with the alleged murder rifle puts the 2.25/2.3 minimum firing time in serious doubt, as WC attorney Wesley Liebeler explained in an internal WC memo that was never supposed to see the light of day:

-----------------------------------------------------
As I read through the section on rifle capability it appears that 15 different sets of three shots were fired by supposedly expert riflemen of the FBI and other places. According to my calculations those 15 sets of shots took a total of 93.8 seconds to be fired. The average of all 15 is a little over 6.2 seconds. Assuming that time is calculated commencing with the firing of the first shot, that means the average time it took to fire the two remaining shots was about 6.2 seconds. That comes to about 3.1 seconds for each shot, not counting the time consumed by the actual firing, which would not be very much. I recall that chapter 3 said that the minimum time that had to elapse between shots was 2.25 seconds, which is pretty close to the one set of fast shots fired by Frazier of the FBI.

The conclusion indicates that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots with two hits in from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. Of the 15 sets of 3 shots described above. only 3 were fired within 4.8 seconds. A total of five sets, including the three just mentioned were fired within a total of 5.6 seconds. The conclusion at its most extreme states that Oswald could fire faster than the Commission experts fired in 12 of their 15 tries and that in any event he could fire faster than the experts did in 10 of their 15 tries.
-----------------------------------------------------

Now, if we get real and acknowledge what the Zapruder film clearly shows, we will admit that JFK was hit no later than Z190 (and probably at Z186), and that Connally was hit at Z234 (Connally himself chose Z234 as the moment he was hit). This gives slightly more time (four to eight frames) to reload, aim, and fire, but (1) it means that at least four shots were fired because we have to account for the Tague curb shot and wounding, and (2) it leaves no bullet to explain what knocked JFK visibly forward from Z226-232.

The Z226-232 reaction, second only to the head shot, is the most visible, obvious reaction in the film. JFK is knocked visibly forward and his forearms are flung upward, obviously in response to the impact of a bullet striking his back. The WC and the HSCA ignored this dramatic reaction, but it is one of the most readily apparent events in the entire film. This shot probably hit JFK at Z224 and was a separate bullet from the one that hit him at Z186-190.

Finally, even assuming that the alleged lone gunman had 48 frames to reload, aim, and fire, that still only gives him 2.62 seconds to do so. Again, two of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test required 6.75, 7.0, and 8.25 seconds in three of the shot series. If we assume that the alleged lone gunman was the unskilled and unpracticed rifleman Lee Harvey Oswald, the single-shooter scenario becomes downright ridiculous, given that the slower times of the Master-rated riflemen were done against stationary targets and from an elevation of only 30 feet (vs. Oswald's alleged feat against a moving target from 60 feet up).

[John Mytton]

Sorry, the emperor is naked. Why keep insisting that he has new clothes?

One, JFK's waving motion freezes in Z200 at the latest.

Two, there is no way on this Earth that JFK's visible Z225 reaction could have been in response to a Z224 hit. That is sheer fantasy and delusion.

Three, if we discard the magic-bullet myth, and if we assume that Connally was hit as late as Z239, as the WC absurdly posited, and if we assume that JFK was hit at Z199 and magically began freezing his waving motion 1/18th/second later, this would allow only 40 frames to work the rifle's bolt, aim, and squeeze the trigger. 40 divided by 18.3 is 2.18 seconds. In the WC's rifle test, the three Master-rated riflemen missed the head and neck area of the target boards 18 out of 21 times, and their second and third shots were the most inaccurate, and two of them took 6.75. 7.0, and 8.25 seconds in three of the shot series.

The FBI firing test with the alleged murder rifle puts the 2.25/2.3 minimum firing time in serious doubt, as WC attorney Wesley Liebeler explained in an internal WC memo that was never supposed to see the light of day:

-----------------------------------------------------
As I read through the section on rifle capability it appears that 15 different sets of three shots were fired by supposedly expert riflemen of the FBI and other places. According to my calculations those 15 sets of shots took a total of 93.8 seconds to be fired. The average of all 15 is a little over 6.2 seconds. Assuming that time is calculated commencing with the firing of the first shot, that means the average time it took to fire the two remaining shots was about 6.2 seconds. That comes to about 3.1 seconds for each shot, not counting the time consumed by the actual firing, which would not be very much. I recall that chapter 3 said that the minimum time that had to elapse between shots was 2.25 seconds, which is pretty close to the one set of fast shots fired by Frazier of the FBI.

The conclusion indicates that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots with two hits in from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. Of the 15 sets of 3 shots described above. only 3 were fired within 4.8 seconds. A total of five sets, including the three just mentioned were fired within a total of 5.6 seconds. The conclusion at its most extreme states that Oswald could fire faster than the Commission experts fired in 12 of their 15 tries and that in any event he could fire faster than the experts did in 10 of their 15 tries.
-----------------------------------------------------

Now, if we get real and acknowledge what the Zapruder film clearly shows, we will admit that JFK was hit no later than Z190 (and probably at Z186), and that Connally was hit at Z234 (Connally himself chose Z234 as the moment he was hit). This gives slightly more time (four to eight frames) to reload, aim, and fire, but (1) it means that at least four shots were fired because we have to account for the Tague curb shot and wounding, and (2) it leaves no bullet to explain what knocked JFK visibly forward from Z226-232.

The Z226-232 reaction, second only to the head shot, is the most visible, obvious reaction in the film. JFK is knocked visibly forward and his forearms are flung upward, obviously in response to the impact of a bullet striking his back. The WC and the HSCA ignored this dramatic reaction, but it is one of the most readily apparent events in the entire film. This shot probably hit JFK at Z224 and was a separate bullet from the one that hit him at Z186-190.

Finally, even assuming that the alleged lone gunman had 48 frames to reload, aim, and fire, that still only gives him 2.62 seconds to do so. Again, two of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test required 6.75, 7.0, and 8.25 seconds in three of the shot series. If we assume that the alleged lone gunman was the unskilled and unpracticed rifleman Lee Harvey Oswald, the single-shooter scenario becomes downright ridiculous, given that the slower times of the Master-rated riflemen were done against stationary targets and from an elevation of only 30 feet (vs. Oswald's alleged feat against a moving target from 60 feet up).

Now, if we get real and acknowledge what the Zapruder film clearly shows,...

So I gather that these are the Zapruder frames that weren't altered? I wish you'd make up your mind because using the Altered Zapruder Film to prove your newest theory is getting real old.
In fact your pages of hysterical claims of alteration strongly refute your right to use the Zapruder film in any capacity, of any type proof, but if you want to be the Forum's Biggest Hypocrite, please continue.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

So I gather that these are the Zapruder frames that weren't altered? I wish you'd make up your mind because using the Altered Zapruder Film to prove your newest theory is getting real old.

In fact your pages of hysterical claims of alteration strongly refute your right to use the Zapruder film in any capacity, of any type proof, but if you want to be the Forum's Biggest Hypocrite, please continue. JohnM

You're still using this childish argument? I suggest you take a Logic 101 class, among other things. Do you think people will forget that I have repeatedly specified that the plotters could only do much editing of the film, and that even in its altered form the film refutes the lone-gunman scenario, which is why it was suppressed for 12 years? And do you think people will fail to notice that you are ducking the unsolvable problem posed by JFK's two separate reactions, especially given the fact that you claim the film is the unaltered original?

What good do you think it does for your position to keep pointing out that I believe the film has been altered, when you offer no rational explanation for JFK's two separate sets of reactions, for Connally's dramatic right-shoulder collapse, etc., etc.?

I mean, you insist the film is unaltered. Okay, then why do you refuse to acknowledge what it so plainly shows regarding JFK's reactions? You can't really believe that JFK could have been hit in Z224 and then have bent both forearms inward and started raising his hands up to his throat--all in 1/18th/second. As I've proved, even the WC knew that his Z225 reaction meant he was hit many frames before that point.

And what credentials do you have to be saying that it's "hysterical" to claim that the film has been altered, when experts such as Ryan, Weatherly, Costella, Mantik, Schaeffer, etc., have documented evidence of alteration, and given your obvious inability to explain the anomalies in the film? You keep issuing adamant summary dismissals of the very idea of film alteration, yet you have provided no explanation for

-- Why the Zapruder film was secretly detoured to the CIA's Hawkeyeworks photographic laboratory in New York and then taken to the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in DC. Gee, what was going on here? Why were these detours omitted from the official chain-of-custody for the film? What possible innocent reason could there have been for those detours and for omitting them from the chain-of-custody? Hey? Are you ever going to address this issue?

-- Why the only two CIA photo technicians at NPIC who have commented on the subject have said that the Zapruder film they saw showed events that are not in the existing version of the film. Were they both "mistaken"? And, gosh, is it just a whopping "coincidence" that dozens of other witnesses in the plaza reported seeing events that are not seen in the current Zapruder film?

Your attempt to deal with Jackie's and Hill's conflicting locations in the Zapruder film and the Nix film is a joke. You won't even admit what anyone with two working eyes can plainly see about the distance between Jackie's and Hill's heads alone in the two films. Your entire "explanation" is that the apparent differences in their positions in the films are just an optical illusion caused by the fact that the films were shot from different sides of the limo and from different angles, yet one of your own graphics proves that the camera angles are not drastically different.

The camera angles are key, not the fact that the cameras were on opposite sides of the limo. Two cameras filming from opposite sides of a car are going to capture the same information about the positions and locations of bodies on/in the car, as long as they're filming from angles that are not drastically different. Simple common sense should tell you this.

Ditto for your flimsy "explanation" of Brehm Jr.'s movements. You still have not explained how any person, much less a young boy, could have carried out those movements and ended up calmly standing and clapping in no more than 0.61 seconds. You spent most of your time quibbling over whether Brehm Jr. is already moving in Z277, an assumption that I immediately said I was willing to make for the sake of argument, and engaging in juvenile posturing over the fact that I assumed Cranor was using Z380 as her comparison frame instead of Z375, even though there is virtually no difference between Jackie's and Hill's positions and location in the two frames. Yet, you offered nothing but fluff on the key issue of the impossibility of the speed of the movements.

And your bogus limo-"stop" GIF, again, exposes you as a deceptive amateur and propagandist.

[John Mytton]

You're still using this childish argument? I suggest you take a Logic 101 class, among other things. Do you think people will forget that I have repeatedly specified that the plotters could only do much editing of the film, and that even in its altered form the film refutes the lone-gunman scenario, which is why it was suppressed for 12 years? And do you think people will fail to notice that you are ducking the unsolvable problem posed by JFK's two separate reactions, especially given the fact that you claim the film is the unaltered original?

What good do you think it does for your position to keep pointing out that I believe the film has been altered, when you offer no rational explanation for JFK's two separate sets of reactions, for Connally's dramatic right-shoulder collapse, etc., etc.?

I mean, you insist the film is unaltered. Okay, then why do you refuse to acknowledge what it so plainly shows regarding JFK's reactions? You can't really believe that JFK could have been hit in Z224 and then have bent both forearms inward and started raising his hands up to his throat--all in 1/18th/second. As I've proved, even the WC knew that his Z225 reaction meant he was hit many frames before that point.

And what credentials do you have to be saying that it's "hysterical" to claim that the film has been altered, when experts such as Ryan, Weatherly, Costella, Mantik, Schaeffer, etc., have documented evidence of alteration, and given your obvious inability to explain the anomalies in the film? You keep issuing adamant summary dismissals of the very idea of film alteration, yet you have provided no explanation for

-- Why the Zapruder film was secretly detoured to the CIA's Hawkeyeworks photographic laboratory in New York and then taken to the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in DC. Gee, what was going on here? Why were these detours omitted from the official chain-of-custody for the film? What possible innocent reason could there have been for those detours and for omitting them from the chain-of-custody? Hey? Are you ever going to address this issue?

-- Why the only two CIA photo technicians at NPIC who have commented on the subject have said that the Zapruder film they saw showed events that are not in the existing version of the film. Were they both "mistaken"? And, gosh, is it just a whopping "coincidence" that dozens of other witnesses in the plaza reported seeing events that are not seen in the current Zapruder film?

Your attempt to deal with Jackie's and Hill's conflicting locations in the Zapruder film and the Nix film is a joke. You won't even admit what anyone with two working eyes can plainly see about the distance between Jackie's and Hill's heads alone in the two films. Your entire "explanation" is that the apparent differences in their positions in the films are just an optical illusion caused by the fact that the films were shot from different sides of the limo and from different angles, yet one of your own graphics proves that the camera angles are not drastically different.

The camera angles are key, not the fact that the cameras were on opposite sides of the limo. Two cameras filming from opposite sides of a car are going to capture the same information about the positions and locations of bodies on/in the car, as long as they're filming from angles that are not drastically different. Simple common sense should tell you this.

Ditto for your flimsy "explanation" of Brehm Jr.'s movements. You still have not explained how any person, much less a young boy, could have carried out those movements and ended up calmly standing and clapping in no more than 0.61 seconds. You spent most of your time quibbling over whether Brehm Jr. is already moving in Z277, an assumption that I immediately said I was willing to make for the sake of argument, and engaging in juvenile posturing over the fact that I assumed Cranor was using Z380 as her comparison frame instead of Z375, even though there is virtually no difference between Jackie's and Hill's positions and location in the two frames. Yet, you offered nothing but fluff on the key issue of the impossibility of the speed of the movements.

And your bogus limo-"stop" GIF, again, exposes you as a deceptive amateur and propagandist.

I already answered most of this in your other thread, please keep up. But I'll repeat it here just to rub it in.

As for Brehm's son, you've been told and even shown the Zapruder sequence in real time, proving that your self serving opinion is worthless.

For a start, your assumption that the frames in question begin with a stationary boy are already proven wrong because his extended leg is in the first inconvenient frame that you purposely omitted, so why do you persist with the lies?



As for the movement of Brehm's son, open your eyes and see the light.

Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist,

WOW, stop with the lies, you were the one who couldn't make a physical distinction between "stop" and slow", I simply showed and described the slowdown, which is obvious.

Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh?

OMG, another massive Griffith Blunder, in the following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.





The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.
Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.







Good luck refuting any of this but I know from past experience that you can't, so you will try and find my missing apostrophe and blab about some "scholar" that is commenting on a subject that is way beyond his/her level of expertise. Yawn!

Btw you keep saying "alteration" and now you have introduced "CIA's Hawkeyeworks photographic laboratory in New York" and repeated claims from "two CIA photo technicians at NPIC" and even referred to Costella who claims huge changes to the images, which by definition means that the films were not merely edited but manipulated and faked, yet you cowardly never explicitly say how and what was altered, please explain?
It's all well and good to keep adding all these contradicting "scholars" whose opinions are directly at odds with each other and your claims of simple editing but let's be honest here, all you are doing is a pathetic attempt to delay the inevitable time, when you have to specifically describe scientifically exactly how and what has been changed.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Your attempt to deal with Jackie's and Hill's conflicting locations in the Zapruder film and the Nix film is a joke. You won't even admit what anyone with two working eyes can plainly see about the distance between Jackie's and Hill's heads alone in the two films. Your entire "explanation" is that the apparent differences in their positions in the films are just an optical illusion caused by the fact that the films were shot from different sides of the limo and from different angles, yet one of your own graphics proves that the camera angles are not drastically different.

The camera angles are key, not the fact that the cameras were on opposite sides of the limo. Two cameras filming from opposite sides of a car are going to capture the same information about the positions and locations of bodies on/in the car, as long as they're filming from angles that are not drastically different. Simple common sense should tell you this.

For a start, you do realize that Zapruder and Nix were on opposite sides of Dealey Plaza. Yes?



And secondly when viewed from a plan view the perspective from each of Zapruder's and Nix's POV is dramatically different. This isn't difficult to understand.

Simple common sense should tell you this.

-sigh- Common sense ain't that common.

Either it's a simple example of perspective or it's an impossibly complicated example of 8mm film SFX but the resulting real question has to be why, why would "they" go to the extensive trouble of altering film that doesn't need to be altered, especially since any discovered alteration will expose their evil plans? Muhaha!

JohnM

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

U said "he is bringing his left hand up" .
U said  "he is reacting to a shot" .
NNOOOOOOOO.
An involuntary "bringing" & an involuntary "reacting" are not the same as a voluntary bringing & reacting.
Involuntary acts take imo say two forms. The quickest taking say 0.01 sec (one Z frame).
An involuntary startle reaction might imo take say 0.1 sec (two Z frames).
And voluntary reactions involving the brain processing thoughts might take say 0.25 sec (five Z frames).

This is too ridiculous to bother answering. You must be kidding.

Ok then i will answer for u.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patellar_reflex
..........Striking of the patellar tendon with a reflex hammer just below the patella stretches the muscle spindle in the quadriceps muscle.[2][3] This produces a signal which travels back to the spinal cord and synapses (without interneurons) at the level of L3 or L4 in the spinal cord, completely independent of higher centres.[4] From there, an alpha motor neuron conducts an efferent impulse back to the quadriceps femoris muscle, triggering contraction.[3] This contraction, coordinated with the relaxation of the antagonistic flexor hamstring muscle causes the leg to kick.[4]
There is a latency of around 18 ms between stretch of the patellar tendon and the beginning of contraction
of the quadriceps femoris muscle.[5] This is a reflex of proprioception which helps maintain posture and balance, allowing to keep one's balance with little effort or conscious thought...............

I said that some reactions can be as little as 0.01 sec. Wiki tells us 0.018 sec.

Do u want me to examine my references to 0.1 sec & 0.25 sec?
I hope that u are learning some of this. Hope 2024 is better for u.
..........2023 Report. Michael tryed hard this year but he just didnt ever get it. Did u have him on a vegan diet up to age of 2? A carnivore diet might help in 2024. Anyhow Michael will have to repeat in 2024.

Now. Lets look at words. Words have meanings. U apparently do not understand that he did not do what u said he did. He had no input. It happened automatically. It was involuntary. So, u used the wrong words. Koz, words have meanings.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I already answered most of this in your other thread, please keep up. But I'll repeat it here just to rub it in.

No, you did not. Your idea of "answer" to throw up a bunch of flim-flam and smoke and posturing, and the few times you have tried to actually address a problem, you have blundered badly.

As for Brehm's son, you've been told and even shown the Zapruder sequence in real time, proving that your self serving opinion is worthless.

LOL! The sequence "in real time" has Brehm Jr. coming from behind his dad, then coming virtually parallel with him, and then standing calmly clapping in, by your admission, no more than 0.61 seconds. I guess you just can't wrap your mind around the fact that people can go watch the Zapruder film in real time and in slow motion and see all these things for themselves.

Again, if there's nothing unnaturally rapid about Brehm Jr.'s movement, you should easily be able to duplicate them in a reenactment. Do and record a reenactment, and duplicate those movements in 0.61 seconds, even with your stand-in already starting to step out when you start the timer, and post the video. That's all you gotta do.

For a start, your assumption that the frames in question begin with a stationary boy are already proven wrong because his extended leg is in the first inconvenient frame that you purposely omitted, so why do you persist with the lies?

Uh, I already answered this argument. How many times have I already told you that, yes, go ahead and assume that Brehm Jr. was already moving in Z277. That really doesn't help your case. I mean, never mind that your evidence that he's already moving in Z277 is questionable, as I've noted. But, again, for the fifth or sixth time, go ahead and assume that he's moving in Z277, because the movement is still unnaturally and impossibly fast even with this assumption.

As for the movement of Brehm's son, open your eyes and see the light.

Uh-huh. See above.

WOW, stop with the lies, you were the one who couldn't make a physical distinction between "stop" and slow", I simply showed and described the slowdown, which is obvious.

Oh, it's obvious?! Really?! This is more of your clown material. I would note that I already responded to this nonsense with several paragraphs of points and observations in previous replies.

Again, if your phony slowdown is so obvious, why did Luis Alvarez report that the only slowdown he could detect was the split-second slowdown from Z295-304, a slowdown that nobody had ever noticed before, a slowdown that is imperceptible when you view the film at normal speed, and a slowdown that does not even remotely resemble the stop or marked slowdown described by dozens of witnesses from all over the plaza?

Incredibly, you're still lying about my point regarding "stopped or markedly slowed" and "a stop and a rapid slowdown." You keep pretending that I've failed to distinguish "between stop and slow," when anyone who understands English can see that you're lying about this.

OMG, another massive Griffith Blunder, in the following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.

And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.

Just how juvenile and ridiculous can you get? Are you so clueless that you don't understand that there is a huge difference between seeing the individual frames published in a magazine or a report and watching the film itself? I mean, how old are you? Seriously, you act and argue like a teenager.

I mean, duh, yes, we all know that the individual frames were published by the WC and by LIFE magazine. Gee, no kidding!

Does your mom know you're using her Internet service?

The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.

Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.

Good luck refuting any of this but I know from past experience that you can't, so you will try and find my missing apostrophe and blab about some "scholar" that is commenting on a subject that is way beyond his/her level of expertise. Yawn!

More of your repetition of blah, blah, blah based on your ignorance of the evidence and on your refusal to read any of the scholarly research on the evidence of Zapruder film alteration. Every one of these arguments has been addressed in the scholarly pro-alteration literature. The problem is that you haven't read any of it.

Tell me, which anti-alteration author has answered the research of Weatherly, Ryan, Costella, Schaeffer, Mantik, etc.? How about you cite me some of those rebuttals, hey?

And, clearly, you haven't read a single scholarly pro-alteration response to the anti-alteration arguments, because you keep repeating some of them and acting like you're presenting unanswered arguments.

Btw you keep saying "alteration" and now you have introduced "CIA's Hawkeyeworks photographic laboratory in New York" and repeated claims from "two CIA photo technicians at NPIC" and even referred to Costella who claims huge changes to the images, which by definition means that the films were not merely edited but manipulated and faked, . . .

More of your ducking and dodging and bobbing and weaving. You pull this stunt over and over. Rather than deal with the established fact that the Zapruder film was secretly diverted to two CIA photographic labs, you make phony strawman arguments that are based on your ideological refusal to take alteration seriously.

Notice that not one syllable of all of your hot air here explains why those detours occurred and why they were suppressed from the official record of the film's chain of custody.

And, just on a point of logic, not to mention basic English, a film that has major changes made to many of its images is still an altered film. A "fake" film is one that has been made up and is in no way based on the original. If someone got a bunch of actors and lookalike limos and cars and filmed a fake shooting in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder's position, that would be a "fake" Zapruder film.

yet you cowardly never explicitly say how and what was altered, please explain?

HUH??  Just HUH?? LOL! Do you suffer from amnesia? Or, do you just really hope that no one has read our previous exchanges on the subject and also my article on Zapruder film alteration?? Holy smokes. In my article, I discuss several things that were altered: the limo's movement (the stop/marked slowdown was removed), Brehm Jr.'s movements, Summers' foreleg movements, Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations on the limo's trunk, JFK's backward motion, the impossible speed of the disappearance of the explosive spray, etc., etc.

It's all well and good to keep adding all these contradicting "scholars" whose opinions are directly at odds with each other and your claims of simple editing but let's be honest here, all you are doing is a pathetic attempt to delay the inevitable time, when you have to specifically describe scientifically exactly how and what has been changed. JohnM

Nonsense. Those scholars are not "contradicting" and their opinions are not "directly at odds with each other." You are both lying and bluffing at the same time. I can tell by the arguments you're making that your research has been very one-sided and that you have read very little of the scholarly research that supports alteration.

I see you did another post trying to explain away the obvious conflict between the Nix and Zapruder films regarding Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations. You've done nothing but repeat your previous arguments, and your own graphics prove that the camera angles were not very different.

I just had to laugh out loud when you asked me if I realized that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of Dealey Plaza! This qualifies you for the Captain Duh award, and the Captain Meaningless Argument award. Uh, yes, I've told you at least twice now that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of the limo. What don't you understand about this?

And, again, your own graphics show that the camera angles were not that different, certainly not enough to account for the drastic differences in Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.

[John Mytton]

No, you did not. Your idea of "answer" to throw up a bunch of flim-flam and smoke and posturing, and the few times you have tried to actually address a problem, you have blundered badly.

LOL! The sequence "in real time" has Brehm Jr. coming from behind his dad, then coming virtually parallel with him, and then standing calmly clapping in, by your admission, no more than 0.61 seconds. I guess you just can't wrap your mind around the fact that people can go watch the Zapruder film in real time and in slow motion and see all these things for themselves.

Again, if there's nothing unnaturally rapid about Brehm Jr.'s movement, you should easily be able to duplicate them in a reenactment. Do and record a reenactment, and duplicate those movements in 0.61 seconds, even with your stand-in already starting to step out when you start the timer, and post the video. That's all you gotta do.

Uh, I already answered this argument. How many times have I already told you that, yes, go ahead and assume that Brehm Jr. was already moving in Z277. That really doesn't help your case. I mean, never mind that your evidence that he's already moving in Z277 is questionable, as I've noted. But, again, for the fifth or sixth time, go ahead and assume that he's moving in Z277, because the movement is still unnaturally and impossibly fast even with this assumption.

Uh-huh. See above.

Oh, it's obvious?! Really?! This is more of your clown material. I would note that I already responded to this nonsense with several paragraphs of points and observations in previous replies.

Again, if your phony slowdown is so obvious, why did Luis Alvarez report that the only slowdown he could detect was the split-second slowdown from Z295-304, a slowdown that nobody had ever noticed before, a slowdown that is imperceptible when you view the film at normal speed, and a slowdown that does not even remotely resemble the stop or marked slowdown described by dozens of witnesses from all over the plaza?

Incredibly, you're still lying about my point regarding "stopped or markedly slowed" and "a stop and a rapid slowdown." You keep pretending that I've failed to distinguish "between stop and slow," when anyone who understands English can see that you're lying about this.

Just how juvenile and ridiculous can you get? Are you so clueless that you don't understand that there is a huge difference between seeing the individual frames published in a magazine or a report and watching the film itself? I mean, how old are you? Seriously, you act and argue like a teenager.

I mean, duh, yes, we all know that the individual frames were published by the WC and by LIFE magazine. Gee, no kidding!

Does your mom know you're using her Internet service?

More of your repetition of blah, blah, blah based on your ignorance of the evidence and on your refusal to read any of the scholarly research on the evidence of Zapruder film alteration. Every one of these arguments has been addressed in the scholarly pro-alteration literature. The problem is that you haven't read any of it.

Tell me, which anti-alteration author has answered the research of Weatherly, Ryan, Costella, Schaeffer, Mantik, etc.? How about you cite me some of those rebuttals, hey?

And, clearly, you haven't read a single scholarly pro-alteration response to the anti-alteration arguments, because you keep repeating some of them and acting like you're presenting unanswered arguments.

More of your ducking and dodging and bobbing and weaving. You pull this stunt over and over. Rather than deal with the established fact that the Zapruder film was secretly diverted to two CIA photographic labs, you make phony strawman arguments that are based on your ideological refusal to take alteration seriously.

Notice that not one syllable of all of your hot air here explains why those detours occurred and why they were suppressed from the official record of the film's chain of custody.

And, just on a point of logic, not to mention basic English, a film that has major changes made to many of its images is still an altered film. A "fake" film is one that has been made up and is in no way based on the original. If someone got a bunch of actors and lookalike limos and cars and filmed a fake shooting in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder's position, that would be a "fake" Zapruder film.

HUH??  Just HUH?? LOL! Do you suffer from amnesia? Or, do you just really hope that no one has read our previous exchanges on the subject and also my article on Zapruder film alteration?? Holy smokes. In my article, I discuss several things that were altered: the limo's movement (the stop/marked slowdown was removed), Brehm Jr.'s movements, Summers' foreleg movements, Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations on the limo's trunk, JFK's backward motion, the impossible speed of the disappearance of the explosive spray, etc., etc.

Nonsense. Those scholars are not "contradicting" and their opinions are not "directly at odds with each other." You are both lying and bluffing at the same time. I can tell by the arguments you're making that your research has been very one-sided and that you have read very little of the scholarly research that supports alteration.

I see you did another post trying to explain away the obvious conflict between the Nix and Zapruder films regarding Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations. You've done nothing but repeat your previous arguments, and your own graphics prove that the camera angles were not very different.

I just had to laugh out loud when you asked me if I realized that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of Dealey Plaza! This qualifies you for the Captain Duh award, and the Captain Meaningless Argument award. Uh, yes, I've told you at least twice now that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of the limo. What don't you understand about this?

And, again, your own graphics show that the POV/camera angles were not that different, certainly not enough to account for the drastic differences in Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.

And here we go again, no actual evidence, no refutation of my images, just the same old tired claims that what you see, in your opinion proves the Zapruder has been altered. Yawn!
For goodness sakes, for once in your life prove at least one of your stupid claims, and for bonus points provide some evidence of exactly how this alteration was accomplished and no, saying the film went to some secret CIA lab is not proof, and for that matter, the decades old recollections of CIA agent's rusty old memories isn't proof either.
Also, the Brehm claim is your claim and it's absolutely absurd for you, to ask me, to provide a recreation, so how about you show us your timed reenactment that you say you did and we can start from there?

JohnM