JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Duncan MacRae on October 13, 2023, 11:30:29 AM
-
-
I believe that UM signaled Dal-Tex shooter that limo was turning onto Houston from Main and then indicated if more shots were required.
If one shot had killed JFK after limo turned onto Elm, the invasion of Cuba would've occurred. And Alec James Hidell, a Russian spy impersonating former US Marine Lee H. Oswald, would have been blamed for the assassination. A dead Russian spy that is. Likely killed by JD Tippit or another Dallas cop minutes after the assassination.
It's nice to be back - Joe
-
I believe that UM signaled Dal-Tex shooter that limo was turning onto Houston from Main and then indicated if more shots were required.
If one shot had killed JFK after limo turned onto Elm, the invasion of Cuba would've occurred. And Alec James Hidell, a Russian spy impersonating former US Marine Lee H. Oswald, would have been blamed for the assassination. A dead Russian spy that is. Likely killed by JD Tippit or another Dallas cop minutes after the assassination.
It's nice to be back - Joe
Exactly where in the Dal-Tex building do you claim the shooter is located? How do you think TUM signaled him?
-
2nd floor window. Dal-Tex Bldg provided easiest shot once limo straightened out on Elm. The too-wide turn by Greer, as described by witnesses, jostled occupants. Shooter missed JFK's head and hit JBC.
UM opened umbrella and held it up when limo turned onto Houston. Shooter had no view of turn from Dal-Tex Bldg. Just my opinion, based on nearly 50 years of study and thought.
-
And coupled with the coincidence of a mafia guy, Jim Braden, seen in Daltex bldg on the 3rd floor carrying a brief case…and
Braden lied about where he was during the assignation ( parole officer refuted his story).
There’s some issue though if the 2nd floor level of Daltex bldg. brown is high enough to clear the windshield of the SS car following close behind JFK limo
That’s why there was once some serious discussion about a potential “hole” in a 3rd story window which may or may not be a broken glass pane.
The LNs, namely John Mytton, seemed to have debunked the idea of it being a hole and since there’s been no more detailed 3d modeling of how the shooter would be positioned to shoot thru this hole then the idea sort of faded away.
It seemed, (to me at least) at the time , like a very plausible theory because of how straight a shot down Elm st. it would be and the coincidence of Braden seen on the 3rd floor with briefcase just before the shooting?
-
I like Thompson's observation that studying anything closely enough reveals a "quantum" world of weirdness. Details that seem inexplicable and somehow sinister emerge and the Umbrella Man is one such detail. The infamous Umbrella Man turns out to be nothing more than an insurance salesman making a gesture of protest against JFK using the umbrella.
However, when we look closer, the weirdness reemerges.
Three times in his HSCA testimony, Witt confirms the following sequence of events:
He is sat on the grass near the Grassy Knoll waiting for the motorcade.
He becomes aware of the motorcade after it has turned onto Elm Street.
He gets up and starts to walk towards the sidewalk, raising his umbrella as he walks.
The umbrella obscures his view of the approaching motorcade and by the time he has raised it he sees the following:
"...there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside
one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that
unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things."
However, Willis and Betzner pics show the UM in position with his umbrella raised way before the moment Witt claims in his testimony.
The UM is in a position to see both JFK and JBC reacting to being shot and everything else up to and including the head shot.
Is Witt lying about this?
The photographic evidence would certainly suggest he is.
And why didn't the HSCA highlight this inconsistency in his account?
-
Another slightly weird thing about Umbrella Man.
The Weigman pic is taken a matter of seconds after the head shot, perhaps no more than six seconds.
In the red circle I believe we can see UM and the DCM already sat down.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMpKxWQz/Weigman-UMcircle.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It doesn't really mean anything, it just seems a bit weird to me.
In his testimony Witt gives the impression that it takes him a bit of time to get his head around what's going on before sitting down but the Weigman pic indicates he did it immediately. He also states it is some time before he is joined by the other man but this would appear not to be the case.
-
Another slightly weird thing about Umbrella Man.
The Weigman pic is taken a matter of seconds after the head shot, perhaps no more than six seconds.
In the red circle I believe we can see UM and the DCM already sat down.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMpKxWQz/Weigman-UMcircle.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It doesn't really mean anything, it just seems a bit weird to me.
In his testimony Witt gives the impression that it takes him a bit of time to get his hand around what's going on before sitting down but the Weigman pic indicates he did it immediately. He also states it is some time before he is joined by the other man but this would appear not to be the case.
The assumption above is that this Wiegman still frame was shot only seconds after the Kill Shot. The Wiegman Film for over 30 years was ballyhoo'd as being filmed "continuously". This "continuous" claim was eventually was proven to be BOGUS. The reason this still frame was pushed as being shot just seconds after the Kill Shot, was due to the JFK Limo or Queen Mary being captured going under the Triple Underpass. Any timeline of more than a few seconds after the Kill Shot would then bolster the JFK Limo Stop issue.
-
The assumption above is that this Wiegman still frame was shot only seconds after the Kill Shot. The Wiegman Film for over 30 years was ballyhoo'd as being filmed "continuously". This "continuous" claim was eventually was proven to be BOGUS. The reason this still frame was pushed as being shot just seconds after the Kill Shot, was due to the JFK Limo or Queen Mary being captured going under the Triple Underpass. Any timeline of more than a few seconds after the Kill Shot would then bolster the JFK Limo Stop issue.
What are you talking about when you say "the Limo Stop issue".
There is film footage of the limo as it passes down Elm Street. There are multiple films.
The limo slows down drastically before the head shot but it doesn't stop. The recollections of some witnesses, that the limo momentarily stopped, is refuted by actual film footage of the event.
It is only an "issue" in the minds of those who like to make things a little more fanciful than they need be.
The Weigman clip above is taken no more than 6 seconds after the head shot. We know this is the case by examining the Z-film.
All I was saying was that, even though it doesn't necessarily mean anything, both the UM and the DCM are sat down within this time frame. It's as if the second JFK was hit in the head they both rushed to sit down.
-
What are you talking about when you say "the Limo Stop issue".
There is film footage of the limo as it passes down Elm Street. There are multiple films.
The limo slows down drastically before the head shot but it doesn't stop. The recollections of some witnesses, that the limo momentarily stopped, is refuted by actual film footage of the event.
It is only an "issue" in the minds of those who like to make things a little more fanciful than they need be.
The Weigman clip above is taken no more than 6 seconds after the head shot. We know this is the case by examining the Z-film.
All I was saying was that, even though it doesn't necessarily mean anything, both the UM and the DCM are sat down within this time frame. It's as if the second JFK was hit in the head they both rushed to sit down.
Again, how can you have any confidence in the Wiegman Film when it was FALSELY promoted as being filmed "continuously" for over 30 years? Wiegman claimed to have seen SA Lem Johns somewhere UP the knoll, ("Pictures Of The Pain"/Trask), yet we do Not see SA Johns anywhere on this film. Where did he go? Cutting room floor? Plus, the film is proffered as being "continuous" for over 30 years running and Wiegman is still alive during this 30 yr period and he says absolutely nothing to refute this Bogus Claim? This 30yr+ "continuous" claim was done to reinforce the elapsed time following the Kill Shot. And remember, back in 1963, KODAK had a choke hold on the entire film developing industry.
-
Again, how can you have any confidence in the Wiegman Film when it was FALSELY promoted as being filmed "continuously" for over 30 years? Wiegman claimed to have seen SA Lem Johns somewhere UP the knoll, ("Pictures Of The Pain"/Trask), yet we do Not see SA Johns anywhere on this film. Where did he go? Cutting room floor? Plus, the film is proffered as being "continuous" for over 30 years running and Wiegman is still alive during this 30 yr period and he says absolutely nothing to refute this Bogus Claim? This 30yr+ "continuous" claim was done to reinforce the elapsed time following the Kill Shot. And remember, back in 1963, KODAK had a choke hold on the entire film developing industry.
This 30yr+ "continuous" claim was done to reinforce the elapsed time following the Kill Shot
So, you seem to be claiming that the limo came to a full stop and that the Z-film was altered in order to "delete" this event from the film record?
Below is a stabilised version of the Nix film.
Please explain how the movement of Hill and the motorcycles alongside the follow-up car have also been altered to disguise the stop.
-
This 30yr+ "continuous" claim was done to reinforce the elapsed time following the Kill Shot
So, you seem to be claiming that the limo came to a full stop and that the Z-film was altered in order to "delete" this event from the film record?
Below is a stabilised version of the Nix film.
Please explain how the movement of Hill and the motorcycles alongside the follow-up car have also been altered to disguise the stop.
I'm not claiming there was a Limo Stop. What I am doing is watching you trying to dance around WHY the Wiegman film could be heralded as being filmed "continuously" for over 30 yrs. There's a reason for a blatant lie such as this standing for this extended period of time. All anybody has to do is actually watch the entire film to know this "continuous" stuff is pure baloney. Nobody can base any timelines onna film with the track record of the Wiegman Film. Yet, here we got Gary Mack parading Wiegman around in "Unsolved History", (40 yrs later) like Wiegman walks on water. This in the face of Wiegman being alive and failing to correct this lie during its' entire 30yr+ run. Once again, the JFK Research Community does nothing but embarrass itself.
-
I'm not claiming there was a Limo Stop. What I am doing is watching you trying to dance around WHY the Wiegman film could be heralded as being filmed "continuously" for over 30 yrs. There's a reason for a blatant lie such as this standing for this extended period of time. All anybody has to do is actually watch the entire film to know this "continuous" stuff is pure baloney. Nobody can base any timelines onna film with the track record of the Wiegman Film. Yet, here we got Gary Mack parading Wiegman around in "Unsolved History", (40 yrs later) like Wiegman walks on water. This in the face of Wiegman being alive and failing to correct this lie during its' entire 30yr+ run. Once again, the JFK Research Community does nothing but embarrass itself.
I'm not dancing around anything.
I am completely unaware of the unsupported claims you are making that the Weigman film was "heralded as being filmed "continuously" for over 30 yrs" and that this has been proved to be bogus.
I am unaware as to how this claim affects the fact that Weigman does capture the limo before it reaches the underpass, which we know is less than 6 seconds after the head shot as this is filmed by Zapruder.
Also, in the Mark Bell film, around 10 seconds after he films the limo reaching the underpass he pans to the right and captures Weigman already in position filming the Hesters as is seen in his footage.
3 different films interlocking and confirming the timings of each other.
What, exactly, is the problem?
-
I'm not dancing around anything.
I am completely unaware of the unsupported claims you are making that the Weigman film was "heralded as being filmed "continuously" for over 30 yrs" and that this has been proved to be bogus.
I am unaware as to how this claim affects the fact that Weigman does capture the limo before it reaches the underpass, which we know is less than 6 seconds after the head shot as this is filmed by Zapruder.
Also, in the Mark Bell film, around 10 seconds after he films the limo reaching the underpass he pans to the right and captures Weigman already in position filming the Hesters as is seen in his footage.
3 different films interlocking and confirming the timings of each other.
What, exactly, is the problem?
Your admittedly being unaware of the history of the Wiegman Film immediately DQ's you from further discussing anything connected to it. Do your homework. Bone-up on the Wiegman Film. Gary Mack himself issued a Mea Culpa with regard to his furthering the Wiegman "continuous" issue. This is a major problem when discussing anything connected to the JFK Assassination. People are trumpeting uneducated positions/opinions. We currently have a couple of generations getting up-to-speed on exactly what has gone down over the last 60 yrs with regard to the assassination of JFK. People such as yourself need to slow your roll and instead further your knowledge on this subject. All you are accidentally doing is poisoning the well of these current generations that are looking for JFK Assassination FACTS.
People such as yourself take for granted that is Wiegman on the Bell Film due to the guy wearing a hat. Neither Zapruder or Wiegman ever verified seeing each other immediately following the assassination, yet the Bell Film shows these alleged 2 individuals almost close enough to shake hands. It is this reckless manner of ID'ing people on assassination films/images which has led to the ongoing state of JFK Assassination confusion. And while we are on the subject of assigning valid ID's to eyewitnesses of the assassination, Emmitt Hudson is the only person to ever ID Emmitt Hudson as standing/sitting on The Steps. The ID of Hudson should be treated just like the ID of Bev Oliver = Babushka Woman.
-
Your admittedly being unaware of the history of the Wiegman Film immediately DQ's you from further discussing anything connected to it. Do your homework. Bone-up on the Wiegman Film. Gary Mack himself issued a Mea Culpa with regard to his furthering the Wiegman "continuous" issue. This is a major problem when discussing anything connected to the JFK Assassination. People are trumpeting uneducated positions/opinions. We currently have a couple of generations getting up-to-speed on exactly what has gone down over the last 60 yrs with regard to the assassination of JFK. People such as yourself need to slow your roll and instead further your knowledge on this subject. All you are accidentally doing is poisoning the well of these current generations that are looking for JFK Assassination FACTS.
People such as yourself take for granted that is Wiegman on the Bell Film due to the guy wearing a hat. Neither Zapruder or Wiegman ever verified seeing each other immediately following the assassination, yet the Bell Film shows these alleged 2 individuals almost close enough to shake hands. It is this reckless manner of ID'ing people on assassination films/images which has led to the ongoing state of JFK Assassination confusion. And while we are on the subject of assigning valid ID's to eyewitnesses of the assassination, Emmitt Hudson is the only person to ever ID Emmitt Hudson as standing/sitting on The Steps. The ID of Hudson should be treated just like the ID of Bev Oliver = Babushka Woman.
Do your homework
I don't need to do my "homework", Royell, as you are going to do it for me.
You are the one making unsubstantiated claims, not me.
You can cite exactly where you are getting your claim from that the Weigman film was heralded as being "continuous".
You can also cite exactly where this unsubstantiated claim has been proven wrong.
In fact, you can reproduce the passage from where you are getting this unsubstantiated claim from.
That's how things work around here, Royell - you, obviously haven't noticed.
Until you produce support for your claims they will be treated exactly for what they are - unsubstantiated, unfounded, baseless.
People are trumpeting uneducated positions/opinions.
As I am DQ'd from talking about what I see with my own eyes, according to you, maybe you can clarify a couple of things.
1) Is the Presidential limo shown in Weigman before it reaches the underpass?
2) Do you agree this is less than 6 seconds after the head shot, something we know from watching the Z-film?
I'd like you to answer these questions as I will be pressing for an answer.
People such as yourself take for granted that is Wiegman on the Bell Film due to the guy wearing a hat.
And people such as yourself like to go on about how clued up you are about this case and then make comments such as this which reveal a weak grasp of the evidence.
After leaving his vehicle, Weigman races towards the pergola and takes up a position where he films the Hesters lying on the grass. It's quite famous footage. The way to identify Weigman in Bell is not by his hat [ ::)] but by his position as he films the Hesters:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jSNLYbcN/Bell-Weigman.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The pic above is taken approximately 10 seconds after Bell has filmed the limo reaching the underpass.
3) Do you agree the Bell pic above shows Weigman in position, filming the Hesters?
Neither Zapruder or Wiegman ever verified seeing each other immediately following the assassination, yet the Bell Film shows these alleged 2 individuals almost close enough to shake hands
This is such a ridiculous point to make it's hard to know whether you are serious or not. I've been around long enough to know that this kind of statement reveals someone who is so desperate to make a point they will say almost anything.
Emmitt Hudson is the only person to ever ID Emmitt Hudson as standing/sitting on The Steps. The ID of Hudson should be treated just like the ID of Bev Oliver = Babushka Woman
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Hudson which is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned.
Who ID'd Malcolm Summers other than Malcolm Summers? Who ID'd A J Millican other than A J Millican? And I would be willing to bet there are dozens more witnesses at Dealey Plaza who are ID'd only by themselves.
Again, I've been around long enough to know you have some half-baked theory involving Hudson which is why you keep picking out his self-identification as something unusual while ignoring the many others this also applies to.
You talk as if you are some kind of font of wisdom regarding this case.
So let's see what you've got.
1) Is the Presidential limo shown in Weigman before it reaches the underpass?
2) Do you agree this is less than 6 seconds after the head shot, something we know from watching the Z-film?
3) Do you agree the Bell pic above shows Weigman in position, filming the Hesters?
-
This is an excellent video synchronising various assassination films.
There is no need to look beyond the Zavada Report regarding the authenticity of the Z-film, but works like this demonstrate how the various films are interlocked. By itself it demolishes any notion of alteration.
-
This is an excellent video synchronising various assassination films.
There is no need to look beyond the Zavada Report regarding the authenticity of the Z-film, but works like this demonstrate how the various films are interlocked. By itself it demolishes any notion of alteration.
Hi Dan, In your video clip above, do not press play. What is wrong with this picture? Only Nix is correct! Mary Moorman is much shorter on the street taking her famous picture like she said she did. Perhaps you will finally comment about Gerda the Great's gif, where the Nix film does not match the Zapruder film concering Clint's and Jackie's interaction on the limo's trunk! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Gerda_Dunckel_15.gif)
-
DAN - You're obviously unfamiliar with all the history behind the Wiegman Film. Your challenging it being originally pushed as being "continuous", makes it clear that you are not even familiar with the letter that Gary Mack wrote taking "back water" on this very issue. You're also unaware of the details of the Brugioni Briefing Boards, his Notes for those briefing boards he prepared, and the differences he detailed between the Z Film he examined vs the Current Z Film. You wanna go with Zavada, but we can not be sure that Zavada and Brugioni examined the exact same film. Your current foundation pertaining to all of these issues consists of sand. Do some serious research and get down to the bedrock. There are many issues I would enjoy discussing with you once you put in the time and get up-to-speed.
-
Hi Dan and Royell, I hope that you both are doing well! Can you both comment on this briefing board? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/NPIC-Panel-I.jpg)
-
Hi Dan, In your video clip above, do not press play. What is wrong with this picture? Only Nix is correct! Mary Moorman is much shorter on the street taking her famous picture like she said she did. Perhaps you will finally comment about Gerda the Great's gif, where the Nix film does not match the Zapruder film concering Clint's and Jackie's interaction on the limo's trunk! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Gerda_Dunckel_15.gif)
Hi Michael, do you mean the video I posted won't play. I'm not sure what to say as it works for me.
As for the Gerda gif, Hill's movements are perfectly in synch in both clips as are Jackies. Both clips are perfectly synched.
Do you mean that Hill and Jackie seem a lot closer together in the Nix clip than the Zapruder one?
-
DAN - You're obviously unfamiliar with all the history behind the Wiegman Film. Your challenging it being originally pushed as being "continuous", makes it clear that you are not even familiar with the letter that Gary Mack wrote taking "back water" on this very issue. You're also unaware of the details of the Brugioni Briefing Boards, his Notes for those briefing boards he prepared, and the differences he detailed between the Z Film he examined vs the Current Z Film. You wanna go with Zavada, but we can not be sure that Zavada and Brugioni examined the exact same film. Your current foundation pertaining to all of these issues consists of sand. Do some serious research and get down to the bedrock. There are many issues I would enjoy discussing with you once you put in the time and get up-to-speed.
Hi Royell,
the citations please and an answer to the three questions if you don't mind.
Thanks.
-
Hi Dan and Royell, I hope that you both are doing well! Can you both comment on this briefing board? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/NPIC-Panel-I.jpg)
So these are the Briefing Boards that were NOT prepared by Brugioni? There were also NOTES that accompanied these briefing boards. Also, NOT composed by Brugioni.
-
Hi Michael, do you mean the video I posted won't play. I'm not sure what to say as it works for me.
As for the Gerda gif, Hill's movements are perfectly in synch in both clips as are Jackies. Both clips are perfectly synched.
Do you mean that Hill and Jackie seem a lot closer together in the Nix clip than the Zapruder one?
Hi Dan, Just look at your video clip as it is. Only Nix shows Mary in the street. By the way, Nix shows Toni Foster in her raincoat, but Muchmore shows the Babushka Lady! The Nix and Zapruder films simply do not match, in movements, space etc. Only Nix shows what happened! Also can you comment on the briefing board. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
So these are the Briefing Boards that were NOT prepared by Brugioni? There were also NOTES that accompanied these briefing boards. Also, NOT composed by Brugioni.
Hi Royell, Yes, this would be a briefing board done on November 24th, 1963, when the Zapruder film was altered. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi Dan, Just look at your video clip as it is. Only Nix shows Mary in the street. By the way, Nix shows Toni Foster in her raincoat, but Muchmore shows the Babushka Lady! The Nix and Zapruder films simply do not match, in movements, space etc. Only Nix shows what happened! Also can you comment on the briefing board. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Only Nix shows Mary in the street.
Nix doesn't show Moorman stood in the street.
The grass slopes down to the road.
In the pic below notice you can only see half of the motorcycle wheel (pointed out by red arrow) It's because of the way the grass slopes down.
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtCsVjnf/Nix241.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
That's why Summers looks like he's sat in the road and why you can't see Altgens' feet when you watch the film.
Nix shows Toni Foster in her raincoat, but Muchmore shows the Babushka Lady!
Foster doesn't appear in Muchmore, she's not in a position to appear in the film.
If you look at Zapruder you can see how far away she is from the road.
There is literally no mystery here.
Also can you comment on the briefing board
I can't think of anything worth commenting on.
-
Hi Royell, Yes, this would be a briefing board done on November 24th, 1963, when the Zapruder film was altered. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Every attempt you have made to present alterations in the film have been blown out of the water.
Just out of interest, what exactly do you believe was altered in the Z-film and why was it altered. That question goes for Royell.
-
Only Nix shows Mary in the street.
Nix doesn't show Moorman stood in the street.
The grass slopes down to the road.
In the pic below notice you can only see half of the motorcycle wheel (pointed out by red arrow) It's because of the way the grass slopes down.
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtCsVjnf/Nix241.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
That's why Summers looks like he's sat in the road and why you can't see Altgens' feet when you watch the film.
Nix shows Toni Foster in her raincoat, but Muchmore shows the Babushka Lady!
Foster doesn't appear in Muchmore, she's not in a position to appear in the film.
If you look at Zapruder you can see how far away she is from the road.
There is literally no mystery here.
Also can you comment on the briefing board
I can't think of anything worth commenting on.
Hi Dan, No, B. J. Martin's motorcycle's wheel is in the street! The curb blocks seeing all of the wheel; just like it cuts down Mary Moorman's size---because she is standing in the street. Ike Altgens' shoes are blocked by the grass turf. I am saying the Zapruder film was altered to keep SSA William Greer out of trouble! If JFK's usual driver who died I think on October 14th, 1963, had driven, JFK probably would have survived. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JFK-The-Lost-Bullet-720p.mkv_20150627_142907.472.jpg?resize=1024%2C576)
-
Hi Dan, No, B. J. Martin's motorcycle's wheel is in the street! The curb blocks seeing all of the wheel; just like it cuts down Mary Moorman's size---because she is standing in the street. Ike Altgens' shoes are blocked by the grass turf. I am saying the Zapruder film was altered to keep SSA William Greer out of trouble! If JFK's usual driver who died I think on October 14th, 1963, had driven, JFK probably would have survived. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JFK-The-Lost-Bullet-720p.mkv_20150627_142907.472.jpg?resize=1024%2C576)
Ike Altgens' shoes are blocked by the grass turf
So are Moorman's ::)
I am saying the Zapruder film was altered to keep SSA William Greer out of trouble!
The Z-film shows the limo slowing down to almost walking pace just before the head shot, it's just really difficult to see.
Nix also shows the limo drastically slowing down then speeding away.
The Bronson film also shows the limo slowing down. The follow-up car almost runs into the back of it and the motorcycles end up almost alongside it.
There was no way to hide the fact the limo slowed right down before the head shot, so no need to alter anything.
It is notable that Greer lied about this in his WC testimony, insisting he kept a steady speed during the shooting.
It is also notable he "forgot" he was looking at JFK when his head exploded, as shown in the Z-film.
Greer's testimony is a joke, he can barely remember anything, answering "don't know" to almost everything. He insists he was focused on the top of the underpass as he approached it and saw no-one up there:
(https://i.postimg.cc/KcLQyFzB/Altgens7.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Hmmmm.....
Greer lied in his testimony
-
Ike Altgens' shoes are blocked by the grass turf
So are Moorman's ::)
I am saying the Zapruder film was altered to keep SSA William Greer out of trouble!
The Z-film shows the limo slowing down to almost walking pace just before the head shot, it's just really difficult to see.
Nix also shows the limo drastically slowing down then speeding away.
The Bronson film also shows the limo slowing down. The follow-up car almost runs into the back of it and the motorcycles end up almost alongside it.
There was no way to hide the fact the limo slowed right down before the head shot, so no need to alter anything.
It is notable that Greer lied about this in his WC testimony, insisting he kept a steady speed during the shooting.
It is also notable he "forgot" he was looking at JFK when his head exploded, as shown in the Z-film.
Greer's testimony is a joke, he can barely remember anything, answering "don't know" to almost everything. He insists he was focused on the top of the underpass as he approached it and saw no-one up there:
(https://i.postimg.cc/KcLQyFzB/Altgens7.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Hmmmm.....
Greer lied in his testimony
Hi Dan, I love watching a Mary Woodward interview! She always says SSA Greer just did not do anything to get the President out of there, and it really tears her up! In my opinion Mary Moorman in Nix is cut down by the size of the curb on South Elm Street. She is not merely standing in the grass like in Zapruder and Muchmore. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi Dan, I love watching a Mary Woodward interview! She always says SSA Greer just did not do anything to get the President out of there, and it really tears her up! In my opinion Mary Moorman in Nix is cut down by the size of the curb on South Elm Street. She is not merely standing in the grass like in Zapruder and Muchmore. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFVFJpd1/z305crop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Hi Michael, I'm going to have to bail out of this conversation as I find the notion that someone removed Mary Moorman from each of the Z-frames and placed her on the grass so utterly ludicrous that I find I'm slightly embarrassed to have got caught up in a discussion about it.
To believe this could actually be done is ridiculous.
To believe it could be done and not leave any trace of alteration is truly bonkers.
To believe it was done to keep Greer out of trouble is....I honestly don't know what that is.
We are obviously interested in this case for very different reasons - reasons that do not overlap in any way.
Good luck to you.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFVFJpd1/z305crop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Hi Michael, I'm going to have to bail out of this conversation as I find the notion that someone removed Mary Moorman from each of the Z-frames and placed her on the grass so utterly ludicrous that I find I'm slightly embarrassed to have got caught up in a discussion about it.
To believe this could actually be done is ridiculous.
To believe it could be done and not leave any trace of alteration is truly bonkers.
To believe it was done to keep Greer out of trouble is....I honestly don't know what that is.
We are obviously interested in this case for very different reasons - reasons that do not overlap in any way.
Good luck to you.
Hi Dan, I stand corrected! Thank you for teaching me! I agree with you that she was on the grass. According to tests done in 2001 by Mack and Thompson she had to be about 6 inches from the edge of the curb. I think that the Zapruder film always shows her farther away? The thing that I do not like about the Zapruder film is this: I hate that the people standing on the side of the street that Jean and Mary are on starting with the Apron Man on down do not seem to be in sync with the Presidential limo. They seem to be looking to the right most of the time when the limo has already passed! Your Z-305 frame is a good example! Thanks again for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Every attempt you have made to present alterations in the film have been blown out of the water.
Just out of interest, what exactly do you believe was altered in the Z-film and why was it altered. That question goes for Royell.
Do your research and familiarize yourself with the story of CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni and what he believed was the difference between the Z Film he examined the weekend after the assassination vs The Current Z film. Do the work and then we can talk. You are well behind the curve here.
-
Do your research and familiarize yourself with the story of CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni and what he believed was the difference between the Z Film he examined the weekend after the assassination vs The Current Z film. Do the work and then we can talk. You are well behind the curve here.
Do your homework and read the Zavada Report. You'll soon put aside this alterationist nonsense.
And this is the third time you are being asked to provide the citations for your unsubstantiated claims. If you can't substantiate your claims don't bother responding.
Also, you've been asked (three times now) to answer three simple questions:
1) Is the Presidential limo shown in Weigman before it reaches the underpass?
2) Do you agree this is less than 6 seconds after the head shot, something we know from watching the Z-film?
3) Do you agree the Bell pic shows Weigman in position, filming the Hesters?
Your constant evasion demonstrates you're not the font of wisdom you might like to think you are.
You seem insecure about putting your cards on the table.
-
Do your homework and read the Zavada Report. You'll soon put aside this alterationist nonsense.
And this is the third time you are being asked to provide the citations for your unsubstantiated claims. If you can't substantiate your claims don't bother responding.
Also, you've been asked (three times now) to answer three simple questions:
1) Is the Presidential limo shown in Weigman before it reaches the underpass?
2) Do you agree this is less than 6 seconds after the head shot, something we know from watching the Z-film?
3) Do you agree the Bell pic shows Weigman in position, filming the Hesters?
Your constant evasion demonstrates you're not the font of wisdom you might like to think you are.
You seem insecure about putting your cards on the table.
Your call
-
Your call
So, I checked out "The Zapruder Film Mystery" and was a bit puzzled.
It starts off with Horne expressing his conviction that the Z-film was altered so I expected the interview to deal with that.
However, Horne never once asked Bruglioni about whether he thought the film had been altered. The interview is about two briefing board "events", and that's it.
Bruglioni never expresses any kind of view about whether or not the film was altered and Horne doesn't ask him a single question about it.
At around the half hour mark it suddenly cuts to a different interview between Dino and Janney.
This interview appears to be about a single z-frame, 313.
Dino is talking about the debris cloud from the head shot. Janney begins to tell Dino that frame 313 is the only frame that shows the debris cloud but Dino can't believe it - "there was more than that".
Janney asks - "How many more frames do you think there would be [showing the debris cloud]?"
Dino - "I don't know but we were shocked when we saw it."
Janney is lying.
There are more than just the single frame showing the debris cloud and Dino is perfectly correct that there are multiple frames showing it:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxvP4z3G/harper-skull.gif)
I also noticed that not once did Dino mention [nor was he asked] about Jackie on the trunk of the limo.
In another article Horne claims that Dino saw Hill physically strike Jackie while she was on the back of the car which, of course, is not shown in the extant Z-film.
Hill striking Jackie?
Really?
Why didn't Horne think to ask him about that in this interview? Why didn't Horne even think to mention it, as his sole purpose was expose alteration in the Z-film?
There is nothing - absolutely zero - that even hints at alteration in this interview.
What am I missing here?
-
"Brugioni never expresses any kind of view about whether or not the film was altered and Horne doesn't ask him a single question about it."
The interview with Dino Brugioni on Youtube, "The Zapruder Film Mystery," is not about Brugioni discussing whether or not the Z film was altered. Brugioni, a WW II combat pilot (60 missions) was a photo analyst at the NPIC lab in Washington. The interview is mainly about Brugioni's memory of seeing the original 8 mm. Z film at the NPIC lab on the evening of SaPersonay, November 23, 1963. The Z film was brought to the lab by two Secret Service agents, who had not yet seen it themselves. They wanted Brugioni to prepare displays of still photos taken from the film to be used for intelligence briefing. As Brugioni and the agents watched the original film, they were shocked by the sight of the head shot impact causing a fragment of JFK's skull to fly "three or four feet into the air," surrounded by a kind of bloody mist. Also noted by Brugioni; the original Z film showed the motorcade turning the corner onto Elm Street; the presidential limo coming to a brief but complete, stop; JFK being thrown forward by the impact; and a gaping wound at the right rear of the president's head. Brugioni prepared the two displays as requested, with 12-15 still pix on each one. In the early a.m. the two agents left the NPIC lab with the displays, and the original Z film. The next time Brugioni saw the film, years later, it was clearly different. The frames showing the piece of JFK's skull flying into the air had been removed; so had the frames of the motorcade turning onto Elm Street; the impact of the head shot had been shortened to frame 313, whereas in the original Z film seen by Brugioni that impact scene was several frames longer; the limo now slows, but does not stop; the president is now thrown backward by the shot; and the gaping wound at the right rear of JFK's head had been blacked out. This is the Z film we see today. According to Dino Brugioni, key scenes in today's film are different from the original Z film, which he saw at the NPIC lab on Nov. 23rd, 1963.
-
"Brugioni never expresses any kind of view about whether or not the film was altered and Horne doesn't ask him a single question about it."
The interview with Dino Brugioni on Youtube, "The Zapruder Film Mystery," is not about Brugioni discussing whether or not the Z film was altered. Brugioni, a WW II combat pilot (60 missions) was a photo analyst at the NPIC lab in Washington. The interview is mainly about Brugioni's memory of seeing the original 8 mm. Z film at the NPIC lab on the evening of SaPersonay, November 23, 1963. The Z film was brought to the lab by two Secret Service agents, who had not yet seen it themselves. They wanted Brugioni to prepare displays of still photos taken from the film to be used for intelligence briefing. As Brugioni and the agents watched the original film, they were shocked by the sight of the head shot impact causing a fragment of JFK's skull to fly "three or four feet into the air," surrounded by a kind of bloody mist. Also noted by Brugioni; the original Z film showed the motorcade turning the corner onto Elm Street; the presidential limo coming to a brief but complete, stop; JFK being thrown forward by the impact; and a gaping wound at the right rear of the president's head. Brugioni prepared the two displays as requested, with 12-15 still pix on each one. In the early a.m. the two agents left the NPIC lab with the displays, and the original Z film. The next time Brugioni saw the film, years later, it was clearly different. The frames showing the piece of JFK's skull flying into the air had been removed; so had the frames of the motorcade turning onto Elm Street; the impact of the head shot had been shortened to frame 313, whereas in the original Z film seen by Brugioni that impact scene was several frames longer; the limo now slows, but does not stop; the president is now thrown backward by the shot; and the gaping wound at the right rear of JFK's head had been blacked out. This is the Z film we see today. According to Dino Brugioni, key scenes in today's film are different from the original Z film, which he saw at the NPIC lab on Nov. 23rd, 1963.
Hi Della, Welcome to the forum! Thank you for schooling us on this! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
"Brugioni never expresses any kind of view about whether or not the film was altered and Horne doesn't ask him a single question about it."
The interview with Dino Brugioni on Youtube, "The Zapruder Film Mystery," is not about Brugioni discussing whether or not the Z film was altered. Brugioni, a WW II combat pilot (60 missions) was a photo analyst at the NPIC lab in Washington. The interview is mainly about Brugioni's memory of seeing the original 8 mm. Z film at the NPIC lab on the evening of SaPersonay, November 23, 1963. The Z film was brought to the lab by two Secret Service agents, who had not yet seen it themselves. They wanted Brugioni to prepare displays of still photos taken from the film to be used for intelligence briefing. As Brugioni and the agents watched the original film, they were shocked by the sight of the head shot impact causing a fragment of JFK's skull to fly "three or four feet into the air," surrounded by a kind of bloody mist. Also noted by Brugioni; the original Z film showed the motorcade turning the corner onto Elm Street; the presidential limo coming to a brief but complete, stop; JFK being thrown forward by the impact; and a gaping wound at the right rear of the president's head. Brugioni prepared the two displays as requested, with 12-15 still pix on each one. In the early a.m. the two agents left the NPIC lab with the displays, and the original Z film. The next time Brugioni saw the film, years later, it was clearly different. The frames showing the piece of JFK's skull flying into the air had been removed; so had the frames of the motorcade turning onto Elm Street; the impact of the head shot had been shortened to frame 313, whereas in the original Z film seen by Brugioni that impact scene was several frames longer; the limo now slows, but does not stop; the president is now thrown backward by the shot; and the gaping wound at the right rear of JFK's head had been blacked out. This is the Z film we see today. According to Dino Brugioni, key scenes in today's film are different from the original Z film, which he saw at the NPIC lab on Nov. 23rd, 1963.
The interview with Dino Brugioni on Youtube, "The Zapruder Film Mystery," is not about Brugioni discussing whether or not the Z film was altered.
That's the point I'm making.
"The Zapruder Film Mystery" is as much about Doug Horne as it is about Bruglioni. Horne is an out-and-out Alteration Fantasist [Altfan]. The whole point of his research is to demonstrate that the Z-film has been altered. He introduces his interview with Dino in this context, stating it is his belief the Z-film was altered by removing the limo stop, blacking out the back of JFK's head and removing frames to show debris being blasted out of the back of JFK's head, and painting on the head wound visible in the Z-film.
This last point, that the head wound was painted on, is so ridiculous it makes me feel embarrassed for Horne. It's possibly the most ludicrous claim ever made in JFK research.
The whole point of Horne's interview with Dino is to provide evidence to support his silly belief of alteration.
Horne doesn't ask him a single question about whether the Z-film was altered.
Why not? Horne has an opportunity to grill a guy who closely studied the original Z-film many times.
I find it inconceivable that Horne did not ask Dino whether there was a limo stop or whether or not Dino saw debris blown out of the back of JFK's head. Of course he asked him.
But Dino must have told Horne that there was no limo stop and there was no debris. And that's why Horne doesn't ask him about it during the interview.
If Dino had said he saw a limo stop or debris we would never hear the end of it, Horne wouldn't give a toss about the briefing boards, all he would want to hear about are the things that prove the Z-film was altered.
But, during the interview, Dino never mentions a thing that supports the fantasy that the Z-film was altered.
So Horne does something incredibly underhand.
During the interview he inserts a completely different interview with Dino and Peter Janney. The point of this interview is to fool the suckers that Dino had watched the "altered" Z-film and was saying it was different from the original he saw.
But that's not what happens.
Dino is shown a single frame, 313, and told that this is the only frame that shows the head explosion.
Dino doesn't believe it, he says there must be more frames than this showing the "mist" coming from JFK's head.
And, of course, he is right:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxvP4z3G/harper-skull.gif)
Janney lied to him about 313 being the only frame that showed the head explosion and Dino couldn't believe it. Horne gleefully jumps on this as 'proof' Dino saw something different but it's all a big con that the gullible just suck up without questioning.
There is not a single thing in "The Zapruder Film Mystery" that supports alteration of the Z-film. Dino made some briefing boards on SaPersonay night and was unaware that another team made some briefing boards on Sunday night. So what?
Really - so what?
It has nothing to do with film alteration.
All it means is that anyone who wanted to alter the film wasted 24 hours by giving it to Dino to make briefing boards that no-one would ever see. Why don't Altfans think about things like this?
"...Brugioni and the agents watched the original film, they were shocked by the sight of the head shot impact causing a fragment of JFK's skull to fly "three or four feet into the air," surrounded by a kind of bloody mist. Also noted by Brugioni; the original Z film showed the motorcade turning the corner onto Elm Street; the presidential limo coming to a brief but complete, stop; JFK being thrown forward by the impact; and a gaping wound at the right rear of the president's head"
Dino never saw fragments of JFK's skull fly "three or four feet into the air".
Dino never saw the motorcade turn onto Elm Street.
Dino never saw the limo come to a stop.
Dino never saw JFK being thrown forward.
Dino never saw a "gaping wound at the right rear of the president's head".
Can you explain why you have attributed to Dino all these things that he never said?
I would be really interested to know how the mind of an Altfan works.
Is it that you don't have a clue about this subject and are just making things up?
Is it that you are deliberately presenting "fake news"?
What is it?
-
In the Youtube video "The Zapruder Film Mystery," NPIC photo analyst Dino Brugioni is interviewed by Doug Horne. Brugioni states clearly that he saw the the fully developed 8 mm. Z film on SaPersonay night, November 23, 1963, when it was brought to the NPIC lab in Washington DC by two Secret Service agents, who had just come from the airport. The wanted Brugioni to make briefing boards from pix taken from the film. The lab did not have an 8 mm. projector, but one was found. Brugioni says the first time he and the agents saw the Z film "it caught us all by surprise... (The surprise) was to see portions of Kennedy's head fly into the air." There was no doubt in Brugioni's mind that he was watching the original Z film. He states that never again after that night did he see the Z film look the way it did in the lab. Later in the interview, he discusses the head wound again, and says he saw a piece of JFK's skull "three or four feet from his head." Question: "Up in the air?" Brugioni: "Yes." Still later, Brugioni says, "Once I saw that part of the head go into the air, I knew this was sensitive material." That head shot scene with the piece of skull flying into the air is not on the Z film we see today. At the end of the interview, Horne states that if one aspect of the original Z film has been altered, then the whole film is suspect. I agree with that.
-
In the Youtube video "The Zapruder Film Mystery," NPIC photo analyst Dino Brugioni is interviewed by Doug Horne. Brugioni states clearly that he saw the the fully developed 8 mm. Z film on SaPersonay night, November 23, 1963, when it was brought to the NPIC lab in Washington DC by two Secret Service agents, who had just come from the airport. The wanted Brugioni to make briefing boards from pix taken from the film. The lab did not have an 8 mm. projector, but one was found. Brugioni says the first time he and the agents saw the Z film "it caught us all by surprise... (The surprise) was to see portions of Kennedy's head fly into the air." There was no doubt in Brugioni's mind that he was watching the original Z film. He states that never again after that night did he see the Z film look the way it did in the lab. Later in the interview, he discusses the head wound again, and says he saw a piece of JFK's skull "three or four feet from his head." Question: "Up in the air?" Brugioni: "Yes." Still later, Brugioni says, "Once I saw that part of the head go into the air, I knew this was sensitive material." That head shot scene with the piece of skull flying into the air is not on the Z film we see today. At the end of the interview, Horne states that if one aspect of the original Z film has been altered, then the whole film is suspect. I agree with that.
DELLA - With respect to your agreeing with Doug Horne's, "if one aspect of the original Z film has been altered, then the whole film is suspect", I would expand this philosophy to include Warren Commission and HSCA Testimony. The HSCA SEALED the sworn Testimony of JFK White House Photographer Robert L. Knudsen. Knudsen's HSCA testimony detailed his having seen JFK Autopsy Photo(s) showing PROBES in the body of JFK that were running from Front-to-Back. Knudsen was in charge of the developing of the JFK Autopsy Photos the morning following the autopsy. He was highly respected in the White House dating back to Eisenhower, and held a high security clearance. The ARRB in late 1990 discovered that Knudsen's HSCA testimony had been sealed for roughly 20 years and therefore was completely unknown to the public. The ARRB got Knudsen's "probe(s)" testimony unsealed, and added it to the public record. Point is, if the powers that be can completely seal the testimony of a highly respected individual such as Knudsen, who knows what other highly credible sources have also had their JFK Assassination testimony expunged from the public record?
-
Just to rectify some of the lies being spread on this thread.
Nowhere does Dino say that pieces of JFK's skull were blown 3 to 4 ft into the air. He is talking about the spray or mist of blood that surrounds JFK's head as a result of the head shot. So, when Della posts -
"The frames showing the piece of JFK's skull flying into the air had been removed"
- it is incredibly misleading. Dino never says that frames showing pieces of skull have been removed. He never even hints at it. But this is the kind of misrepresentation/falsehood, that takes hold when enough Altfans get together.
The clip from the Z-film I posted clearly shows this cloud of mist but we must remember that Dino was watching the pristine original. He watched it many times in slow-motion and real time and studied individual frames. He saw much greater detail than the copies we see today and could see this cloud of mist more clearly. It must also be noted that the clip I posted shows pieces of skull being blown about 20ft into the air.
The biggest lie [and there are many] in "The Zapruder Film Mystery" comes about 34 minutes in when Dino is showed a single frame, 313 and told that this is only frame of the Z-film that shows the head explosion. This is the kind of outright lie that Alteration Fantasists have no problem spreading. It is incredibly devious.
The whole film is incredibly devious and Horne's manipulation of Dino, who is a genuine person, is disgusting.
But this is all in a day's work for Altfans.
In my previous post I pointed out a series of incorrect statements made by Della.
There has been zero acknowledgement that these were, indeed, false statements. It's the usual tactic of spreading falsehoods and just silently moving on when these are pointed out only to re-emerge at a later date spreading exactly the same falsehoods.
But let's remember this truth about the film...
Horne is the ultimate Altfan.
All his research is geared to demonstrating that the Z-film has been altered.
He believes the limo stop has been deleted, that debris flew out of the back of JFK's head and this has been deleted, that the back of JFK's head has been blacked out and that the head wound has been painted in [ :D :D, I shouldn't laugh but this last 'belief' is too much].
He has sat in front of him a man who intensely studied the original Z-film.
Does he ask this man about the limo stop?
Does he ask this man about debris being blown out of the back of JFK's head?
Does he ask about the injuries apparent on JFK's head?
Does he ask him if he believes the Z-film was altered?
NO - NO, HE DOESN'T ASK HIM A SINGLE THING ABOUT ALTERATION.
It's all a massive con and a lie,
Dino never says a single thing that supports alteration. NEVER.
Horne's disgusting manipulation of what Dino actually says is stomach churning.
But it's all in a days work for Altfans.
One last point, because I am genuinely interested in the state of mind of an Altfan.
Hornes' belief is that the Z-film is altered to hide evidence that there is another shooter.
Yet, the single factor about the Z-film that stands head and shoulders above everything else is the "back and to the left" motion.
If anything demonstrates there is a shooter from the front it's the "back and to the left" motion.
I believe this sole factor is the single most influential piece of evidence when it comes to believing in conspiracy.
So, here's the question - what's the point of altering anything in the film to hide evidence of another shooter when the "back and to the left" motion remains in the film?
I'm genuinely interested in seeing what mental gymnastics are going to be utilised answering this question.
-
Just a couple of quick observations:
(1) You got serious issue(s) with Horne. This makes you incapable of objectively examining ANYTHING that Horne is connected to.
(2) We really do Not know if Dino was examining the ORIGINAL out-of-the-camera Zapruder Film on 11/23/63.
(3) We really do Not know if We are currently looking at the ORIGINAL out-of-the-camera Zapruder Film.
-
The ARRB in late 1990 discovered that Knudsen's HSCA testimony had been sealed for roughly 20 years and therefore was completely unknown to the public. The ARRB got Knudsen's "probe(s)" testimony unsealed, and added it to the public record. Point is, if the powers that be can completely seal the testimony of a highly respected individual such as Knudsen, who knows what other highly credible sources have also had their JFK Assassination testimony expunged from the public record?
Thank you, I did not know about this alteration of the record. Who or what is behind such a widespread and highly organized campaign of deletion, suppression and deception in the assassination of JFK? Let's begin with the Secret Service. While JFK was still in Parkland, a Secret Service agent was photographed as he removed blood spatter from the presidential limo with a bucket and sponge. In heaven's name, why would a law enforcement officer do such an illegal thing? Blood spatter is primary evidence in any homicide investigation. Removing or concealing such evidence is a criminal act. The agent would never have taken this forbidden action unless he had been ordered to do so by a superior. Which means, within minutes of the assassination, a coverup campaign was already under way, and the Secret Service was running it. But why? They certainly weren't out to protect LHO.
What could they possibly have been trying to conceal? Were they trying to protect their own reputations?
The book "Mortal Error" concludes that after LHO fired from the 6th floor, Secret Service agent George Hickey, in the backup car, picked up his AR-15 rifle and stood up on the rear seat, a brave man preparing to return fire in defense of the president. But, when the motorcade changed speeds, Hickey was thrown off balance. His finger involuntarily tightened on the trigger. If the rifle was set to full automatic, he may have accidentally fired a burst of 4 or 5 shots. One or more of these bullets struck JFK's head.
After the president's autopsy in Washington, JFK's brain -- which was a prime piece of evidence and which a surgeon was carrying in a metal container -- disappeared. Many years later we learned that two Secret Service agents had told the surgeon that the president's brother, Robert F. Kennedy, on behalf of the Kennedy family, had asked for the brain, which the surgeon then gave to the agents. It was never seen again. In short, right from the beginning, the Secret Service has been running a coverup campaign in order to protect their own reputation. The "Zapruder Film Mystery" on YouTube focuses on how the Secret Service arranged the alteration of the original 8 mm. Z film. They are still trying to cover up a terrible, tragic accident. So are the many people who also know this secret. This coverup has had traumatic effects on a tense America that senses something about the assassination of President Kennedy doesn't make sense, but which has been prevented from learning the truth.
And so we argue and fight among ourselves. In other words, the Secret Service engaged in a coverup that protects the agency at the expense of the nation and the people it serves.
-
The ARRB in late 1990 discovered that Knudsen's HSCA testimony had been sealed for roughly 20 years and therefore was completely unknown to the public. The ARRB got Knudsen's "probe(s)" testimony unsealed, and added it to the public record. Point is, if the powers that be can completely seal the testimony of a highly respected individual such as Knudsen, who knows what other highly credible sources have also had their JFK Assassination testimony expunged from the public record?
Thank you, I did not know about this alteration of the record. Who or what is behind such a widespread and highly organized campaign of deletion, suppression and deception in the assassination of JFK? Let's begin with the Secret Service. While JFK was still in Parkland, a Secret Service agent was photographed as he removed blood spatter from the presidential limo with a bucket and sponge. In heaven's name, why would a law enforcement officer do such an illegal thing? Blood spatter is primary evidence in any homicide investigation. Removing or concealing such evidence is a criminal act. The agent would never have taken this forbidden action unless he had been ordered to do so by a superior. Which means, within minutes of the assassination, a coverup campaign was already under way, and the Secret Service was running it. But why? They certainly weren't out to protect LHO.
What could they possibly have been trying to conceal? Were they trying to protect their own reputations?
The book "Mortal Error" concludes that after LHO fired from the 6th floor, Secret Service agent George Hickey, in the backup car, picked up his AR-15 rifle and stood up on the rear seat, a brave man preparing to return fire in defense of the president. But, when the motorcade changed speeds, Hickey was thrown off balance. His finger involuntarily tightened on the trigger. If the rifle was set to full automatic, he may have accidentally fired a burst of 4 or 5 shots. One or more of these bullets struck JFK's head.
After the president's autopsy in Washington, JFK's brain -- which was a prime piece of evidence and which a surgeon was carrying in a metal container -- disappeared. Many years later we learned that two Secret Service agents had told the surgeon that the president's brother, Robert F. Kennedy, on behalf of the Kennedy family, had asked for the brain, which the surgeon then gave to the agents. It was never seen again. In short, right from the beginning, the Secret Service has been running a coverup campaign in order to protect their own reputation. The "Zapruder Film Mystery" on YouTube focuses on how the Secret Service arranged the alteration of the original 8 mm. Z film. They are still trying to cover up a terrible, tragic accident. So are the many people who also know this secret. This coverup has had traumatic effects on a tense America that senses something about the assassination of President Kennedy doesn't make sense, but which has been prevented from learning the truth.
And so we argue and fight among ourselves. In other words, the Secret Service engaged in a coverup that protects the agency at the expense of the nation and the people it serves.
And be sure to add to your detailed list above that the SS STOLE THE BODY.
-
Just a couple of quick observations:
(1) You got serious issue(s) with Horne. This makes you incapable of objectively examining ANYTHING that Horne is connected to.
Horne maybe your hero but he's certainly not mine.
Calling out BS: on this forum is par for the course.
"The Zapruder Film Mystery" is an exercise in underhand, insidious deception, The way Dino is used by Horne is disgraceful. That you have no problem with it speaks volumes.
If I'm not looking at it objectively then point out a single aspect of the film that supports alteration of the Z-film.
(2) We really do Not know if Dino was examining the ORIGINAL out-of-the-camera Zapruder Film on 11/23/63.
(3) We really do Not know if We are currently looking at the ORIGINAL out-of-the-camera Zapruder Film.
Do some work and read the Zavada Report. You'll soon put this juvenile alterationist nonsense behind you.
-
Is it possible to explain away the 16mm film SSA Bill Smith brought to NPIC on 11-24-63. It had been developed at Hawkeye Works in Rochester, New York. From it Homer McMann[sp?] and Ben Hunter made three boards. One of the boards says 9 missing frames, 6 missing frames, 4 missing frames. When Abraham Zapruder was asked at the Shaw trial was the film they were viewing the original Zapruder film that he shot, he said no, because he noticed missing frames. Can any of this be explained away? Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Is it possible to explain away the 16mm film SSA Bill Smith brought to NPIC on 11-24-63. It had been developed at Hawkeye Works in Rochester, New York. From it Homer McMann[sp?] and Ben Hunter made three boards. One of the boards says 9 missing frames, 6 missing frames, 4 missing frames. When Abraham Zapruder was asked at the Shaw trial was the film they were viewing the original Zapruder film that he shot, he said no, because he noticed missing frames. Can any of this be explained away? Sincerely yours, Michael
1) 3 copies of the original were made.
2) Apparently, four frames of the original were destroyed by buffoons at Life. Luckily copies had been made to replace these frames.
-
1) 3 copies of the original were made.
2) Apparently, four frames of the original were destroyed by buffoons at Life. Luckily copies had been made to replace these frames.
Hi Dan, Thank you for your input; however, SSA Smith brought a 16mm Zapruder film; the original and the three copies were all 8mm. Can you explain the difference? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi Dan, Thank you for your input; however, SSA Smith brought a 16mm Zapruder film; the original and the three copies were all 8mm. Can you explain the difference? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Michael - And as you well know, CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni was completely cut out of the loop regarding this Sunday examination of the 16mm Zapruder Film and the Briefing Boards that were constructed from it.
-
Michael - And as you well know, CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni was completely cut out of the loop regarding this Sunday examination of the 16mm Zapruder Film and the Briefing Boards that were constructed from it.
Hi Royell, Thank you for your valuable input my friend! And as you know completely cut out of the loop meant more than participating; it meant he was never ever told about it period, even though he was the Duty Officer for the weekend of the 23rd and the 24th! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi Dan, Thank you for your input; however, SSA Smith brought a 16mm Zapruder film; the original and the three copies were all 8mm. Can you explain the difference? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
When the Z-film was initially processed it was a 16mm unslit film. Three copies, all 16mm, were made from this original.
As part of his initial 1993 report, Roland Zavada makes the following observation:
Prints of the Zapruder Camera Original
FBI or Secret Service Print: A print, 1 of 3 prints, made of the Zapruder 8mm camera film prior to slitting was reported to have been printed by the Jamieson Film Company. The print was unslit and our very casual examination show’s a significant loss of color image quality, compared to the original, for undetermined causes. (Printer timing or storage??) The group also identified some damage due to handling such as perforation damage and an area of "burn through or melting" possibly due to high intensity light.
After reviewing the poor photographic characteristics of the unslit Secret Service print, I wished, if possible, to gain an understanding about the quality of the print printed by Jamieson Laboratories 22 Nov. 1963.
[from pg 190 - https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n189/mode/2up ]
It would appear as late as 1993 there was an unslit, 16mm first generation copy of the Z-film.
-
When the Z-film was initially processed it was a 16mm unslit film. Three copies, all 16mm, were made from this original.
As part of his initial 1993 report, Roland Zavada makes the following observation:
Prints of the Zapruder Camera Original
FBI or Secret Service Print: A print, 1 of 3 prints, made of the Zapruder 8mm camera film prior to slitting was reported to have been printed by the Jamieson Film Company. The print was unslit and our very casual examination show’s a significant loss of color image quality, compared to the original, for undetermined causes. (Printer timing or storage??) The group also identified some damage due to handling such as perforation damage and an area of "burn through or melting" possibly due to high intensity light.
After reviewing the poor photographic characteristics of the unslit Secret Service print, I wished, if possible, to gain an understanding about the quality of the print printed by Jamieson Laboratories 22 Nov. 1963.
[from pg 190 - https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n189/mode/2up ]
It would appear as late as 1993 there was an unslit, 16mm first generation copy of the Z-film.
Hi Dan, Yet all of Zapruder's copies were slit to 8mm correct? So is this the Hawkeye Works' copy? Thank you for your helpful input! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi Dan, Yet all of Zapruder's copies were slit to 8mm correct? So is this the Hawkeye Works' copy? Thank you for your helpful input! Sincerely yours, Michael
What makes you think all the copies were slit?
Zavada makes it clear he is examining one of the 3 copies that was made from the unslit original.
LATER EDIT: Whatever the case, Zavada is examining an unslit, first generation copy of the Z-film. It may well be the case that the damage he notices was caused during the rush job done on the 24th for the second set of briefing boards.
One other point, in "The Zapruder Film Mystery", Horne notes that McMahon and Turner were specifically ordered not to tell anyone about the work they were doing, including their bosses. The mystery as to why Dino was kept out of the loop is answered right there.
-
Just getting back to the topic of the thread.
There was a couple of things that bugged me about Witt's HSCA testimony. One was that, contrary to his explanation that he was putting up his umbrella as the limo approached, there are multiple pictures of him with his umbrella in the air way before the limo gets to him. He had an unobstructed view of JFK as he approached and was shot the first time and the head shot. Witt pretends he never saw any of this.
There's something really fishy about it.
I've just remembered the second thing - Witt worked for Rio Grande Life Insurance Company on Field Street, just a few blocks down from Dealey Plaza.
Rio Grande Insurance had it's offices in the Rio Grande building, 251 North Field Street
This building comes up in someone's WC testimony but I couldn't remember who it was and as I was searching for it I came across a thread on the Ed Forum by Steve Thomas dealing specifically with this subject - https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23210-rio-grande-building/
Steve found out the following information:
1) The Rio Grande Building was at 251 N. Field St. Oswald wrote to the INS at 251 N. Field in 1962 about June's citizenship status. She was classified as an "alien" and Lee wanted her status to be changed to a U.S. citizen - The INS had an office at 1402 Rio Grande Building.
2) On April 1, 1964, Miss Brenda Route, Deputy Clerk, Domestic Relations Court, Dallas County, Texas, advised SA James Hosty...that on November 13, 1963, Mrs. Ruth Paine filed a petition for divorce from Michael Paine citing “cruel and tyrannical treatment” that made living together impossible. No action was taken, and after six months the matter was automatically dismissed by notice to the attorney, which in this case would be Raggio and Raggio, 734 Rio Grande Building, Dallas, Texas.
3) The 112th INTC Region II office was at 912 Rio Grande Building - a March 26, 1965 letter from Gordon Shanklin to Lieutenant Colonel Roy Pate of the 112th INTC at Room 912 of the Rio Grande Building referencing two copies of a letterhead memo on the Dallas/Fort Worth Minutemen Club.
4) William Kelly wrote in the Education Forum on Posted March 12, 2014 that the Secret Service had their office in the Rio Grande Building. [this need confirming AFAIC]
Thomas makes the point that after leaving the TSBD Oswald appeared to be heading in the general direction of the Rio Grande Building.
Whatever the case, Witt had some interesting neighbours.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTNC52wK/ReedBus1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)(https://i.postimg.cc/DfRTJmfw/ReedBus2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It's funny that Reed decided to take two random pictures of the bus Oswald was supposed to be on at the time he was supposed to be on it (apparently ;D)
I wonder what drew his attention to this random bus?
In the background of the top picture is the Rio Grande Building.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTNC52wK/ReedBus1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)(https://i.postimg.cc/DfRTJmfw/ReedBus2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It's funny that Reed decided to take two random pictures of the bus Oswald was supposed to be on at the time he was supposed to be on it (apparently ;D)
I wonder what drew his attention to this random bus?
In the background of the top picture is the Rio Grande Building.
That’s interesting, if that really is THE bus, then LHO would have gotten off sometime around the time that the top photo was taken. And the second photo with the TSBD in the background would have been taken after LHO had left the bus. What is the source of your information regarding these photos. I looked at the photo gallery on this website, but Reed’s photos don’t include these. I do see what appears to be someone standing in or crossing the street near the bus in the first photo. I am pretty sure it is LHO (or maybe a hatless cop). ;)
-
That’s interesting, if that really is THE bus, then LHO would have gotten off sometime around the time that the top photo was taken. And the second photo with the TSBD in the background would have been taken after LHO had left the bus. What is the source of your information regarding these photos. I looked at the photo gallery on this website, but Reed’s photos don’t include these. I do see what appears to be someone standing in or crossing the street near the bus in the first photo. I am pretty sure it is LHO (or maybe a hatless cop). ;)
There are a series of very poor quality photos taken by Reed at "Stuart Reed - Prayer Man".
I first heard about Reed in this article - https://docplayer.net/120940467-James-powell-redux-an-army-intelligence-agent-in-dealey-plaza.html
I got these better quality pics from Perry Vermeulen's site, "Oswald in Bus 1213"
I am pretty sure it is LHO (or maybe a hatless cop). ;)
;D
Once you see one hatless cop you start to see them everywhere.
-
Getting back to Towner 3, that Blues Bros looking guy walking UP The Steps looks a lot like the Umbrella Man standing under/near the Stemmons Sign. Exactly where did this guy come from and then climb The Steps?
Witt, the self proclaimed "Umbrella Man", gave HSCA Testimony describing his actions that day. Those described actions do Not match the images of Umbrella Man. Once again, we have 1 person/Witt claiming to be someone inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and the JFK Assassination Research Community just rubber stamping their identity without any Corroboration/Evidence. Witt testified that he was moving down the Knoll toward Elm St when the JFK Limo passed by him. He claimed he was fighting to open his umbrella while in motion and failed to see the JFK Limo as it went by him. The Bronson Film shows this description to be Total BS: That is, if that guy standing stock still near the Stemmons Sign with an open umbrella is actually Witt. Either: (1) that ain't Witt on the Hughes Film, (2)the Hughes Film is Bogus, or (3)Witt is lying.
-
There are a series of very poor quality photos taken by Reed at "Stuart Reed - Prayer Man".
I first heard about Reed in this article - https://docplayer.net/120940467-James-powell-redux-an-army-intelligence-agent-in-dealey-plaza.html
I got these better quality pics from Perry Vermeulen's site, "Oswald in Bus 1213"
I am pretty sure it is LHO (or maybe a hatless cop). ;)
;D
Once you see one hatless cop you start to see them everywhere.
Thanks, it appears that Perry has the wrong bus indicated in the second photo. According to the article on Powell, bus 1213 is just barely in that photo, on the camera left). And the bus that Perry indicates is 1213 is actually the one that stops in front of LHO’s rooming house. I drew a blue arrow to show bus 1213 (according to the Powell article):
(https://i.vgy.me/bfeZgi.jpg)
-
Speaking of umbrellas, the Daily Mail contends Oswald was hit by one when he was arrested. Has anyone heard this tidbit before?
(https://img90.pixhost.to/images/618/396016857_screenshot-2023-11-03-at-21-21-58-jfk-assassination-60-years-on-oswald-shot-kenn.png)
-
In his interview with Doug Horne, photo analyst Dino Brugioni (see "The Zapruder Film Mystery" on YouTube) states that the 8 mm. Z film was brought to him in the NPIC lab on the evening of SaPersonay, Nov. 23, 1963, by two Secret Service agents, who had just come from the airport. The agents wanted Brugioni to make copies of particular frames of the Z film that would then be used to make briefing boards for the CIA. After finding an 8 mm. projector, Brugioni and the agents watched the Z film. It was the first time any of them had seen it, and all were shocked by the sight of the head shot causing a piece of JFK's skull to fly "three or four feet" into the air. They watched the film several times. Brugioni says it was the last time he saw the film looking the way it did on that SaPersonay night. Horne comments that if any aspect of the film has been altered (such as the missing frames of JFK's skull piece flying into the air) then the entire film is suspect. Among the suspects is the Secret Service. While JFK was still in Parkland, a Secret Service agent was photographed removing blood spatter from the presidential limo with a bucket and sponge. Law enforcement agencies never -- never -- remove evidence from a crime scene. Later that evening in Washington, two Secret Service agents asked the autopsy surgeon to give them JFK's brain, which he was carrying in a metal container. He gave it to them because the agents said Bobby Kennedy had asked for it. Did the Secret Service remove evidence because they already knew what had happened? Was the Secret Service trying to remove evidence that could have shown that a Secret Service agent standing on the rear seat of the backup car was thrown off balance and accidentally fired his AR-15 and hit JFK's head when the motorcade changed speeds? Did the Secret Service try to protect their reputations by covering up a tragic accident, thereby causing untold agony to Americans who suspect that we're not being told the truth? In other words, did they protect themselves at the expense of the nation they swore to defend?
-
In his interview with Doug Horne, photo analyst Dino Brugioni (see "The Zapruder Film Mystery" on YouTube) states that the 8 mm. Z film was brought to him in the NPIC lab on the evening of SaPersonay, Nov. 23, 1963, by two Secret Service agents, who had just come from the airport. The agents wanted Brugioni to make copies of particular frames of the Z film that would then be used to make briefing boards for the CIA. After finding an 8 mm. projector, Brugioni and the agents watched the Z film. It was the first time any of them had seen it, and all were shocked by the sight of the head shot causing a piece of JFK's skull to fly "three or four feet" into the air. They watched the film several times. Brugioni says it was the last time he saw the film looking the way it did on that SaPersonay night. Horne comments that if any aspect of the film has been altered (such as the missing frames of JFK's skull piece flying into the air) then the entire film is suspect. Among the suspects is the Secret Service. While JFK was still in Parkland, a Secret Service agent was photographed removing blood spatter from the presidential limo with a bucket and sponge. Law enforcement agencies never -- never -- remove evidence from a crime scene. Later that evening in Washington, two Secret Service agents asked the autopsy surgeon to give them JFK's brain, which he was carrying in a metal container. He gave it to them because the agents said Bobby Kennedy had asked for it. Did the Secret Service remove evidence because they already knew what had happened? Was the Secret Service trying to remove evidence that could have shown that a Secret Service agent standing on the rear seat of the backup car was thrown off balance and accidentally fired his AR-15 and hit JFK's head when the motorcade changed speeds? Did the Secret Service try to protect their reputations by covering up a tragic accident, thereby causing untold agony to Americans who suspect that we're not being told the truth? In other words, did they protect themselves at the expense of the nation they swore to defend?
Hi Della, Thank you for your input! The Secret Service handled all aspects of films and photos. They were in charge of having alterations done of any picture or film that needed to be done. It appears that all alterations were done by November 28th, probably at Hawkeye Works! The Secret Service in other words were as nefarious as anybody involved in the assassination of JFK! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi Della, Thank you for your input! The Secret Service handled all aspects of films and photos. They were in charge of having alterations done of any picture or film that needed to be done. It appears that all alterations were done by November 28th, probably at Hawkeye Works! The Secret Service in other words were as nefarious as anybody involved in the assassination of JFK! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
It appears that all alterations were done by November 28th
:D :D
And what proof do you have that any alterations were made?
Doesn't it bother you that you don't have a scrap of credible evidence that any alterations were made?
-
It appears that all alterations were done by November 28th
:D :D
And what proof do you have that any alterations were made?
Doesn't it bother you that you don't have a scrap of credible evidence that any alterations were made?
Have you ever taken a look at the NIX FILM which shows Elm St running UPHILL?? Or the NIX FILM which shows a man in a WHITE SHIRT running up The Steps immediately after the Kill Shot. And for some strange reason the Original NIX FILM has been MIA for decades. Mmmmmmmm
-
Have you ever taken a look at the NIX FILM which shows Elm St running UPHILL?? Or the NIX FILM which shows a man in a WHITE SHIRT running up The Steps immediately after the Kill Shot. And for some strange reason the Original NIX FILM has been MIA for decades. Mmmmmmmm
:D :D
The Nix film running uphill??!! :D :D :D
You should do stand-up Royell.
-
It appears that all alterations were done by November 28th
:D :D
And what proof do you have that any alterations were made?
Doesn't it bother you that you don't have a scrap of credible evidence that any alterations were made?
Hi Dan, When the Zapruder film matches fake autopsy photographs, it is confirmation that the Zapruder film has been altered. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg/800px-JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)
Fake(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0GLj4J6/Z337headshotredline2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Altered
-
:D :D
The Nix film running uphill??!! :D :D :D
You should do stand-up Royell.
"You have much to learn, Grasshopper"
-
Hi Dan, When the Zapruder film matches fake autopsy photographs, it is confirmation that the Zapruder film has been altered. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
:D :D :D
You're as bad as Royell!!
So your strongest evidence for alteration of the Z-film is that it matches the autopsy pictures and the testimonies of almost everyone involved with the autopsy??
That's your strongest evidence?? :D :D :D
"D'uuuhh, how do you know the Z-film is fake - because it matches the autopsy pictures.
D'uuuhh, how do you know the autopsy pictures are fake - because they match the Z-film."
Seriously, what evidence do you have that the Z-film has been altered?
Please stop messing around.
-
"You have much to learn, Grasshopper"
:D :D :D
-
:D :D :D
You're as bad as Royell!!
So your strongest evidence for alteration of the Z-film is that it matches the autopsy pictures and the testimonies of almost everyone involved with the autopsy??
That's your strongest evidence?? :D :D :D
"D'uuuhh, how do you know the Z-film is fake - because it matches the autopsy pictures.
D'uuuhh, how do you know the autopsy pictures are fake - because they match the Z-film."
Seriously, what evidence do you have that the Z-film has been altered?
Please stop messing around.
Dr. David Mantik who has examined the autopsy photographs more than any other person, says that when you view the pictures like I have presented there is a two dimensional wet photo matte that has been applied to the back of these pictures when viewing them sterioscopically. I trust experts like this rather than you! You and John can continue to believe in these fake photographs. It is your right. I do not expect Oswald only believers to change or me to change them. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Dr. David Mantik who has examined the autopsy photographs more than any other person, says that when you view the pictures like I have presented there is a two dimensional wet photo matte that has been applied to the back of these pictures when viewing them sterioscopically. I trust experts like this rather than you! You and John can continue to believe in these fake photographs. It is your right. I do not expect Oswald only believers to change or me to change them. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
:D :D
The picture you presented is a drawing!!
The big question is - is it a fake drawing? 8)
And just to check - this is your big evidence for Z-film alteration?
Even though Jenkins, O' Connor, Riebe, Humes and Boswell all describe the massive head wound we see in the autopsy pics, that's not good enough for you.
The Z-film, the autopsy pics and the testimonies of virtually everyone involved with the autopsy agree on the same massive wound. All this corroborating evidence.
You are the believer Michael.
You are the one who has to rely on faith.
You have zero evidence, only faith.
You must ignore all this corroborating evidence because your faith is so strong.
[Mantik] says that when you view the pictures like I have presented there is a two dimensional wet photo matte that has been applied to the back of these pictures when viewing them sterioscopically.
Out of interest, do you know what this means?
Do you know what a "wet photo matte" is and can you explain it's relevance in this instance?
-
:D :D
The picture you presented is a drawing!!
The big question is - is it a fake drawing? 8)
And just to check - this is your big evidence for Z-film alteration?
Even though Jenkins, O' Connor, Riebe, Humes and Boswell all describe the massive head wound we see in the autopsy pics, that's not good enough for you.
The Z-film, the autopsy pics and the testimonies of virtually everyone involved with the autopsy agree on the same massive wound. All this corroborating evidence.
You are the believer Michael.
You are the one who has to rely on faith.
You have zero evidence, only faith.
You must ignore all this corroborating evidence because your faith is so strong.
[Mantik] says that when you view the pictures like I have presented there is a two dimensional wet photo matte that has been applied to the back of these pictures when viewing them sterioscopically.
Out of interest, do you know what this means?
Do you know what a "wet photo matte" is and can you explain it's relevance in this instance?
Hi Dan, Listen to him yourself starting around the 19 minute mark! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
The NIX Film has serious issues: (1) Original Film missing for decades, (2) Version distributed showing Elm St running UPHILL, (3) White Shirt Man shown running Up-The-Steps.
-
Hi Dan, Listen to him yourself starting around the 19 minute mark! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Sorry Michael, my dear wonderful friend but Mantik is talking out his Asshole!
This frame comes from your video and is pointing Mantik's "soft matte" which appears to Mantik when viewed in 3D with it's pair is actually "2D".
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMsQL2X4/men-killed-Kennedy-mantik-back-head.jpg)
Now, here's the two stereoscopic autopsy images side by side that Mantik was referring to and which I have posted many times in the past and when viewed stereoscopically they produce a PERFECT 3D image. And if you don't believe me look at them yourself through a 3D viewer! Go ahead I'll wait.
(https://i.postimg.cc/t70R43NH/BOH-stereoscopic-image.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Holmes_stereoscope.jpg/230px-Holmes_stereoscope.jpg)
But after members couldn't actually figure out how to view these images stereoscopically because let's face it most have the same low intellectual capacity as Royell, who btw still hasn't the technical knowledge to post a photo and couldn't photo analyse his way out of a wet paper bag. So I found a way to combine 2x stereoscopic images into a rotating morph and any "added soft 2D mattes" would simply be easily discovered and would not show the same smooth rotation but as can be clearly seen Mantik was simply making up stuff.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBTPLK7W/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)
And further to what Mantik was claiming, he said the 2D anomaly was unique to the above stereoscopic photos and the others showed a 3D effect, which unfortunately for Mantik is seen in the following Autopsy photo and shows the same wound as described in the Autopsy report and as seen in Zapruder. Mantik obviously didn't know that we would all eventually have the ability to see EXACTLY what he saw and he simply hoped that his lies would remain secret, what a sad deluded man!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCfWFw2X/JFK-Autopsy-Morph-smaller-more-frames.gif)
Btw before you go off on another tangent and make another silly claim as usual, first deal with the above evidence. Thanks in advance!
JohnM
-
How about addressing the Parkland Hospital Dr's observations of JFK's body only 10-15 minutes following the Kill Shot? This would be before the Body of JFK was stolen.
-
Have you ever taken a look at the NIX FILM which shows Elm St running UPHILL??
Wtf are you talking about? Elm street has a slope of iirc about 3.15 degrees.
As I have already stated you have the visual analysis ability of a gnat!
Your piss poor skills are referring to the fact that Nix wasn't holding his camera horizontally. But look at the vertical lamppost which has also been rotated and when straightened, voila, we have the expected slope of Elm. Royell you really shouldn't be doing this and as I told Michael, you should focus your attention elsewhere like perhaps going out and playing in the traffic.
(https://i.postimg.cc/634RT0xH/nix-capture.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbWFFKqJ/nix-capture-rotated.jpg)
JohnM
-
Sorry Michael, my dear wonderful friend but Mantik is talking out his Asshole!
This frame comes from your video and is pointing Mantik's "soft matte" which appears to Mantik when viewed in 3D with it's pair is actually "2D".
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMsQL2X4/men-killed-Kennedy-mantik-back-head.jpg)
Now, here's the two stereoscopic autopsy images side by side that Mantik was referring to and which I have posted many times in the past and when viewed stereoscopically they produce a PERFECT 3D image. And if you don't believe me look at them yourself through a 3D viewer! Go ahead I'll wait.
(https://i.postimg.cc/t70R43NH/BOH-stereoscopic-image.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Holmes_stereoscope.jpg/230px-Holmes_stereoscope.jpg)
But after members couldn't actually figure out how to view these images stereoscopically because let's face it most have the same low intellectual capacity as Royell, who btw still hasn't the technical knowledge to post a photo and couldn't photo analyse his way out of a wet paper bag. So I found a way to combine 2x stereoscopic images into a rotating morph and any "added soft 2D mattes" would simply be easily discovered and would not show the same smooth rotation but as can be clearly seen Mantik was simply making up stuff.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBTPLK7W/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)
And further to what Mantik was claiming, he said the 2D anomaly was unique to the above stereoscopic photos and the others showed a 3D effect, which unfortunately for Mantik is seen in the following Autopsy photo and shows the same wound as described in the Autopsy report and as seen in Zapruder. Mantik obviously didn't know that we would all eventually have the ability to see EXACTLY what he saw and he simply hoped that his lies would remain secret, what a sad deluded man!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCfWFw2X/JFK-Autopsy-Morph-smaller-more-frames.gif)
Btw before you go off on another tangent and make another silly claim as usual, first deal with the above evidence. Thanks in advance!
JohnM
Hi John, Listen to the men starting about the 33 minute mark and concentrate on the picture of the back of the president's head at 33:50. You can see the fake wet area very clearly! Thank you for your input! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
How about addressing the Parkland Hospital Dr's observations of JFK's body only 10-15 minutes following the Kill Shot? This would be before the Body of JFK was stolen.
I'll go you one better, how about refuting Clint Hill who saw the wound almost immediately after it happened? Hmmm?
(https://i.postimg.cc/g253p5fw/Clintshowem.gif)
And now explain the first eyewitnesses in Dealey plaza who saw Kennedy before and actually saw him being shot? Hmmmmm?
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yZzM9jB/first-day-dealey-polaza-eyewitnesses.gif)
JohnM
-
How about addressing the Parkland Hospital Dr's observations of JFK's body only 10-15 minutes following the Kill Shot? This would be before the Body of JFK was stolen.
This has already been done Royell.
You have the memory of a goldfish.
-
Hi John, Listen to the men starting about the 33 minute mark and concentrate on the picture of the back of the president's head at 33:50. You can see the fake wet area very clearly! Thank you for your input! Sincerely yours, Michael
Firstly, even though I asked nicely, I knew you wouldn't/couldn't deal with my evidence which is a common problem with you.
Secondly this is hilarious, these are YOUR back of head eyewitnesses and they are all over the place, maybe they all should have got together first and consolidated their lies?
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8CKn2Tz/Lee-Kaniasbohwitness-zpsdrftrhuu.gif)
Whereas the REAL eyewitnesses are totally consistent.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmzmpFxM/alotofevidence2.jpg)
Who to believe? Some inconsistent back of head eyewitnesses or consistent eyewitnesses, the Zapruder film, the Autopsy photos, the autopsy Xrays, the Autopsy report of a fully cleaned up and thoroughly examined body? The choice is easy for an intellectual!
JohnM
-
Firstly, even though I asked nicely, I knew you wouldn't/couldn't deal with my evidence which is a common problem with you.
Secondly this is hilarious, these are YOUR back of head eyewitnesses and they are all over the place, maybe they all should have got together first and consolidated their lies?
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8CKn2Tz/Lee-Kaniasbohwitness-zpsdrftrhuu.gif)
Whereas the REAL eyewitnesses are totally consistent.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmzmpFxM/alotofevidence2.jpg)
Who to believe? Some inconsistent back of head eyewitnesses or consistent eyewitnesses, the Zapruder film, the Autopsy photos, the autopsy Xrays, the Autopsy report of a fully cleaned up and thoroughly examined body? The choice is easy for an intellectual!
JohnM
Hi John, Draw yourself a picture plotting your consistent witnesses's locations and post it! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Wtf are you talking about? Elm street has a slope of iirc about 3.15 degrees.
As I have already stated you have the visual analysis ability of a gnat!
Your piss poor skills are referring to the fact that Nix wasn't holding his camera horizontally. But look at the vertical lamppost which has also been rotated and when straightened, voila, we have the expected slope of Elm. Royell you really shouldn't be doing this and as I told Michael, you should focus your attention elsewhere like perhaps going out and playing in the traffic.
(https://i.postimg.cc/634RT0xH/nix-capture.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbWFFKqJ/nix-capture-rotated.jpg)
JohnM
John - Cat got your tongue? (1) You continue running away from the White Shirt Man running Up-The Steps, (2) Nix Original Film = MIA. This is what happens when bad news is delivered. (3) Shoot the messenger/Nix.
-
Hi John, Draw yourself a picture plotting your consistent witnesses's locations and post it! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
You gotta be joking?, They're all pointing to the open wound or the first eyewitnesses are pointing to where the obvious bone flap was exposed, as I said Total consistency!
Now your best eyewitness is McClelland, who indicates a blown out hole but your eyewitnesses saw something TOTALLY different, please explain? I know you won't because you will run away, like you always do, but do remember that our audience can completely see your constant evasions and weak diversions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WpSQC06P/Mc-Clelland-Bullspombleprofglidnoctobunsa-zpseecf9014.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8CKn2Tz/Lee-Kaniasbohwitness-zpsdrftrhuu.gif)
JohnM
-
You gotta be joking?, They're all pointing to the open wound or the first eyewitnesses are pointing to where the obvious bone flap was exposed, as I said Total consistency!
Now your best eyewitness is McClelland, who indicates a blown out hole but your eyewitnesses saw something TOTALLY different, please explain? I know you won't because you will run away, like you always do, but do remember that our audience can completely see your constant evasions and weak diversions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WpSQC06P/Mc-Clelland-Bullspombleprofglidnoctobunsa-zpseecf9014.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8CKn2Tz/Lee-Kaniasbohwitness-zpsdrftrhuu.gif)
JohnM
Hi John, No not my witnesses! Draw the locations of your witnesses! You have Zapruder in the front, Gayle here Bill there etc.... Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
John - Cat got your tongue? (1) You continue running away from the White Shirt Man running Up-The Steps, (2) Nix Original Film = MIA. This is what happens when bad news is delivered. (3) Shoot the messenger/Nix.
Again with the diversions, what is it about reality that you guys can't comprehend?
Anyway your analysis of Nix is total Bollocks!
(https://i.postimg.cc/634RT0xH/nix-capture.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbWFFKqJ/nix-capture-rotated.jpg)
(1) You continue running away from the White Shirt Man running Up-The Steps,
Please explain in your less goofiest way possible, why on Earth your conspirators would need to go to the trouble of having a "White Shirt Man running Up-The Steps"? And then explain in your own words how your conspirators would add this man to a tiny 8mm film frame?
(2) Nix Original Film = MIA. This is what happens when bad news is delivered. (3) Shoot the messenger/Nix.
Nix, Muchmore and Zapruder ALL show the same event from three different angles and you apparently believe that ALL three were altered to match with mathematical precision. Again show the Forum how this was possible with the technology available at the time?
And when comparing Muchmore to Nix, we see in Muchmore the man in the white shirt turn and start to move up the stairs and then in Nix we see the same man disappear into the shadows further up the stairs. I'm so sorry to continually humiliate you, but you're asking for it!
In Muchmore the man first turns and starts up the stairs.
In Nix we see the man further up the stairs and disappear into the shadows.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfZBZrTK/muchmore-zaprude-nix-man-on-stairs.gif)
JohnM
-
Hi John, No not my witnesses! Draw the locations of your witnesses! You have Zapruder in the front, Gayle here Bill there etc.... Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
This is getting tedious, your inability to deal with evidence that fractures your distorted World view is duly noted!
Whereas I deal with everything and let the chips fall wherever they may!
Anyway, are your comprehension skills as poor as your analytical skills, I said the first eyewitnesses who Gayle and Bill were part of and had a limited viewpoint, were pointing to the obvious bone flap and the direction of the explosion whereas the other eyewitnesses had a better look at the top of the head, it's not that complicated.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmzmpFxM/alotofevidence2.jpg)
Btw again I'll ask you, how did McClelland your star eyewitness while standing over Kennedy look down into a hole in the back of Kennedy's head and don't forget Kennedy wasn't turned over at the time? And Michael my very good friend, please don't run away this time
(https://i.postimg.cc/WpSQC06P/Mc-Clelland-Bullspombleprofglidnoctobunsa-zpseecf9014.jpg)
JohnM
-
Hi John, No not my witnesses! Draw the locations of your witnesses! You have Zapruder in the front, Gayle here Bill there etc.... Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
John has destroyed your big evidence for Z-film alteration - Mantik's inability to understand stereoscopic pictures.
This was your main evidence for Z-film alteration
You never say how this alteration was done, you never explain how all footage of the assassination could be similarly altered, you never explain why the Z-film, the autopsy pictures and the testimonies of Jenkins, O' Connor, Riebe, Humes, Boswell and Stringer all point to a massive head wound encompassing nearly the entire upper right hand side of JFK's skull.
On the flip side, anything you have presented to support alteration has been dismissed with ease.
You do not have a scrap of credible evidence supporting alteration.
And you have lost all credibility in front of the forum with your evasiveness and silly arguments.
Remember - the forum is a written record.
Take your silly fantasies about alteration and run along.
-
(https://www.grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/images/autopsy/zaprude_film_frame_14.jpg)At JFK’s autopsy, there were two FBI agents on hand. They were Frank O’Neill and James Sibert. They reported what they heard at the autopsy. They were interviewed by Specter in early 1964 and he wrote very unfavorable comments about O’Neill and Sibert in a summary report to the Warren Commission. There was a reason for this. Specter knew that O’Neill and Sibert were providing evidence that the single-bullet theory could not be true.
Neither O’Neill nor Sibert testified to the Warren Commission and their written notes were classified. But in 1997, both O’Neill and Sibert gave depositions to the ARRB. They were shown the autopsy photographs of JFK’s head. They both said that they did not see anything like that at the autopsy.
Sibert drew a head wound diagram for the ARRB and said this about the wound in the back of JFK’s head, “There was a piece about the size of a 3×5 card that was missing.”
Missing occiptal bone.
(https://www.grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/nobotimg/jfk_autopsy_photos/atp5pho1_small.jpg)
(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2021/12/GettyImages-576878076-scaled.jpg)
(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2021/12/GettyImages-576878060-scaled.jpg)
Hi John and Dan, Notice no blood where your fake photos and film show a shot--- the right front. Where is gravity? The Parkland doctors like Dr. Jenkins said that blood just gushed out of the head wound and filled his shoe! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Sibert drew a head wound diagram for the ARRB and said this about the wound in the back of JFK’s head, “There was a piece about the size of a 3×5 card that was missing.”
Missing occiptal bone.
(https://www.grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/nobotimg/jfk_autopsy_photos/atp5pho1_small.jpg)
Hahaha, Houston we have a problem, how does your "Missing occipital bone" fit into Sibert's skull hole? And Michael do you honestly believe that a bullet from the front will pop out a neat little hole as seen in Silbert's following cartoon?
(https://i.postimg.cc/prsnxgz4/Sibert-arrb.gif)
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md188/html/md188_0001a.htm
Much more realistic is the massive damage we see in Zapruder and the Autopsy photos.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKM2v8JN/JFK-Autopsy-Morph.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTs0F2zH/Z-317-crop.jpg)
Btw as Dan said you are getting your butt kicked in this thread, we fire bazookas and you return fire with a pea shooter.
JohnM
-
Again with the diversions, what is it about reality that you guys can't comprehend?
Anyway your analysis of Nix is total Bollocks!
(https://i.postimg.cc/634RT0xH/nix-capture.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbWFFKqJ/nix-capture-rotated.jpg)
Please explain in your less goofiest way possible, why on Earth your conspirators would need to go to the trouble of having a "White Shirt Man running Up-The Steps"? And then explain in your own words how your conspirators would add this man to a tiny 8mm film frame?
Nix, Muchmore and Zapruder ALL show the same event from three different angles and you apparently believe that ALL three were altered to match with mathematical precision. Again show the Forum how this was possible with the technology available at the time?
And when comparing Muchmore to Nix, we see in Muchmore the man in the white shirt turn and start to move up the stairs and then in Nix we see the same man disappear into the shadows further up the stairs. I'm so sorry to continually humiliate you, but you're asking for it!
In Muchmore the man first turns and starts up the stairs.
In Nix we see the man further up the stairs and disappear into the shadows.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfZBZrTK/muchmore-zaprude-nix-man-on-stairs.gif)
JohnM
The guy turning on Muchmore is NOT solely wearing a WHITE SHIRT. NONE of the 3 Men standing on The Steps is solely wearing a WHITE SHIRT. Muchmore does NOT show the White Shirt Man. NIX DOES SHOW the entirely White Shirt Man, and this White Shirt Man was described by Bowers in his WC Testimony. Stop simply repeating the party line and do your research work. Frame-By-Frame. The party is over.
-
(https://www.grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/images/autopsy/zaprude_film_frame_14.jpg)
What a joke, you claim the Zapruder film is fake yet you keep using Zapruder frames as evidence??
And sorry to cause you further pain but stop trying to misrepresent what Jenkins said, Jenkins was absolutely clear to the wound location and the other "Doctors" deferred to the actual autopsy photos after seeing them, like Mantik they thought we would never see the Autopsy photos and now like Mantik they are completely humiliated. But do keep posting because now you are also completely humiliated too!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCHf9mcK/Parkland-doctors-before-after-zps6dycr4dk.jpg)
JohnM
-
The guy turning on Muchmore is NOT solely wearing a WHITE SHIRT. NONE of the 3 Men standing on The Steps is solely wearing a WHITE SHIRT. Muchmore does NOT show the White Shirt Man. NIX DOES SHOW the entirely White Shirt Man, and this White Shirt Man was described by Bowers in his WC Testimony. Stop simply repeating the party line and do your research work. Frame-By-Frame. The party is over.
The guy turning on Muchmore is NOT solely wearing a WHITE SHIRT.
Please point out where Bowers definitively says that the man was "solely" wearing a white shirt because I can't see it? but it looks like the man who did turn and run was definitely wearing a shirt that could very well be white under his cardigan.
Mr. BALL - Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?
Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7Zkjphq5/Muchmore2d.gif)
And Oh yeah Bowers is a fantastic Eyewitness! :D
Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he come by way of Elm Street?
Mr. BOWERS - He was part of the motorcade and had left it for some reason, which I did not know.
Mr. BALL - He came up---
Mr. BOWERS - He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know
Mary Moorman's photo cropped
(https://i.postimg.cc/wxLjYthz/Mary-moorman-crop.jpg)
The Moorman photo was on the UPI network on SaPersonay and was on the front page of newspapers on Sunday.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8H7vsk2/Moorman-UPI-23-11-63.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMQHXQHX/Moorman-photo-newspaper-Sunday-24th.jpg)
Btw Royell, you're not having much luck today and remember that three plus a bazillion strikes and your OUT!
JohnM
-
Not a valid %s URL
What a joke, you claim the Zapruder film is fake yet you keep using Zapruder frames as evidence??
And sorry to cause you further pain but stop trying to misrepresent what Jenkins said, Jenkins was absolutely clear to the wound location and the other "Doctors" deferred to the actual autopsy photos after seeing them, like Mantik they thought we would never see the Autopsy photos and now like Mantik they are completely humiliated. But do keep posting because now you are also completely humiliated too!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCHf9mcK/Parkland-doctors-before-after-zps6dycr4dk.jpg)
JohnM
Hi John,
Dr. Jenkins can represent himself!
It is you who cannot represent Dr. Jenkins correctly! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John,
Dr. Jenkins can represent himself!
It is you who cannot represent Dr. Jenkins correctly! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
BS: BS: BS: BS: BS: BS: BS:
Did you even watch your video? :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpwykMXf/Jenkins-jfk-head-wound-location.jpg)
Again you LOSE!
JohnM
-
BS: BS: BS: BS: BS: BS: BS:
Did you even watch your video? :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpwykMXf/Jenkins-jfk-head-wound-location.jpg)
Again you LOSE!
JohnM
Hi John, And where is all of the blood that poured from this wound on the president's shirt? It is in the back and on the left side! Notice you ignored this point? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, And where is all of the blood that poured from this wound on the president's shirt? It is in the back and on the left side! Notice you ignored this point? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Again you're a mischievous little monkey and have avoided my refutation of your misrepresentation.
And where is all of the blood that poured from this wound on the president's shirt? It is in the back and on the left side! Notice you ignored this point?
Well duh, what's to ignore, Kennedy was shot in the back and while lying on his left side bled out on the way to Parkland!
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMv4v2nd/JFK-Autopsy-Photo-3.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqh5fXN/Z340-crop.jpg)
Btw put a little more thought into your next attack because this is way too easy!
JohnM
-
Again you're a mischievous little monkey and have avoided my refutation of your misrepresentation.
Well duh, what's to ignore, Kennedy was shot in the back and while lying on his left side bled out on the way to Parkland!
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMv4v2nd/JFK-Autopsy-Photo-3.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqh5fXN/Z340-crop.jpg)
Btw put a little more thought into your next attack because this is way too easy!
JohnM
Hi John, You just proved my point! For around 10 seconds JFK was semi upright! There should have been a ton of blood on the right side of his shirt! Dr. M. T. Jenkins said that he saw cerebellum. Then changed his story. You pick which Story you want to believe. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, You just proved my point! For around 10 seconds JFK was semi upright! There should have been a ton of blood on the right side of his shirt! Dr. M. T. Jenkins said that he saw cerebellum. Then changed his story. You pick which Story you want to believe. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Hi John
Hi-De-Ho to you Michael.
You just proved my point! For around 10 seconds JFK was semi upright!
No, I posted frame Z340 which is a second and a half after the head shot and it's already clear to see that any blood will be spilling onto his left side. And always remember gravity, that simple scientific principal that I taught you the other day.
Btw isn't the CT mantra that Kennedy went "back and to the left" but now you want to change that to "upright and immovable" Hilarious!
And why have you conveniently forgotten Kennedy's back wound?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqh5fXN/Z340-crop.jpg)
You pick which Story you want to believe.
As I just pointed out, I always go with the evidence that can be proven with forensic science whereas mindlessly you just go with the easily refuted evidence endorsed by the moronic CT community.
Have a wonderful day.
JohnM
-
Hi-De-Ho to you Michael.
No, I posted frame Z340 which is a second and a half after the head shot and it's already clear to see that any blood will be spilling onto his left side. And always remember gravity, that simple scientific principal that I taught you the other day.
Btw isn't the CT mantra that Kennedy went "back and to the left" but now you want to change that to "upright and immovable" Hilarious!
And why have you conveniently forgotten Kennedy's back wound?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqh5fXN/Z340-crop.jpg)
As I just pointed out, I always go with the evidence that can be proven with forensic science whereas mindlessly you just go with the easily refuted evidence endorsed by the moronic CT community.
Have a wonderful day.
JohnM
Hi John, This is frame 386.
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z386.jpg)
Kindly notice JFK is still upright enough for blood to be gushing on to the right side of his shirt. Simple gravity! Yet you are a science denier! Why? It was impossible according to your favorite Dr. Jenkins for JFK to go down because of his back brace. How many gushes of blood does it take to cover his shirt like blood covered Dr. Jenkins' shoes? The left half of JFK's frontal brain was intact, so you do the math! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, This is frame 386.
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z386.jpg)
Kindly notice JFK is still upright enough for blood to be gushing on to the right side of his shirt. Simple gravity! Yet you are a science denier! Why? It was impossible according to your favorite Dr. Jenkins for JFK to go down because of his back brace. How many gushes of blood does it take to cover his shirt like blood covered Dr. Jenkins' shoes? The left half of JFK's frontal brain was intact, so you do the math! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
JFK is still upright enough...blah blah blah...
You do know what you are looking at, right? ::)
(https://i.postimg.cc/d0fsD1pq/zapruder-386-head-shoulder.gif)
And let's examine a previous claim of yours, Zapruder's camera ran at an average of 18.3 fps, so let's do the math.
Z386-Z313=73
73/18.3=3.989
Therefore frame Z386 was less than 4 seconds after the headshot, and even though you are provably wrong, how on Earth did you come up with JFK was upright for 10 seconds?
Btw what do you think gives you the right to use the Zapruder film as evidence because you keep claiming the Zapruder film was faked, yet for your various claims you constantly use the Zapruder film as evidence? Either you are joking with us or you're a complete Moron?
Cheers
JohnM
-
Hi John, This is frame 386.
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z386.jpg)
Kindly notice JFK is still upright enough for blood to be gushing on to the right side of his shirt. Simple gravity! Yet you are a science denier! Why? It was impossible according to your favorite Dr. Jenkins for JFK to go down because of his back brace. How many gushes of blood does it take to cover his shirt like blood covered Dr. Jenkins' shoes? The left half of JFK's frontal brain was intact, so you do the math! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Hi Michael, you need to take a breath, buddy.
Each argument you present is crushed and you're now down to making truly bizarre statements that are making you look a bit silly.
In the frame you posted JFK is leaning all the way over to his left, he could hardly be leaning to his left any more than he is. Just take a closer look.
There's no way blood could be "gushing on to the right side of his shirt".
You are starting to make a fool of yourself.
You've not countered any of the evidence presented to you showing what nonsense you are talking and when a point you make is crushed, you simply ignore it and move on to your next meaningless point.
I think it's a bit cowardly of the other Nutjobs to leave you hanging out to dry.
There are plenty of "researchers" reading this thread who believe in alteration who have just hidden in the shadows watching you getting torn apart.
It's really cowardly.
But not unexpected.
You have presented nothing - NOT ONE THING - that can be used to support the fantasy of alteration.
You are now starting to make very silly points as you lose grip of your argument and are forgetting the forum is a written record.
As with most Alteration Fantasists, you do not give a sh^t about the actual evidence or about what really happened that day and that is why your arguments are being crushed - because they're not based in reality.
Do what all your fantasist buddies have done and retreat back to the shadows.
-
Hi John and Dan, Do this simple test. Lean over in your beds like President Kennedy. Pour water on your right temple. See where it goes. Say thank you for teaching both of you! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John and Dan, Do this simple test. Lean over in your beds like President Kennedy. Pour water on your right temple. See where it goes. Say thank you for teaching both of you! Sincerely yours, Michael
Don't forget to factor in that old staple of theirs, "The Shirt Was BUNCHED". They cling to that until they conveniently Don't.
-
Again with the diversions, what is it about reality that you guys can't comprehend?
Anyway your analysis of Nix is total Bollocks!
(https://i.postimg.cc/634RT0xH/nix-capture.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbWFFKqJ/nix-capture-rotated.jpg)
Please explain in your less goofiest way possible, why on Earth your conspirators would need to go to the trouble of having a "White Shirt Man running Up-The Steps"? And then explain in your own words how your conspirators would add this man to a tiny 8mm film frame?
Nix, Muchmore and Zapruder ALL show the same event from three different angles and you apparently believe that ALL three were altered to match with mathematical precision. Again show the Forum how this was possible with the technology available at the time?
And when comparing Muchmore to Nix, we see in Muchmore the man in the white shirt turn and start to move up the stairs and then in Nix we see the same man disappear into the shadows further up the stairs. I'm so sorry to continually humiliate you, but you're asking for it!
In Muchmore the man first turns and starts up the stairs.
In Nix we see the man further up the stairs and disappear into the shadows.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfZBZrTK/muchmore-zaprude-nix-man-on-stairs.gif)
JohnM
John - Still waiting on You to explain the White Shirt Man running Up The Steps. None of the 3 guys standing on The Steps is wearing a WHITE SHIRT. And I believe this man running Up The Steps is wearing a Short Sleeve WHITE SHIRT. Where did this man come from? Lee Bowers gave WC Testimony as to a White Shirt Man being in this same area. Here is the Lee Bowers white shirt man on the NIX Film. You stood by this film even though it produced images of Elm St running UP-HILL. Now, this same film is showing us a White Shirt Man coming out of nowhere and running Up The Steps. Frame-by-Frame this snippet and tell me what you think. Thanks
-
John - Still waiting on You to explain the White Shirt Man running Up The Steps. None of the 3 guys standing on The Steps is wearing a WHITE SHIRT. And I believe this man running Up The Steps is wearing a Short Sleeve WHITE SHIRT. Where did this man come from? Lee Bowers gave WC Testimony as to a White Shirt Man being in this same area. Here is the Lee Bowers white shirt man on the NIX Film. You stood by this film even though it produced images of Elm St running UP-HILL. Now, this same film is showing us a White Shirt Man coming out of nowhere and running Up The Steps. Would you Frame-by-Frame this snippet and tell me what you think? Thanks
-
John - Still waiting on You to explain the White Shirt Man running Up The Steps. None of the 3 guys standing on The Steps is wearing a WHITE SHIRT. And I believe this man running Up The Steps is wearing a Short Sleeve WHITE SHIRT. Where did this man come from? Lee Bowers gave WC Testimony as to a White Shirt Man being in this same area. Here is the Lee Bowers white shirt man on the NIX Film. You stood by this film even though it produced images of Elm St running UP-HILL. Now, this same film is showing us a White Shirt Man coming out of nowhere and running Up The Steps. Frame-by-Frame this snippet and tell me what you think. Thanks
Sorry Royell, Bowers is an unreliable eyewitness! But if you do find some film or photographic evidence of a motorcycle nearly at the top of the incline then maybe we can talk! ;D
Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
JohnM
-
Sorry Royell, Bowers is an unreliable eyewitness! But if you do find some film or photographic evidence of a motorcycle nearly at the top of the incline then maybe we can talk! ;D
Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
JohnM
JOHN - And the White Shirt Man on the Nix Film running Up-The-Steps? How reliable a witness is that? We have an issue here that has been either overlooked or buried for decades. This White Shirt Man on the Nix Film merits being objectively examined. If you are unwilling to examine the White Shirt Man vs the narrative that has been foisted on the public for almost 60 yrs, you are obviously Not seeking the truth regarding the Murder of a POTUS. This is what courage is all about. Exposing this issue, and and in so doing yourself to the ridicule of others, does require courage. What be your choice? (1) Comfort, or (2) TRUTH ?
-
JOHN - And the White Shirt Man on the Nix Film running Up-The-Steps? How reliable a witness is that? We have an issue here that has been either overlooked or buried for decades. This White Shirt Man on the Nix Film merits being objectively examined. If you are unwilling to examine the White Shirt Man vs the narrative that has been foisted on the public for almost 60 yrs, you are obviously Not seeking the truth regarding the Murder of a POTUS. This is what courage is all about. Exposing this issue, and and in so doing yourself to the ridicule of others, does require courage. What be your choice? (1) Comfort, or (2) TRUTH ?
JOHN - And the White Shirt Man on the Nix Film running Up-The-Steps? How reliable a witness is that? We have an issue here that has been either overlooked or buried for decades. This White Shirt Man on the Nix Film merits being objectively examined. If you are unwilling to examine the White Shirt Man vs the narrative that has been foisted on the public for almost 60 yrs, you are obviously Not seeking the truth regarding the Murder of a POTUS.
I really don't know where this line of suspicion is going?
Moorman's photo shows Hudson and the two other men watching the President.
Muchmore shows the man who looks to be wearing a white shirt, turning and stepping up.
Nix shows the man further up the stairs disappearing into the shadows
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8H7vsk2/Moorman-UPI-23-11-63.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfZBZrTK/muchmore-zaprude-nix-man-on-stairs.gif)
You stood by this film even though it produced images of Elm St running UP-HILL.
Earlier you claimed Elm street runs UP-HILL which it does but I think you are referring to the fact that in Nix the relative angle is opposite to the actual angle but this very simple discrepancy can be easily explained by the angle Nix was holding the camera and a rotation of the image so the lamppost is vertical shows the correction orientation of Elm street. No offence but this level of analysis is very childlike and a dumb child at that!
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRtnGgTW/Nix-rotation.gif)
What be your choice? (1) Comfort, or (2) TRUTH ?
My comfort comes from knowing that I'm exposing the Truth.
JohnM
-
I really don't know where this line of suspicion is going?
Moorman's photo shows Hudson and the two other men watching the President.
Muchmore shows the man who looks to be wearing a white shirt, turning and stepping up.
Nix shows the man further up the stairs disappearing into the shadows
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8H7vsk2/Moorman-UPI-23-11-63.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfZBZrTK/muchmore-zaprude-nix-man-on-stairs.gif)
Earlier you claimed Elm street runs UP-HILL which it does but I think you are referring to the fact that in Nix the relative angle is opposite to the actual angle but this very simple discrepancy can be easily explained by the angle Nix was holding the camera and a rotation of the image so the lamppost is vertical shows the correction orientation of Elm street. No offence but this level of analysis is very childlike and a dumb child at that!
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRtnGgTW/Nix-rotation.gif)
My comfort comes from knowing that I'm exposing the Truth.
JohnM
"The Truth"? The "truth" here is You are running away from the discrepancy between the WHITE Shirt Man on the Nix Film vs any/every other image of the 3 guys standing on The Steps. NONE of those guys standing on The Steps is wearing only a WHITE Shirt from the waist up. You refuse to even look into it. Why? Because looking into this White Shirt Man and possibly discovering that this man is legit/reality, would confirm that many of the assassination images that have been Rubber Stamped for decades are intended to hide what really unfolded on 11/22/63. You have now officially joined the Legion Of The Walking Dead. Rest In Peace, John.
-
"The Truth"? The "truth" here is You are running away from the discrepancy between the WHITE Shirt Man on the Nix Film vs any/every other image of the 3 guys standing on The Steps. NONE of those guys standing on The Steps is wearing only a WHITE Shirt from the waist up. You refuse to even look into it. Why? Because looking into this White Shirt Man and possibly discovering that this man is legit/reality, would confirm that many of the assassination images that have been Rubber Stamped for decades are intended to hide what really unfolded on 11/22/63. You have now officially joined the Legion Of The Walking Dead. Rest In Peace, John.
Wow, take a deep breath and calm down.
I want to help you, I really do but you're raving like a Maniac and making no sense.
First of all, give me all your sources(testimony, film, photographs, etc) from where your belief that a man "wearing only a WHITE shirt from the waist up" originates?
JohnM
-
Wow, take a deep breath and calm down.
I want to help you, I really do but you're raving like a Maniac and making no sense.
First of all, give me all your sources(testimony, film, photographs, etc) from where your belief that a man "wearing only a WHITE shirt from the waist up" originates?
JohnM
I can't believe how patient you're being.
There is literally nothing more you can do to show Royell what a buffoon he's being.
The three synchronised films show that the man running up the stairs is the man who was one of the three stood on the steps.
I would further add that I believe this man is the young black man Sitzman sees with his wife on the bench. It appears that just before the motorcade arrives he walks down to the steps. The moment he sees JFK's head explode he races back up the steps to where his wife and child are, grabs them and takes off behind the pergola, breaking a Coke bottle in the rush.
I don't want to tell Royell there is no White Shirt Man, it's like telling a kid there's no Santa.
-
Wow, take a deep breath and calm down.
I want to help you, I really do but you're raving like a Maniac and making no sense.
First of all, give me all your sources(testimony, film, photographs, etc) from where your belief that a man "wearing only a WHITE shirt from the waist up" originates?
JohnM
John - I sent you an email. You know where to find me if you are truly sincere. It's not easy to leave the backslappers, those that have comforted you. Or is it "stunted" you? The search for the Truth is never an easy road to traverse. But this is what being a Leader in anything is all about. Stepping out, Standing tall. Get in touch with me and take that 1st step.
-
John - I sent you an email. You know where to find me if you are truly sincere. It's not easy to leave the backslappers, those that have comforted you. Or is it "stunted" you? The search for the Truth is never an easy road to traverse. But this is what being a Leader in anything is all about. Stepping out, Standing tall. Get in touch with me and take that 1st step.
Hi Royell, why the secrecy? Just post your evidence right here and we can discuss.
JohnM
-
Hi Royell, why the secrecy? Just post your evidence right here and we can discuss.
JohnM
There are people here that would not hesitate to poison this well before it gets a fair trial. I am confident you have the objectivity to examine this without prejudice. I have recently Proven that is Not Motorcycle Officer Haygood back in the train yard on the Darnell and Martin Films. THAT, all by itself is a blockbuster revelation after 60 yrs of rubber stamping. Now comes the White Shirt Man. And, I even have a couple more hole cards to play. Perhaps those would suit your fancy too? If interested, you know where to find me. Let's get started.
-
There are people here that would not hesitate to poison this well before it gets a fair trial. I am confident you have the objectivity to examine this without prejudice. I have recently Proven that is Not Motorcycle Officer Haygood back in the train yard on the Darnell and Martin Films. THAT, all by itself is a blockbuster revelation after 60 yrs of rubber stamping. Now comes the White Shirt Man. And, I even have a couple more hole cards to play. Perhaps those would suit your fancy too? If interested, you know where to find me. Let's get started.
I am really excited about this. Thumb1:
You have no problem with the utter nonsense you constantly post on this thread but now you've got something that you feel won't get "a fair trial"!! ???
This has got to be something so outlandish that even you are hesitant to post it.
What on earth could this be?
My guess is that you're going to introduce a theory whereby JFK committed suicide.
-
One thing we can definitely be sure of is that nobody at Parkland or Bethesda saw “Mytton’s” phony rotating morph.
-
One thing we can definitely be sure of is that nobody at Parkland or Bethesda saw “Mytton’s” phony rotating morph.
That thing is not only phony, it's sick.
-
That thing is not only phony, it's sick.
You do realize that the website that you just posted in has the word "assassination" in it's title, what do you expect to see when the evidence about an "assassination" is debated? Rainbow coloured roses? DOH!
For Royell
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNTHWV5b/rainbow-coloured-roses.jpg)
Since you have personally contributed to the debate of the location of Kennedy's wounds the only solution to show reality is to display the authenticated Autopsy photos, Xrays and Zapruder film, etc etc.
Anyway, you're just pissed because these images destroy your Parkland doctor video and always remember that these doctors who were there for just minutes and never even touched the wound, autopsy's are conducted for hours on cleaned up bodies and are performed for this very reason.
And I also see that you're still angry because your constant brainless discrediting of the JFKA image collection has put the Kibosh on your Knott Lab's endorsement. Sorry about that!
Anyway because it's so central to this case, here's the impossible to fake stereoscopic images that thoroughly destroy your dreams and wishes.
Nope, no exit wound back here.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d0FnbyZV/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)
JohnM
-
Presenting this sick cartoon once or twice I can stomach. Doing it countless times is like showing the Hindenburg crashing/burning over-and-over-and-over. The Knott Lab SCIENCE has determined that the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE. This has truly made some of you Bellevue worthy.
-
Presenting this sick cartoon once or twice I can stomach. Doing it countless times is like showing the Hindenburg crashing/burning over-and-over-and-over. The Knott Lab SCIENCE has determined that the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE. This has truly made some of you Bellevue worthy.
Sorry to interrupt this verbal diarrhoea Royell, the Warren Commission never relied on the SBF. Oops
There is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. However, Governor Connally’s testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability, but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President’s and Governor Connally’s wounds were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository
JohnM
-
“Persuasive evidence”. LOL.
-
“Persuasive evidence”. LOL.
You forgot, "From the experts". Nameless "experts". Oh yeah, and then there is the definitive, "Certain other factors". SCIENCE is nowhere to be found.