Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

David Andrews

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Andrews

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

24,662 profile views
  1. OK, from photo above, that's one bank of four tallish two-section window per floor. And it looks even more like that's public space back there, not narrow offices with one window each. In Keyvan's muzzle flash videos - those cameramen are within 20 feet of the shooter, not across the street and below. So I'm thinking that large "flash" is lost emulsion. Someone who knows film stock or the Hughes film better ought to weigh in.
  2. Sorry - posting at work again. I really do know the differance, I'm just not used to shot theories from the CRB windows. Here's a take: 1) The issue of figures and movement in that CRB window has been discussed in a past thread. 2) That movement doesn't look particularly stealthy in Bronson. It looks like someone leaning out and waving, maybe waving an object. 3) Whoever or whatever that is in the window, it's up awfully high in that window, if that window fits a conventional floor plan. Perhaps these modernist windows only have an opening section at the top, for ventilation. Possibly someone's on a ladder indoors. 4) A modernist-design window in a façade such as that usually fronts an interior public space such as a corridor, not a secluded office. (Though it could be otherwise in the CRB floor plan.) So maybe not a lot of privacy for a rifleman. 5) I don't think there's a muzzle flash visible in Hughes. I think that white light is a loss of emulsion in that spot. You can see lines of white light/emulsion loss in Hughes just a few moments later. However, that "flash" in Hughes may occur over several film frames, which is suspicious. Could the emulsion be scraped away to conceal something? 6) Could the emulsion loss be due to continued viewing of the film? The large burn during the limo turn is ostensibly the result of continued rewinding and pausing of the original. Could that have caused the emulsion loss "flash" also? 7) There is no way to tell from a video transfer posted online if that's a muzzle flash or emulsion loss. One would have to examine the original Hughes film frames. But I'm betting that's emulsion loss in that frame or frames, from one cause or another.
  3. I don't know why I don't see the flash in Hughes, either. Is it in the window with the man sitting below it on the fire escape? Part of my viewing problem is that 0:34 coincides with a jump cut to a closer perspective on the later cars in the motorcade. If someone could isolate the relevant before-during-after video frames as stills, it would be a help.
  4. I'll bite, Keyvan, because I'm like that. Where is that flash, exactly? Camouflaged in the burned frame(s)?
  5. The Paine Files

    The 1960s-ubiquitous Porta-file boxes: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1950s-RETRO-Vintage-PORTA-FILE-GREY-Metal-Box-Hamilton-Skotch-/272614063027?hash=item3f79107bb3:g:~eYAAOSwx6pYq1GJ
  6. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    As if. We hold it self-evident that the back threads of this Forum offer ample evidence against, on all proposable grounds.
  7. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    Just to say: No knock here at Mark Knight for reminding us of the Plumlee interview, which - like Plumlee's past posts on this Forum - are well worth study.
  8. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    Plumlee: Well, as we say in CIA. "There's many, many rogues out there." If people were saying that at CIA, it tends to sound like a cynical cop-out - just as disingenuous as it sounds coming from Plumlee. The quotation carries its own implicit meaning that "many" rogues were sanctioned by authority to carry out policy as cut-outs for the policymakers in office. "My goodness, all these rogues! Why are we not putting a stop to this? We're up to our a** in rogues out here!" I mean. really - for how many decades is this dodge supposed to work? Why does it work on you, George? "Rogues" equals "Nobody's guilty." "Blasted rogues, they've killed our president! Something must be done." But nothing was, until some "rogues" were under subpoena. Why was that, exactly? EDITED FOR CLARITY
  9. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    Rogue thoughts from Tosh Plumlee: Well, as we say in CIA. "There's many, many rogues out there." You have just as many rogues in Mafia. * * * That's why I don't feel that any direct involvement on a high level from our government was involved in the Kennedy assassination but I certainly believe that there were certainly rogues within CIA, rogues within military intelligence, rogues within Mafia, and rogues within high-ups in the National Security Council that was certainly aware that an attempt was gonna be made. Apparently there was a stampede of inculpability upon the land, approaching the proportions of a disaster movie. Tosh Plumlee Transcript
  10. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    In the YouTube film: People ran up the knoll to take shelter from the rooftop shooter? After the limo had left the Plaza? And the motorcycle cop ran up there for shelter, too? Junk, Junk, Junk. Does that YouTube guy make money for every viewing? Let's not pay him.
  11. Bobby Baker talks about the Senate

    Be sure to read Bakers full interview (200+ pages) for the Senate history office, which is linked to in the article. It's slow reading, but will reward you with an exhibition of how the sausages are made, and demonstrate that the 20th century Senate was little different from the Senate in the days of Thomas Nast's political cartoons.
  12. Tracking Oswald Part 5

    I'm supposing that their brand of empirical science precluded firing a frontal shot through the area above the right temple?
  13. Three Tramps.

    Some things to consider: Did Lansdale really know three guys like the tramps personally? Know somebody like, say, Charles Harrelson, personally? Did these three matter enough to him for Lansdale to walk by and give them the "high sign"? If that is Lansdale in the photo, he may have seen the three tramps approaching under "police escort," and taken a stroll past them for a simple reconnaissance, without necessarily knowing them. Where is that "Lansdale" figure heading, anyway? He's not on Elm Street, he's on the Elm Street extension that leads to the parking lot behind the knoll. Did he go to the parking lot, or cut back to Elm Street? Don Roberdeau, in a post above, reports research that cites the tramps-Lansdale picture as taken c. 2:19 PM. Is the "Lansdale" figure in any other photos or film taken at that time?
  14. Henry Hecksher

    Paul - I agree. With the intermingling of US and German corporate entities (GE, IG Farben, etc., operating in both countries) before the war, there had to be extra-governmental intel pooling, which I'm sure helped Sullivan Cromwell mesh Brown Brothers with Thyssen. Paperclip and the Gehlen network were, more accurately, sold on the basis of the government's isolationism, not the corporations'.
  15. Henry Hecksher

    Interesting to speculate on how much our need for Nazi-origin intelligence on Russia may have been caused by the American 20th-century isolationism that resisted our entrance into both World Wars. That and perhaps a tendency to ignore the Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution could not be reversed.