Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Bacon

Members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Bacon

  • Rank
    Experienced Member
  • Birthday 11/26/1952

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Hampshire

Recent Profile Visitors

395 profile views
  1. I agree with you Chris. Definitely back, but as you say, not so much to the left. What I think I'm seeing in the video I linked to, is not only his head going back, but shoulders and upper body as well. The torso seems to rise a bit as it's launched backward. The continuation of that movement is then hidden behind Jean Hill and Bobby Hargis as they converge. I'm not so sure, anymore, about my proclamation here. It still could be true that there were two, almost simultaneous shots, but the Muchmore frame that Chris D. synced with z313, could be one and the same shot. The reason I think that may be the case, is because in viewing more of the Muchmore video, the puff of debris above Kennedy's head that Chris D's frame shows, seems to flow naturally into the backward movement in the subsequent frames. In other words, the Muchmore film seems to validate what we see in Zapruder.
  2. Possibly, but I think what Chris Davidson's GIF demonstrates, is two different shots at two different instances and that the shots were less than a second apart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMdreKlLhJY This is a stabilized version of Muchmore. Go to 1:09 in the video. Frame 43 shows the first hit (what Chris D. shows in the GIF), but I think what I'm seeing in the next 6 frames, before Kennedy is hidden behind Jean Hill, is the "back and to the left" moment. I'd love another opinion.
  3. Thank you Jim. Looking forward to viewing. I've watched videos and read commentary by MrChrillemannen for a few years. I have always wondered who he is.
  4. Jim, would you mind giving me a link or a search term to use to find the YouTube movies? I'm very interested.
  5. He definitely knows about the incident. I saw an interview with him the day after this thread started and he mentioned it. He seemed very suspicious.
  6. This is looking even more like a police false flag operation.
  7. Chris, may I use my own words to describe what I think you're saying? And then you can tell me where I've got what you're thinking correct or incorrect. A shot from the Dal-Tex 7th floor ledge @ z310. We see Kennedy's head move forward slightly from z312 to z313. Then, at virtually the same moment in time, the head is driven back by a shot from the front which also causes the back of head blowout. The limousine has come to a stand-still just after z313 and before the shot from the front. Kennedy's head is driven "back and to the left" by the frontal shot. So, the frame removal was done to hide the fact that there were two shots, at virtually the same moment in time, which would have been impossible for a lone gunman. And the "blob" is real and not painted in, as has been suggested. The "blob" was created by the first of those two shots which came from 7th floor Dal-Tex. Do I sort of have this right?
  8. Eddy, thanks for this. It helps. I hope you continue. I am transfixed by Chris's analyses. Like the Math Rules thread, it's dense. It takes time and concentration to follow the numbers, and I'm doing very poorly. But, at this point, I have a decent picture of what the analysis is revealing. Unbelievable work from Chris!
  9. To add to your "other evidence suggestive of frame removal", the child behind his father suddenly appears beside his father, in 1 frame -1/18 of a second.
  10. Frame removal, which was one of the major alterations in the Zapruder film, will create no discrepancy with other photographs. Only the Nix film, where it overlaps the Zapruder film, would have had to have been also altered. And we all know the provenance of that film is in question. The conspirators were not stupid.
  11. I doubt it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/could-covid-19-be-manmade-what-we-know-about-origins-trump-chinese-lab-coronavirus Is there any evidence the virus was engineered? The scientific consensus rejecting the virus being engineered is almost unanimous. In a letter to Nature in March, a team in California led by microbiology professor Kristian Andersen said “the genetic data irrefutably shows that [Covid-19] is not derived from any previously used virus backbone” – in other words spliced sections of another known virus.
  12. Apparently Voebel's camera was mistaken too. Priceless! Thank you Ron.
  13. It's the last post on page 5. I read it this morning. I've been thinking about it ever since. Doug's whole presentation, I find quite disturbing.
×
×
  • Create New...