Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Bacon

Members
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul Bacon

  1. The guy with the glasses, escorting Brennan, is Sheriff Bill Decker. At 2:00:30, you see video of him. The narrator refers to him as Decker.
  2. The blur at z313 could also be a result of a shot immediately before it, say at z310. If you look closely, JFK's head is pushed forward just before z313. There is so much more information to be considered before you present your theory, although I do appreciate your sincerity.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Jim, would you mind giving me a link or a search term to use to find the YouTube movies? I'm very interested.
  7. 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.
  8. This is looking even more like a police false flag operation.
  9. 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?
  10. 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!
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Apparently Voebel's camera was mistaken too. Priceless! Thank you Ron.
  15. 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.
  16. Just FWIW, I saw a report the other day about why the shortage. It's not hoarding, although that's probably playing a roll (no pun intended). There are two types of toilet paper, one residential and one commercial. You know the difference- one type is soft and pleasant and the other is the stuff with the wood chips still in it. Some companies make one type, some the other, but they don't make both. Commercial grade goes to institutions--schools, government, offices, etc. Now that those institutions are closed, there is plenty of the commercial grade. And since all of those people are now at home, the demand for the residential stuff is much bigger than normal. It seems that the toilet paper industry is pretty predictable in terms of quantities, but now that has changed.
  17. I believe Joy Reid is taking his place --a woman with great intelligence, insight and courage. Unlike Mathews, Joy has social skills that will bring out the best in her guests. I find that replacement ironic, because, as a guest with Mathews, she was treated badly by Mathews on a number of occasions. It seemed to me that Chris couldn't keep up with her and dismissed her thoughts outright. But, last night, she was effusive in describing Mathews' helping her with her career. She's a classy woman.
  18. Thanks to both of you Larry and David, you've just brought me to a new understanding! And, thanks to you David, I'm seeing how this relates to the Mexico City events. I've never fully comprehended what that was all about --it's been a weak point in my studying. I get it now.
  19. Thanks for that Larry. This helps explain my perception of seeming nonchalance by the perpetrators. So they must have been very confident in their ability to cover up.
  20. I don't completely grasp what you're saying to me in your post, but I'm able to see that you don't buy my idea that witnesses were meant (by the plotters) to see suspicious activity in the TSBD to divert attention away from the actual shooting positions. My thoughts were prompted by the idea that the original plot may have been intended to implicate the Cuban government in the assassination. In that case, it wouldn't matter how many men were observed in the TSBD, or who witnessed "Lee Harvey" Oswald running right out the front door into a car driven by another man. It was only decided, after the fact, that the lie would be lone assassin. In the end, though, it really doesn't matter. I am still trying to make sense of all the convoluted evidence. I'm not even sure I'm making any sense... just floating the idea to see what others thought.
  21. Unless the whole idea of that event was to create witnesses noticing the escape, including witnessing that the driver was Cuban --a setup that could imply a Cuban conspiracy. For about a year, I've been chewing on an idea. The idea that witnesses were meant to see "movement in the windows of the TSBD", to observe "men with guns", to see "someone who resembled Oswald". Some of the witnesses who described what they saw, seemed to me to be describing a kind of "laid back" demeanor --almost as if they were trying to be noticed. Heck, even Umbrella Man and Fist Man were obviously suspicious. Maybe this was all, in the beginning, to implicate the Cuban government.
×
×
  • Create New...