Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      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
William Kelly

Oswald Leaving TSBD?

Recommended Posts

What I believe would help the researchers & other interested parties that participate in EF JFK threads or visit them is hearing directly from living witnesses or those who have first hand information about their JFK assassination experiences here at EF without intermediaries. I'm reminded of a promo I viewed at YouTube not long ago attempting to get the living witnesses, family, friends or associates involved in the C-130 flight that transported both JFK's parade car & the SS Queen Mary out of Dallas to contact several noted JFK researchers. It was a simple, homemade production & I don't know at the moment how effective it was.

Perhaps something along those lines could direct living witnesses or associates of those deceased to communicate with the global public here at EF. Not all living witnesses will want to discuss the assassination for free.

Some living witnesses seem to have put the assassination behind them. Some might still be fearful to discuss the event. Inviting those witnesses to EF may not be an easy undertaking. Some witnesses are suspicious of JFK researchers; in the Marie Tippit interview posted at the 6th Floor Museum's YouTube playlist page, Marie states she believes those who challenge the 'Oswald did it' judgment are doing so only for 'seeking publicity' purposes. Living witnesses suspicious of the intentions of JFK researchers are probably not going to discuss the assassination anywhere online.

I do know this: a topic such as 'PM is LHO' could not be discussed in High Schools I attended in the mid to late 1960's. Doing so would earn a student a lecture about supporting Communist propaganda & threats of suspension (not to mention Hoover's FBI starting a file on the student or the school; a possibility educators were fearful of at the time). I know this personally after giving oral book reports on 'Rush To Judgment' & 'Six Seconds In Dallas'. EF is miles ahead in freedom of speech compared to 'back in the day' when I was back there.

As Gene Kelly said above, there was a very real possibility that LHO was targeted to be killed at the TSBD. It would have made for a 'cleaner' story: sniper shoots JFK & entourage & is shot & killed while attempting to escape. Killer's rifle, spent shells & fingerprints found in the sniper's nest. Something along those lines.

It would appear that someone messed up big time to allow LHO the opportunity to proclaim his innocence on TV & global newspapers if he was supposed to be eliminated in the TSBD following JFK's ambush.

That might be the logical next step to take this thread from the TSBD front entrance to LHO's journey to his rooming house to arm himself.

BM

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just checked my PM's here and did indeed receive a message from Gary Mack where he was asking for my email address.

Lee,

Wasn't there a red-colored "notice icon" telling you you had a PM waiting for you to read?

Or are you so popular that you just ignore them? LOL

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not doubting the information Gary Mack has sent [via yet another messenger].

So I suppose the Great and Powerful Oz has spoken.

Gary Mack's compensation, whatever it is, isn't my business, so it's not my concern. I won't take him to task for something that I have no way of knowing. IMHO, it's not an issue.

As long as Gary Mack continues to have an open mind about the search for truth, I have very few problems with him. If and/or when he decides there's nothing more we can learn, that's when I have a major problem with him. For now, I hold out hope that copyright issues with the 16mm Darnell can be resolved before we're all dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of being a messenger and wouldn't have shared these emails from Gary Mack here if I didn't believe it could help steer the cause towards a resolution. The work done on this thread is superb and I have very high hopes.

That being said, I received this from Gary later today also:

.

.

.

.

P.P.S. I should have mentioned the Mal Couch film. When WFAA donated their Kennedy assassination footage to The Sixth Floor Museum in the late 90s, the original Couch film could not be found. Fortunately, their donation did include a first generation copy and that 16mm print could also be made available.

There are few commercial facilities that can make 4K scans of 16mm film and the process is expensive; and there are none to my knowledge that offer 4K scans of 8mm films. The Library of Congress scan was a very special occasion requiring their ability to retain a digital file of the films for NARA's JFK Collection.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darren, I didn't intend to make it sound negative that you shared Gary Mack's comments. The truth is, he's a full-fledged member here and capable of posting his thoughts himself...if he would do so. Instead, he chooses to remain "the man behind the curtain," a la "the Great and Powerful Oz."

But thank you for sharing his words with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The disappearance of original evidence (particularly in the visual record) in the JFK assassination is an alarming pattern that extends throughout the case & various chains of custody that cannot be blamed on Lee Oswald.

Copies of motion pictures & photos are often inferior to the original & subject to receiving artifacts in the copying process. Alterations are not always easy to detect in visual copies. In this case, any provable effort to remove or disguise LHO's image visually from the entrance to the TSBD (or anywhere else he may have been photographed) is an obvious punishable crime that fuels the allegations that LHO was not the shooter that shot & killed President Kennedy & wounded John Connally & James Tague; crimes the government has consistantly maintained he committed 22 November 1963.

Laws may have been broken; particularly in regards to the JFK Records Act that ordered all assassination materials turned over to the ARRB.

BM

edited (twice) to correct punctuation errors & typos

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The disappearance of original evidence (particularly in the visual record) in the JFK assassination is an alarming pattern that extends throughout the case & various chains of custody that cannot be blamed on Lee Oswald.

Copies of motion pictures & photos are often inferior to the original & subject to receiving artifacts in the copying process. Alterations are not always easy to detect in visual copies. In this case, any provable effort to remove LHO's image visually from the entrance to the TSBD (or anywhere else he may have been photographed) is an obvious punishable crime that fuels the allegations that LHO was not the shooter that shot & killed President Kennedy & wounded John Connally & James Tague; crimes the government has consistantly maintained he committed 22 November 1963.

Laws may have been broken; particularly in regards to the JFK Records Act that ordered all assassination materials turned over to the AARB.

BM

edited to correct punctuation errors

Brad,

Since "alterations are not always easy to detect in visual copies," it's all too easy and tempting to say that everything photographic was altered or "staged" and then to try to force the disbelievers (like me) to "prove" that they weren't.

Isn't it.

LOL

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Thomas

Good point. Dr. Henry Lee commented in a TV documentary on the multitude of missing original material in the JFK case & he believed it was due to persons taking home certain items believing them to be valuable someday. He issued an plea in the documentary for persons who took the original items to return them.

In a thread with a subject that has been explored extensively like this one on Prayer Man, the Darnell, Wiegman, Couch & Towner film originals could help determine who PM was if they remained in good shape after 51 years. Portions of the Zapruder film looked all beat up when it was released after supposedly living in the safety of a vault at Time-Life. No telling how many cups of coffee were spilled on those film originals.

I personally don't know what to think about film alteration allegations (regardless of the films suspected to have been altered); to my way of thinking it would have been much easier (and cheaper) to say something like, 'the dog ate the film' after it disappeared than to go to the time & expense to attempt to fool someone by altering a visual. Not to mention facing the possibility of going to prison for the deception, particularly if several people were involved in the alteration, any one capable of snitching on the others & getting all involved caught. Eliminating the alterationists doesn't work either; doing so leaves no personnel to make future alterations. It's much easier to trash the film & blame it on the photographer ('Zapruder's film is blank because he forgot to take the lens cap off') or the film processor ('Darnell's film is blank because the film processor used the wrong chemicals & ruined it'). Those routes seem more practical to me. Then again, I wasn't part of a suspected conspiracy to murder JFK & cover it up, either.

Cutting scenes out of films create jumps in the film signaling to the viewer's eyes that the filming process was interrupted. That's like a big neon sign pointing to the missing scene. Using graphics paint to change or otherwise disguise something seems pretty sneaky. I do know this: people play around with graphics all the time. YouTube is full of altered images. Dave Letterman's show features a multitude of altered photos & films each week (for humor purposes). Film alterationists have not been able to identify who did the alleged work. For example, Doug Horne tells us the original Zapruder film was altered at Hawkeyeworks the assassination weekend. He tells us what was done too: The limo turn & stop was eliminated, JFK's horrific head wound to the rear of his head was blacked out and a fake explosion was painted in frame z-313 but he hasn't produced the person or persons that did this. Neither has anyone else.

Up to this point no one's noticed anything to suspect Couch & Darnell films as being alteration victims; Wiegman & Towner films have already been accused of being monkeyed with on an optical printer. There's a couple of videos addressing that subject on YouTube. Bell & Bronson films too; I saw film analysis that focuses on a couple of black rectangles on top of the North pergola visible in Bell & Bronson. The video presenter believes shooters or camera personnel were on top of the pergola that were blacked out with artist's paint via an optical printer.

When it comes to film, I'm still back at the original King Kong climbing the empire state building & swatting at WWI aircraft. That movie scared me really bad when I was young. I thought it was real. My mother had a really tough time getting me to stay alone in my bedroom & going to sleep. For that reason, I have to step aside & listen to those who know what the real deal is when it comes to monkeying around with film & other visuals. I don't have those qualifications & never will. It is an intriguing topic.

According to a John Lennon song's lyrics, "Nothing Is real". People that have tried to deceive me in my life did so with words & actions. Film & photos were never involved. I introduced these thoughts more or less as a door for film alterationists to join the thread. If they do, this thread has the potential for going on forever (LOL).

best,

Brad Milch

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Thomas

Good point. Dr. Henry Lee commented in a TV documentary on the multitude of missing original material in the JFK case & he believed it was due to persons taking home certain items believing them to be valuable someday. He put out a plea for persons who took the original items to return them.

In a thread with a subject that has been explored extensively like this one on Prayer Man, the Darnell, Wiegman, Couch & Towner film originals could help determine who PM was if they remained in good shape after 51 years. Portions of the Zapruder film looked all beat up when it was released after supposedly living in the safety of a vault at Time-Life. No telling how many cups of coffee were spilled on those film originals.

I personally don't know what to think about film alteration allegations (regardless of the films suspected to have been altered); to my way of thinking it would have been much easier (and cheaper) to say something like, 'the dog ate the film' after it disappeared than to go to the time & expense to attempt to fool someone by altering a visual. Not to mention facing the possibility of going to prison for the deception, particularly if several people were involved in the alteration, any one capable of snitching on the others & getting all involved caught. Eliminating the alterationists doesn't work either; doing so leaves no personnel to make future alterations. It's much easier to trash the film & blame it on the photographer ('Zapruder's film is blank because he forgot to take the lens cap off') or the film processor ('Darnell's film is blank because the film processor used the wrong chemicals & ruined it'). Those routes seem more practical to me.

Cutting scenes out of films create jumps in the film signaling to the viewer's eyes that the filming process was interrupted. That's like a big neon sign pointing to the missing scene. Using graphics paint to change or otherwise disguise something seems pretty sneaky. I do know this: people play around with graphics all the time. YouTube is full of altered images. Dave Letterman's show features a multitude of altered photos & films each week (for humor purposes). There's no telling how many lawsuits his show has dealt with as a result of that show's image alterations (lol).

Up to this point no one's noticed anything to suspect Couch & Darnell films as being alteration victims; Wiegman & Towner films have already been accused of being monkeyed with on an optical printer. There's a couple of videos addressing that subject on YouTube. Bell & Bronson films too; I saw film analysis that focuses on a couple of black rectangles on top of the North pergola visible in Bell & Bronson. The video presenter believes shooters were on top of the pergola that were blacked out with artist's paint.

When it comes to film, I'm still back at the original King Kong climbing the empire state building & swatting at WWI aircraft. That movie scared me really bad when I was young. I thought it was real. My mother had a really tough time getting me to stay alone in my bedroom & going to sleep. For that reason, I have to step aside & listen to those who know what the deal is when it comes to monkeying around with film. I don't have those qualifications & never will. It is an intriguing topic.

According to a John Lennon song's lyrics, "Nothing Is real". People that have tried to deceive me in my life did so with words & actions. Film & photos were never involved. I introduced these thoughts more or less as a door for film alterationists to join the thread. If they do, this thread has the potential for going on forever (LOL).

best,

Brad Milch

I

Hi Thomas

Good point. Dr. Henry Lee commented in a TV documentary on the multitude of missing original material in the JFK case & he believed it was due to persons taking home certain items believing them to be valuable someday. He put out a plea for persons who took the original items to return them.

In a thread with a subject that has been explored extensively like this one on Prayer Man, the Darnell, Wiegman, Couch & Towner film originals could help determine who PM was if they remained in good shape after 51 years. Portions of the Zapruder film looked all beat up when it was released after supposedly living in the safety of a vault at Time-Life. No telling how many cups of coffee were spilled on those film originals.

I personally don't know what to think about film alteration allegations (regardless of the films suspected to have been altered); to my way of thinking it would have been much easier (and cheaper) to say something like, 'the dog ate the film' after it disappeared than to go to the time & expense to attempt to fool someone by altering a visual. Not to mention facing the possibility of going to prison for the deception, particularly if several people were involved in the alteration, any one capable of snitching on the others & getting all involved caught. Eliminating the alterationists doesn't work either; doing so leaves no personnel to make future alterations. It's much easier to trash the film & blame it on the photographer ('Zapruder's film is blank because he forgot to take the lens cap off') or the film processor ('Darnell's film is blank because the film processor used the wrong chemicals & ruined it'). Those routes seem more practical to me.

Cutting scenes out of films create jumps in the film signaling to the viewer's eyes that the filming process was interrupted. That's like a big neon sign pointing to the missing scene. Using graphics paint to change or otherwise disguise something seems pretty sneaky. I do know this: people play around with graphics all the time. YouTube is full of altered images. Dave Letterman's show features a multitude of altered photos & films each week (for humor purposes). There's no telling how many lawsuits his show has dealt with as a result of that show's image alterations (lol).

Up to this point no one's noticed anything to suspect Couch & Darnell films as being alteration victims; Wiegman & Towner films have already been accused of being monkeyed with on an optical printer. There's a couple of videos addressing that subject on YouTube. Bell & Bronson films too; I saw film analysis that focuses on a couple of black rectangles on top of the North pergola visible in Bell & Bronson. The video presenter believes shooters were on top of the pergola that were blacked out with artist's paint.

When it comes to film, I'm still back at the original King Kong climbing the empire state building & swatting at WWI aircraft. That movie scared me really bad when I was young. I thought it was real. My mother had a really tough time getting me to stay alone in my bedroom & going to sleep. For that reason, I have to step aside & listen to those who know what the deal is when it comes to monkeying around with film. I don't have those qualifications & never will. It is an intriguing topic.

According to a John Lennon song's lyrics, "Nothing Is real". People that have tried to deceive me in my life did so with words & actions. Film & photos were never involved. I introduced these thoughts more or less as a door for film alterationists to join the thread. If they do, this thread has the potential for going on forever (LOL).

best,

Brad Milch

I

Good comments Brad.

I would welcome 'film alterationists' who actually have the technical ability to alter film to join this thread and offer their technical expertise to get the frames with PM that haven't been 'altered' developed to a higher resolution.

Any takers? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot some other films that either capture the TSBD entrance or came close to it, Thomas.

Mark Bell & Robert Hughes capture it. The John Martin film just misses it. All 3 have been accused of being victims of film alteration. I've mentioned the Tina Towner, Dave Wiegman, Crouch & Darnell films already. Wiegman & Towner have been accused of being altered, I haven't seen anything on the Internet about Crouch & Darnell just yet.

The most common form of alteration I've seen described in the videos posted at YouTube, individual websites or blogs is the alleged use of dark paint to obscure something in the film or the entire scene depicting that same 'something' missing from the film in question. For example: look at the Robert Hughes film & notice the interruption in the filming of the motorcade on Houston Street that begins again as the limo begins to turn the corner at the Elm intersection. The public's been told Hughes stopped filming & then began again (Frontline - Who Was lee Harvey Oswald). A film alterationist would argue Hughes filmed continuously & a scene was edited out of the film. Mary Muchmore's film stops about the same place as the Hughes film also stops on Houston Street. I've already mentioned the dark rectangles on top of the North Pergola as seen in the Bell & Bronson films. A film alterationist would argue that whatever was on top of the pergola during JFK's ambush was darkened with black paint & obscured on an optical printer.

In regards to the TSBD entrance & the persons in the doorway or steps, a film alterationist would argue that dark paint was used to remove someone in that area, such as PM, that the entire doorway has been blurred by an optical printer to make the faces undistinguishable (Towner's film has been accused of being a victim of this type of alteration) or a scene capturing the TSBD entrance was edited out of a film (John Martin's film has been accused of being the victim of this type of alteration).

The public is often asked to compare the 'frozen looking', non-moving, blurred crowd seen in the Towner film to the moving around, waving crowd seen in the Martin film. Same for Zapruder & other films. A 'frozen' looking crowd is a tip-off of an optical printer alteration (I've been told by film analysts). Other forms of comparison: compare Pierce Allman's description of a jubilant, waving, applauding, cheering crowd around him as JFK's car turns the corner of Elm & moves past Allman to the frozen looking crowd seen in the Zapruder film. Artificial 'blurring' created on an optical printer is often passed off as the camera operator 'panning'.

Doug Horne does a good job of explaining how alterations are done on film using an optical printer & a process called aerial imaging. The image paint is applied not to the actual film, but to a piece of glass positioned over an individual film frame that is then re-photographed, frame by frame. When the process is completed, there are 2 films: the original & the altered copy. When the film is run in motion the human eye will not pick up the paint (in most cases, unless a sloppy job was performed by the alterationists).

Noted, respected visuals alterations experts would include David Healy, John Costello, the late Jack White & David Lifton. We lost Jack White, but he has a series of YouTube videos still posted at Y/T & I remember many posts he contributed here at EF. Notable 'up & comers' would include Leroy Blevins Sr. & EF's own Robert Mady.

I usually keep up with JFK film analysis in YouTube by searching for the subject & 'today'. If I want to see what was posted on the JFK assassination at Y/T within the last 24 hours, I'd type into the Y/T search engine: JFK Assassination, today.

I find the subject of photography & how the human eye & brain reacts to it & motion pictures intriguing. Motion pictures, like pictures, are said to all be illusions of reality. The eye, when seeing motion pictures, will not pick up on subtle changes because of the human brain. That's about all I know about the subject. Those that understand film alteration can fill us all in much better than I can. A good example of how the brain & eye work together to trick is the scene in the Wizard Of Oz where Dorothy's house falls on the witch. That scene was filmed by a person standing on a ladder, holding a toy house upside down & allowing the house to fall to the floor of the film studio. Then the film was run backwards and copied on an optical printer. The Starship Enterprise zipping by on 'Star Trek' was created by moving a camera towards and then away from a toy starship. When the film is projected the starship appears to move towards and then away from the viewer at a fast speed.

There's a lot of JFK ambush film analysis posted at YouTube & comments are not always allowed. It would be great to have some of those posting the videos to talk to us here at EF & explain their presentation better. I, for one, would follow those threads because I find the topic of film alteration intriguing. TV commercials utilizing optical special effects are a lot different today than when I was young. There were no British speaking lizards selling car insurance on tv 'back in the day' (LOL)

BM

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing now is to have the original films professionally examined to see if more detail can be uncovered. Identify Prayer Man, if possible, and a lot of things get clarified.

Anyone here see a whole lot of new evidence falling into our laps after 51 years? Stuff still can come out yet, e.g., JFK files, and more things can be looked at, but to me, we pretty much got what we got. Reexamining existing evidence when it may answer big questions seems like a no-brainer.

Things that should be examined more closely, as well, are much of the existing medical evidence and testimony. There are a great many misconceptions and myths, mostly fuelled very subtly by WC supporters, that are stopping many people from being able to see the true nature of Connally's and JFK's wounds and, beyond that, the truth about what occurred during the assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really would like for someone to make the necessary scans from the movies that are available, and see if we can determine for a certainty whether Prayer Man is Oswald or not. I know it will be expensive, as Gary Mack has pointed out. But it's worth the cost, if it brings us to the truth. Too many things about the assassination are still "debatable" after 51 years. If this one issue could be settled, it might open new doors into determining what other evidence that has been taken for granted might also be examined in a new light, with new technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really would like for someone to make the necessary scans from the movies that are available, and see if we can determine for a certainty whether Prayer Man is Oswald or not. I know it will be expensive, as Gary Mack has pointed out. But it's worth the cost, if it brings us to the truth. Too many things about the assassination are still "debatable" after 51 years. If this one issue could be settled, it might open new doors into determining what other evidence that has been taken for granted might also be examined in a new light, with new technology.

If we solve the crime, we might need to find a new hobby. Basket weaving, anyone? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, I'm already addicted to old cars and trucks....I own a '51 and a '52 International pickup, and my "holy grail" cars would be either a '46-'47 Hudson coupe, a '54 Hudson coupe, or a '56 Hudson Hornet Special Holywood hardtop. The "52 is my rod project [lots of parts accumulated, not a lot of work completed], and my '51 still has the original engine and drivetrain [but needs other work].

"Baskets? We don' need no steenkeen baskets...." [Or something like that...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was growing up in Saskatchewan, the first vehicle I ever owned, in 1973, was a 1953 International Harvester, or "Cornbinder" as we referred to them. I paid $50 for it, and a year's insurance and registration was another $50. It was quite the truck. It had originally been painted IHC red, but twenty years in the prairie sun had turned it to a strange orange-pink. The thing I liked about it most were the two little windows at the back. They looked so classy, and I think this was the only year IHC did this. Great little truck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×