Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Michael Walton said: Yes, Bill, thanks. Judith is a fake. Bev is too. Google and find the story about her so-called big reveal years ago - she was going to reveal never seen photos but it was all a ruse. I am aware of the 'reveal. Beverly had never seen her film projected and someone had shown her cropped stills from another film (Nix) taken from a similar line of sight to which Bev got suckered on the idea that those stills were from her film. After all, she knew of no one else that was filming on the south pasture that close to the car as she was. The enlarged cropped stills even looked to have been taken from a similar distance from the street as she was ... and she had no idea what had been done to them to give that false impression. Had she contacted Groden or anyone who was familiar with the other assassination films, then they could have easily told her there and then that someone was playing her for a fool. And if you are suggesting to me that she was aware that she was looking at a Nix film frame and intentionally thought she could pass it off as from her film, then I would say that is ridiculous. One would think that even the most cynical minded of people would know that Beverly was obviously not familiar with the other assassination films so to have been wise to the fiasco that was being handed to her. As for the rest of the garbage - someone could have met up with Bev and said they were with the CIA ... after all someone told Officer Joe Marshall Smith that he was with the Secret Service right at the crime scene - had believable credentials as well. Ferrie first said that he didn't know Oswald - a photo of the two together during military training later turned up. Ruby's credibility wasn't worth two shakes of tinkle. There was so much deception going on around the assassination that no one knew who was on who's side - not even the bad guys. Oswald is shot to death in police custody by Jack Ruby and someone thinks a stripper is going to now get involved in that mess by saying they saw Oswald with Jack in his club. Really??? And regardless of who the Babushka Lady was - no one else has come forward and said it was them who was there next to Brehm. He believed it was her. I wanted to make clear was the lady seen in Zapruder film was the same woman seen in the other assassination films. Edited January 21, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 8 hours ago, John Butler said: Thing is John, if you hear hooves think horse, not unicorn Well, what about deer, cows, zebras, and other animals? We want to keep an open mind on the "hooves" issue. Exactly my point! We want to keep an open mind.. we don't want to jump straight to the conclusion that if there is something that looks 'odd' in an image then it must be a 'fake' as part of a 'cover-up'... why not start with looking for a 'simpler' explanation, and if that doesn't work then progress forward from that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 This post just has interesting odds and ends in it. Harold Weisberg, in Whitewash III p. 48, 1967 did note that there was some kind of projecting object sticking out a second floor window. You can see that in the window to the left of the group in the window. It appears as a large flashlight or a rifle blast. What it really appears as is a painted object. Artists always have trouble painting light rays. Until I had read Whitewash III I thought someone had played around with this internet photo. There are what appears to be bullet holes above the window here and other places. They seem to be too large to be rifle or pistol holes. This has led me to believe someone has played with this photo and still does. But, the business with Harold Weisberg says that these large bullet holes may also go back in time. I still don’t think this is of any consequences. Maybe, a bunch of drunk Texans shot up Dealey Plaza late one night. That would be risky business with the Sheriff’s Office just up the street. This is just speculation. Maybe, Tosh Plumlee’s abort team disrupted the assassination ambush by shooting at the assassins. I don’t like the idea. I put Tosh Plumlee in the same category as Gerry Patrick Hemming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: Exactly my point! We want to keep an open mind.. we don't want to jump straight to the conclusion that if there is something that looks 'odd' in an image then it must be a 'fake' as part of a 'cover-up'... why not start with looking for a 'simpler' explanation, and if that doesn't work then progress forward from that... I think John is looking for alterations to the point he is inventing them in his own mind. I have not the time to spend on doing things that were done so many years ago that debunked the alteration nonsense, but here is an example of what he was advised to do if he wanted to know where the limo was in Altgen's photo and/or anywhere else using multiple reference points with other images as well. Below is a Plaza drawing of Elm Street with the lines marking a line of sight from certain landmarks. This is merely an illustration. If someone wishes to be to scale and accurate, then find an aerial photo from above and looking straight down on the plaza as seen at the time of the assassination. This way landmarks such as lamppost, trees, and lane stripes will be just as they were at the time of the shooting which will minimize drastically any degree of error. Edited January 21, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, John Butler said: This post just has interesting odds and ends in it. Harold Weisberg, in Whitewash III p. 48, 1967 did note that there was some kind of projecting object sticking out a second floor window. You can see that in the window to the left of the group in the window. It appears as a large flashlight or a rifle blast. What it really appears as is a painted object. Artists always have trouble painting light rays. I take it that you never considered it to be a light on the ceiling further back into the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 30 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: Bill, I really don't know why you waste your time on this thread. John Butler is either playing games, trolling, or both. And you know what they say about trolls - ignore them and they tend to go away. It does seem like a strong possibility or else he really does have a very hard time understanding simple angles and basic physics and how they apply to cross referencing images. I have given him the benefit of the doubt so far, but I do think he will have to start better explaining how he ruled out the alternatives for if he doesn't - I will have to think you were certainly correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) On 1/21/2017 at 9:41 AM, Bill Miller said: It does seem like a strong possibility or else he really does have a very hard time understanding simple angles and basic physics and how they apply to cross referencing images. I have given him the benefit of the doubt so far, but I do think he will have to start better explaining how he ruled out the alternatives for if he doesn't - I will have to think you were certainly correct. Hi Guys! FWIW, I concur with both of you on this. Film alteration (except perhaps for the Z-film head blow-out and some of the autopsy photos) is a can of worms, IMHO. -- Tommy "the T-R-O-L-L" Edited January 23, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Images I created years ago: I was never one to buy into the head b lowuot being altered for reasons I have already mentioned concerning alteration processes when dealing with film grains. The bullet and the explosion of the head was moving faster than Zapruder's camera could capture images, which alteration supporters didn't seem to want to understand. And the quality of the Abe's camera could not give the resolution to see fine detail of JFK's face - let alone the back of his blood soaked hair. What the camera could capture was the avulsion that so many medical personnel spoke about. The cone that suddenly appeared on the rear of JFK's head in both the Nix and Zapruder films demonstrated this avulsion. I believe in the laws of physics, so I don't waste time debating the painted head explosion silliness anymore. If an alteration could have been accomplished - it would have been done to remove the bulge off the rear of the skull caused by the bones being sprung outward. Edited January 21, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Nice work, Bill. I've never thought it was altered as well. I've always felt the film *showed* conspiracy, which is why the government kept it under wraps all those years. Here's some stuff I put together: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxU0V1ck1GZFN6TWM https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxNm9MNTY3UHVrR1k Then you have the beveled outshoot in the back of the head (link below is animated GIF and may take a moment to load): https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Walton said: Nice work, Bill. I've never thought it was altered as well. I've always felt the film *showed* conspiracy, which is why the government kept it under wraps all those years. Here's some stuff I put together: The poor devil that walked in front of the guns sure paid the price. Holy smokes! I don't know what to say about the notch in the rear of the skull other than there is a good chance that it never existed. The doctors and others who saw the rear head wound had it about 5" in width and lower on the back of the skull which isn't seen in the official autopsy photos which makes that whole area suspect to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) For the benefit of Education Forum readers that may find this thread appearing at this point as a weak & sugary set-up to 'kiss up/suck up' to some unknown credentialed, amateur Internet 'self-proclaimed' visuals 'experts' (sorry, not naming any names), let me be the 1st to invite opposing opinions concerning the Z-film: David Lifton, Doug Horne & David Healy, where are you? BTW, Horne's alterations thesis concerns frames removal from the Z-film. Please explain how removing the Houston to Elm Street parade car turn, the parade car stop in front of the Newman family, JFK being pitched violently forward (as reported by Dan Rather on CBS TV News Monday, Nov 25 1963 after viewing the Z-film in Zapruder's office) and reported DPD motorcycle police activity affects film grain & produces noticeable differences in that grain? Aren't the z-film photo images displayed in this thread thus far all alterations of the Z-film in some way or another? For example: Jean Hill's raincoat was red, not orange. Respectfully, Brad Milch (playing devil's advocate for the benefit of EF readers not yet members & thus unable to post their own comments) Edited January 22, 2017 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 28 minutes ago, Brad Milch said: Aren't the z-film photo images displayed in this thread thus far all alterations of the Z-film in some way or another? For example: Jean Hill's raincoat was red, not orange. * It never fails to amaze me how different the Zapruder film, or frames therein, look, depending on where they can be found. The colour of the raincoat you mention is a good example... it was red, and yet in some places it appears to be orange (a result of the frame being over lightened - which is an alteration, by definition, although of no real concern imho) Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Bill - I'm a little puzzled. You pointed out a definite "avulsion" in JFK's head - you even have an arrow pointing to the "thing" that's kind of sticking out the back of his head as seen in the Nix film. My GIF shows that that hole is one of exit because it clearly has beveling as what you'd expect from an out shoot. So one plus plus equals two. Brad - sorry to burst your bubble but Lifton and Horne are money makers here - they're going to say outrageous things about the case to sell more books and DVDs. I don't - I'm only interested in the truth. Their theories about the film being faked are right up there in craziness just like Lifton's crazy "They snuck the body out of the airplane like mad scientists and did all manner of alterations on his body" theory. It's silly and outrageous and not everything in this case is a conspiracy. That's the problem with this case - the Bad Guys were NOT omnipotent - they couldn't just snap their fingers and say "here, paint a blob on the film" and "hey you, over there.....bring the body out of this exit door on the other side of the plane. hey, rick! don't forget when you cut open his head, make sure you make that blow out look like it came from oswald's building!" do you not see how outrageous this is, brad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted January 22, 2017 Author Share Posted January 22, 2017 It's time to move on. This will be my last post here. The replies on the things I've presented are entertaining. Some, are laugh out loud funny. Others, are bizarre and delusional. I'm going to continue this stroll through Dealey Plaza by stopping off at the Grassy Knoll. This wasn't a dull topic by any means with over 2,000 views in less than a week. I hope what I have presented will help people to a different understanding than what has been available for the last 50+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now