Robert Hughes And The Cut Apart Policeman

[Robin Unger]

I just checked my Groden DVD containing the Hughes film.

That version is garbage, it has multiple interlaced frames.

The fact that the frames are interlaced are self evident on viewing the film, and yet you still chose to use one of the interlaced frames and post it in this forum as evidence of alteration.

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Robin Unger

[Thomas Graves]

24 minutes ago, Robin Unger said:

I just checked my Groden DVD containing the Hughes film.

That version is garbage, it has multiple interlaced frames.

The fact that the frames are interlaced are self evident on viewing the film, and yet you still chose to use one of the interlaced frames and post it in this forum as evidence of alteration.

 

Thanks Robin.

Some people aren't happy unless they see "evidence" of a conspiracy EVERYWHERE.

Even though it doesn't help us solve the crime of The Crime of the 21st Century.

LOL

--  Tommy 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

35 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Unger, 

You haven't proved anything.  How does this relate to your claim of "fake composites"?  Most assassination films have those kind of blurry frames in them.  Garbage?  Maybe, in your opinion.

You have something better with deleted frames?  At least I haven't altered photos as you have to suit your warped bias.  From Oswald passport photo to now you have corrupted the visual record of these posts through photo manipulation and a claim of psuedo technical knowledge.

I'm from Central Ky.  Do yo have this kind of saying down in Australia?  "Crooked as a dogs hindleg and twice as dirty".

Why are you accusing Robin of having a "warped bias"?

Do you think he's a LNer?

Are you accusing him of intellectual dishonesty?

Edited March 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Robin Unger]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Unger, 

You haven't proved anything.  How does this relate to your claim of "fake composites"?  Most assassination films have those kind of blurry frames in them.  Garbage?  Maybe, in your opinion.

You have something better with deleted frames?  At least I haven't altered photos as you have to suit your warped bias.  From Oswald passport photo to now you have corrupted the visual record of these posts through photo manipulation and a claim of psuedo technical knowledge.

I'm from Central Ky.  Do yo have this kind of saying down in Australia?  "Crooked as a dogs hindleg and twice as dirty".

What the hell are you raving on about ?

In 20-years of Research i have NEVER once talked about Oswald's passport ?

I could care less about Oswald research or his passport. ?

[Bill Miller]

On 3/11/2017 at 5:44 AM, Alistair Briggs said:

Alas, that is not true whatsoever. The other thread had nothing to do with photographs or the day of the assassination, so why Brad decided to post in it about a photo on the day of the assassination is, well, unkown really. And he directed his post directly to me and I responded, apparently responding to someone asking you a question is 'trolling' and unless one agrees 100% then they are put on 'ignore'. lol

Anyway,

here is the video link that Brad posted in the other thread if you are interested in it John. (btw, as Brad said in the other thread - " Possible Hearing Damage Warning! Turn your headphones volume way down during the beginning of the video! ")

A very interesting video indeed.

Regards

Blevens is one of the worst at evaluating film evidence as anyone I have ever seen. I too bought a copy of the same negative of Dillard's from the Dallas Morning News and doesn't show anyone in that window. But more importantly is that the alleged Oswald face is further from Dillard's camera than the faces/heads of the men on the 5th floor and if that was a real person as Bleven's claims, then the head is too large to be that of Oswald's when compared to the heads seen in the 5th floor window.

I also might add that Bleven's never mentions the absence of the body if standing so close to the glass. I put Bleven's claim right along side of his claim that Greer shot JFK with a chrome plated hand gun which in reality was the sun shining off of Kellerman's head. Bleven's misread the film without noticing that Greer's two hands were visible with on near the door panel and the other on the steering wheel. Another observation he missed was that if Greer was shooting a hand gun at JFK (one the no witness ever saw) Greer's left arm would be crossing over his torso to take aim and all of Greer's white shirt is seen.  Welcome to the world of Leroy Blevins Sr.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Bill Miller

[John Butler]

Mr. Gordon,

Robin Unger's modification of the Lee Harvey Oswald passport and our conversation about it has disappeared from:

Lee Harvey Oswald's passport photo real or not?

I will not participate in a rigged game.  Remove my membership from this forum.

[Michael Walton]

Thanks Robin.

Some people aren't happy unless they see "evidence" of a conspiracy EVERYWHERE.

Even though it doesn't help us solve the crime of The Crime of the 21st Century.

LOL

-----------------------

Tom - stop stealing my lines on this forum and come up with your own  I'll have you know I'm currently patenting the line conspiracy is everywhere.

RU and TG - John simply does not want to learn anything new. Or he's one of the all-time great t###s on this forum. Probably a little bit of both.

 

[Brad Milch]

@Bill Miller

I consider your analysis of the Blevins Dillard photo as adequate to the debate. I do hope Mr. Blevins reads what you wrote & responds here at EF or in his future YouTube visual analysis videos. I'll have to go through all his videos on his channel to determine what else he has analyzed in the JFK ambush films before I draw my own opinion as to how good or bad his take on the JFK visuals is.

Since you tell us that you bought the same negative of the Dillard photo that Mr. Blevins used in his analysis video with the difference being your photo shows nothing in the sniper's nest window vs. Mr. Blevins shows what appears to be LHO's half body in the photo, questions should arise as to what the heck is going on here? Who got punked, Blevins or Miller (lol). Or is Blevins guilty of punking us all? Perhaps you might post a copy of your Dillard photo so that EF readers can compare it to the images Mr. Blevins has presented in his YouTube analysis video?

For me, like the rest of the controversy that continuously swirls around the JFK assassination, it's a case of black & white, it is or it isn't. The image is LHO, or it isn't.

I honestly can't remember when I first saw the Dillard photo. Whether it was on TV, newspapers or books, I don't recall attention being drawn to a face in the window until just recently. If the image has been manipulated somewhere in the timeline of the Dillard photo, that should lead to an investigation of the matter that might settle the issue one way or another. If the Dillard image was the victim of manipulation, EF readers should note that the manipulated image (if it was) was not passed off to the public as showing LHO in the sniper's nest window by any of the early investigators (including the DPD, Dallas County Sheriff's Dept., FBI & WC). The MSM didn't draw attention to the 'LHO face' in the Dillard image either. So why is the LHO face there in Mr. Bleviins' version of the Dillard photo (since the photo wasn't used to either incriminate LHO or used as proof he wasn't a shooter)?

If the image is genuine, I see what appears to be LHO leaning forward behind 2 stacks of boxes, one stack closer to the window than the stack behind it with a camera up to his face. In private correspondence, some friends of mine see a microphone (as from a walkie talkie) up to 'LHO's' mouth, as if he's talking to someone on a radio.

None of us sees things exactly the same. That's one of the reasons I would never attempt to be a visuals analyst. I know from my own experiences in life that some people wouldn't see the ocean (if pointed out to them) if they fell into it face first (lol).

Sincerely,

Brad Milch

Edited March 16, 2017 by Brad Milch

[Michael Walton]

Kathy, I concur and this is what I've been trying to say all along with John Butler's posts.  Believe me when I say that everyone has a right to post stuff here within reason, and perhaps far-fetched.  But time and again, Butler, when you disagree with him, starts dragging you through the mud.  If you keep at it with him, then he snitches and reports you and you get warned or removed. Even if you try to post sensible, reasonable stuff here to help him learn something, he completely ignores you.

 

[Robin Unger]

10 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Just an FYI:

This is regarding the post that Mr. Butler made to James, re Robin removing a conversation on the passport thread. I reviewed the thread about Oswald's passports photo here:

Robin is a respected member of this community, and I believe it is important to clear his name, in regard to this. I cannot see where Robin contributed anywhere to it, and the flow of the thread appears continuous.

 

 

Thanks Kathy

I now expect an apology from John Butler.

 

[Brad Milch]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:17 AM, Kathy Beckett said:

Just an FYI:

This is regarding the post that Mr. Butler made to James, re Robin removing a conversation on the passport thread. I reviewed the thread about Oswald's passports photo here:

Robin is a respected member of this community, and I believe it is important to clear his name, in regard to this. I cannot see where Robin contributed anywhere to it, and the flow of the thread appears continuous.

 

@Kathy:

Setting up a phony agitator or 'disillusioned' researcher is an old trolling trick used in JFK forum after JFK forum. I suspect if that was the case here at EF, the purpose was to demonstrate that JFK CT visuals analysts are the bad guys & those that don't believe any of the JFK visuals were alteration victims are the 'good guys'.

I believe it was Jim DiEugenio that warned the Forum in the past couple weeks that ROKC comedian wanna-be's had infiltrated EF. If Jim's warning is accurate & my suspicions are correct, the EF admin & readers are being played by sick minds.

Flooding the 1st page topic board with frivolous topics is another trolling trick. It's purpose is to knock serious topics that are of interest to EF readers out of sight, back to page 2, 3 & beyond. The more elaborate ones will have animated gif's posted to 'back up' the questions raised in the topic title. For example: "Is the meridian guy in the coveralls hiding a weapon as JFK drives by?" or 'Is the woman in red stealing the purse from the woman in pink on the Elm Street sidewalk?, followed by a looped Zapruder film animation are examples of the Forum being punked by sickos.

Len Osanic had a good list of how to spot when a JFK forum has been invaded by trollers posted at his Black Ops Radio blog site. It should still be posted there. It's free to read.

If Robin never gets his apology due him, it will probably be because his 'agaitator' was never here at EF in the 1st place.

Respectfully & Sincerely,

Brad Milch 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Brad Milch

[Robin Unger]

Bottom line, i was accused of doing something i did not do.

Time for John Butler to man up and apologize.

You can spin that any way you want Brad, if a person wants to post outlandish alteration theories on a forum

then they should be prepared for people like myself to come along and challenge their findings.

[James DiEugenio]

BM: I believe it was Jim DiEugenio that warned the Forum in the past couple weeks that ROKC comedian wanna-be's had infiltrated EF. If Jim's warning is accurate & my suspicions are correct, the EF admin & readers are being played by sick minds.

 

I don't recall doing this. It might have been Mike Walton.

[Chris Scally]

Robin:

I wouldn't bother waiting for that apology - I suspect that we won't be hearing further from "Mr. Butler".

 

[Bill Miller]

On 3/14/2017 at 9:47 AM, Brad Milch said:

@Bill Miller

I consider your analysis of the Blevins Dillard photo as adequate to the debate. I do hope Mr. Blevins reads what you wrote & responds here at EF or in his future YouTube visual analysis videos. I'll have to go through all his videos on his channel to determine what else he has analyzed in the JFK ambush films before I draw my own opinion as to how good or bad his take on the JFK visuals is.

Since you tell us that you bought the same negative of the Dillard photo that Mr. Blevins used in his analysis video with the difference being your photo shows nothing in the sniper's nest window vs. Mr. Blevins shows what appears to be LHO's half body in the photo, questions should arise as to what the heck is going on here? Who got punked, Blevins or Miller (lol). Or is Blevins guilty of punking us all? Perhaps you might post a copy of your Dillard photo so that EF readers can compare it to the images Mr. Blevins has presented in his YouTube analysis video?

For me, like the rest of the controversy that continuously swirls around the JFK assassination, it's a case of black & white, it is or it isn't. The image is LHO, or it isn't.

I honestly can't remember when I first saw the Dillard photo. Whether it was on TV, newspapers or books, I don't recall attention being drawn to a face in the window until just recently. If the image has been manipulated somewhere in the timeline of the Dillard photo, that should lead to an investigation of the matter that might settle the issue one way or another. If the Dillard image was the victim of manipulation, EF readers should note that the manipulated image (if it was) was not passed off to the public as showing LHO in the sniper's nest window by any of the early investigators (including the DPD, Dallas County Sheriff's Dept., FBI & WC). The MSM didn't draw attention to the 'LHO face' in the Dillard image either. So why is the LHO face there in Mr. Bleviins' version of the Dillard photo (since the photo wasn't used to either incriminate LHO or used as proof he wasn't a shooter)?

If the image is genuine, I see what appears to be LHO leaning forward behind 2 stacks of boxes, one stack closer to the window than the stack behind it with a camera up to his face. In private correspondence, some friends of mine see a microphone (as from a walkie talkie) up to 'LHO's' mouth, as if he's talking to someone on a radio.

None of us sees things exactly the same. That's one of the reasons I would never attempt to be a visuals analyst. I know from my own experiences in life that some people wouldn't see the ocean (if pointed out to them) if they fell into it face first (lol).

Sincerely,

Brad Milch

I will try and find it when I get back to BC next month. I bought a copy negative directly from the Dallas Morning News.