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
George Sawtelle

Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Have you lost your mind?  

Keyvan, aside from being discourteous, rude, a deflection and an ad hominem, it is against the rules of the forum to question the mental faculties of another member.

I am basing my debate on a video???  YES, the Zapruder film video.

You posted the YouTube video. You supported it's analysis. You own it. Your reference to the Z-film is a deflection.

 You need to step up your game!  You are hell bent on debunking this, you need to learn how to debate.  I will give you a quick educational primer after my response.

Yawn...

Here is the Bronson film from the sixth floor depository.  Bronson was using a similar camera that Zapruder was using.  Those cameras when they are in full zoom, capture a reflection to the left side of the film.  Here is a video of the same effect from the Bronson film  You can see a reflection starting at about 33 seconds (Not of the rooftop gunman). BTW, with this film, you can also infer the length of time that took for the crowd to gather and rush up the hill.

 http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/search@/0/title-asc?t:state:flow=db56de8d-96a0-4e28-b46f-3a0d3b91b45e

Not interested in more deflections. Your support of CRB shooter reflections in the Z camera has been noted. Those sprocket area reflections have been debunked as absurd.

As for your debate skills:When I present constructive debate points, you need cross examine my affirmative position.  Not come up with red herrings trying to distract everyone of your god awful negative position.  What does a YouTube Channel having disabled comments or using negative connotations have to do with your answer?  You can do better, I have a feeling that you can, take a really good negative position and let the chips fall where they may!

I'll leave that for whoever stumbles upon it to chew on.

Michael, It just crossed my mind that you might be a lone nutter theorist.  Are you a lone nutter theorist?

Uhhhh... no.

 

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Running for cover????  Where are you getting this from?  Do you believe that I stated that they where running for cover when they rushed up the grassy know minutes after the assassination occurred?  If you believe that, can you show me where I mentioned that?

The video you posted makes that assertion. You own it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Not interested in more deflections. Your support of CRB shooter reflections in the Z camera has been noted. Those sprocket area reflections have been debunked as absurd.

Can you cite who has debunked the assertion that you can catch a reflection on the left side of the sprocket film area in a Bell & Howell video camera?  I have a feeling that you are debunking this assertion all by yourself.  Have you or who ever you claim to have debunked this done any testing?  Can I see the results of the test?  Do you have a report on this?  Can you provide this information before you make baseless claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Can you cite who has debunked the assertion that you can catch a reflection on the left side of the sprocket film area in a Bell & Howell video camera?  I have a feeling that you are debunking this assertion all by yourself.  Have you or who ever you claim to have debunked this done any testing?  Can I see the results of the test?  Do you have a report on this?  Can you provide this information before you make baseless claims?

Keyvan, You and your posted video are claiming that the Z-film cought a reflection of a County Records Building rooftop shooter in the sprocket area of the film. That anomoly is present in a large majority of the Z-frames, including frames that were exposed while the camera was pointed AWAY from the County Records Building.

In fact, you "double-downed" on that claim.

It's an assertion with a built-in, automatic, hands-free self-debunking feature. That feature worked flawlessly, I must say.

And, I just checked.... that anomoly is present on two of the last three frames of the z-film, when the camera is pointed west, into the trees.

 

Frame 484

z484.jpg

 

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Keyvan, You and your posted video are claiming that the Z-film cought a reflection of a County Records Building rooftop shooter in the sprocket area of the film. That anomoly is present in a large majority of the Z-frames, including frames that were exposed while the camera was pointed AWAY from the County Records Building.

In fact, you "double-downed" on that claim.

It's an assertion with a built-in, automatic, hands-free self-debunking feature. That feature worked flawlessly, I must say.

And, I just checked.... that anomoly is present on two of the last three frames of the z-film, when the camera is pointed west, into the trees.

 

Frame 484

Keyvan>>   I triple down on that claim.  Here is the explanation as to why the roof top gunman is shown in each frame.  It was because the film is 16mm and the camera frames are 8mm.  That is a double image from in between the sprockets that are repeated again when the film starts using the other side of the film.

 

Regardless, I am going to conduct a test similar to what Zapruder did with a Bell & Howell camera at Dealey Plaza in November 2017.  I will share my results here.

 

 

 

Edited by Keyvan Shahrdar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogue thoughts from Tosh Plumlee:

Well, as we say in CIA. "There's many, many rogues out there." You have just as many rogues in Mafia.

* * *

That's why I don't feel that any direct involvement on a high level from our government was involved in the Kennedy assassination but I certainly believe that there were certainly rogues within CIA, rogues within military intelligence, rogues within Mafia, and rogues within high-ups in the National Security Council that was certainly aware that an attempt was gonna be made.

Apparently there was a stampede of inculpability upon the land, approaching the proportions of a disaster movie.

Tosh Plumlee Transcript

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael

It would have been simpler to say .. George I don't believe you and here's why.

Please explain why my theory is illogical. Maybe we can learn something about the assassination from our discussion.

Edited by George Sawtelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David

Plumlee mentioning rogues and CIA in the same sentence means a rogue unit within the CIA killed Kennedy. That is a huge leap. Please explain.

There are rogues everywhere, at work, in sports, politics. So what?

Edited by George Sawtelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George, If I were to do that, I would be obliged to quote you, point-by-point to demonstrate the problems with your line of reasoning and the premises of your argument. That is not a courtesy that you extend to the reader who is trying to follow you. Indeed, you tell the reader that it is all on the internet and they can find it themselves. 

You refuse to quote sources. You refuse to provide the statements of members To which you take exception. Why would I extend that courtesy when the lack of that courtesy, on your part,is the real source of the problem?

For example, a reader who comes across this very post of mine has absolutely no idea what I am responding to. They have to go back and try to find it in order to make any sense out of it.... to put it in context. The reader may not want to do that. The reader may not be successful in doing that. In this case the post to which I am responding is three posts back,... not hard to find; but can the reader even be sure that that post is the one to which I am responding? Not really.

Its a simple thing, demonstrated all over this forum everyday. Indeed the existence of the quote function speaks for itself. I don't understand why you do not do it. I tried to help. There is not much more I can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael

You know my theory. You should be able to tell me why it is not logical.

Forget about quotes or extending courtesy, putting anything in context. 

Be honest and stop with the BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

David

Plumlee mentioning rogues and CIA in the same sentence means a rogue unit within the CIA killed Kennedy. That is a huge leap. Please explain.

There are rogues everywhere, at work, in sports, politics. So what?

Plumlee:

Well, as we say in CIA. "There's many, many rogues out there."

If people were saying that at CIA, it tends to sound like a cynical cop-out - just as disingenuous as it sounds coming from Plumlee.  The quotation carries its own implicit meaning that "many" rogues were sanctioned by authority to carry out policy as cut-outs for the policymakers in office.

"My goodness, all these rogues!  Why are we not putting a stop to this?  We're up to our a** in rogues out here!"

I mean. really - for how many decades is this dodge supposed to work?  Why does it work on you, George?  "Rogues" equals "Nobody's guilty."

"Blasted rogues, they've killed our president!  Something must be done."  But nothing was, until some "rogues" were under subpoena.  Why was that, exactly? 

EDITED FOR CLARITY

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Plumlee:

Well, as we say in CIA. "There's many, many rogues out there."

If people were saying that at CIA, it tends to sound like a cynical cop-out - just as disingenuous as it sounds coming from Plumlee.  Meaning that "many" rogues were sanctioned by authority to carry out policy as cut-outs for the policymakers in office.

"My goodness, all these rogues!  Why are we not putting a stop to this?  We're up to our a** in rogues, out here!"

I mean. really - how many decades is this dodge supposed to work?  Why does it work on you, George?  "Rogues" equals "Nobody's guilty."

"Blasted rogues, they've killed our president!  Something must be done."  But nothing was, until some "rogues" were under subpoena.  Why was that, exactly? 

If there was a like icon on the site I'd probably have clicked it and remained anonymous.  That rouge David Morales, not.  That rouge David Phillips, promoted to Chief of the Western Hemisphere. 

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

×