"The Bastard Bullet" by Raymond Marcus

[Michael Clark]

Not only is James' link broken, but the (presumed) home URL, www.transferbigfiles.com is down.

[James R Gordon]

Yes I agree something strange is going on. I am hoping the site has not gone out of buisness because I have a subscription to it. I use it a great deal. I am aurprised I have received no email from them. Hopefully I will hear from them soon.

[James R Gordon]

I see the site is back up again.

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

I see the site is back up again.

I downloaded those documents and you can access them here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mfcR2nDWO7sMTh23anJkNThygFf4Ya0B/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13G9YpvX-cOIBp2es-dHqYaVJxd-fkjUv/view?usp=sharing

I enjoyed reading them both and they're very informative.  I especially like reading the 60's era researchers because they don't revert to ridiculous and outrageously phony conspiracies - no BS - that you can find on this forum.  Hardly Lee and the fake Z film come to mind and Markus confirmed with his story that the Z film is not fake.

I mean, think about it.  If world-class conspiracy agents would faked the Z film, why in the world did they leave in the part Markus talks about which clearly shows the shooting sequence to be nearly impossible with the piece of junk Oswald was supposed to have used? They'd have to be the most bumbling agents in history.  But as Markus says in his paper, and as I've said here over and over, the film SHOWS conspiracy and it's why it was kept away from the public for so long.  But of course the paranoid faction on this forum will call me names and say I'm wrong and look at all of this Math to prove it's fake and blah blah blah LOL

Allen Dulles - I think Paul Trejo and Tom Graves are going to love when they read this LOL

But below are three pages from the paper. The ongoing story about Allen Dulles was he was in on it, knew what was going to happen, planned it out and so on.

So I ask here - really? It's always been amazing about how a fired government bureaucrat could have got himself on this "blue ribbon" WC panel. But if Dulles had really been involved, is it entirely possible that he'd be this totally clueless about what was going on with the stretcher bullet?  I'm guessing not likely.  If he had been involved, he would have kept his mouth shut here and not said anything and let Specter do all of the work.  After all, Oswald was already dead so it was just a mere formality to go through the motions here with the WC - they ALL knew what the outcome was going to be anyway.

But he's actually showing interest to a reported other bullet that was supposedly found on Kennedy's stretcher - this could actually have been another wholly intact bullet that fell out of his back wound, which I think personally happened. But this Dulles testimony that Markus mentions here actually confirms for me that I really don't think Dulles was involved.

[Chris Davidson]

On 3/7/2018 at 8:31 AM, Michael Walton said:

I enjoyed reading them both and they're very informative.  I especially like reading the 60's era researchers because they don't revert to ridiculous and outrageously phony conspiracies - no BS - that you can find on this forum.  Hardly Lee and the fake Z film come to mind and Markus confirmed with his story that the Z film is not fake.

I mean, think about it.  If world-class conspiracy agents would faked the Z film, why in the world did they leave in the part Markus talks about which clearly shows the shooting sequence to be nearly impossible with the piece of junk Oswald was supposed to have used? They'd have to be the most bumbling agents in history.  But as Markus says in his paper, and as I've said here over and over, the film SHOWS conspiracy and it's why it was kept away from the public for so long.  But of course the paranoid faction on this forum will call me names and say I'm wrong and look at all of this Math to prove it's fake and blah blah blah LOL

 I think Paul Trejo and Tom Graves are going to love when they read this LOL

 

 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ve0_Hbu57-dN6_J13YGT2WNNnCurtgxa/view

I encourage everyone to look at this comparative video.

The top is the extant film. 

The bottom is reflective of this equation:

1296 = 486 x 2.66666 (48/18)
354.6666666 = 133 x 2.66666 (48/18)
941.33333 = (1296 - 354.66666)
470.666666 = (941.3333 / 2)
470.666666 - 25% = (1/2 x 1/2) =
353

Which in the end, removed 72.8% of the entire film.    

353/1296

Think about it folks.

Do you know what the odds are, applying the above equation to the original film and having it sync with the remaining extant zfilm. 

The proof of concept is in the bottom video. 

When a fan-boy tells you what "is and isn't" possible without doing any research to prove otherwise, you might want to take it with a grain of salt.

I encourage you to take my sliced down version and run it side by side with the Nix film.

How do you know I used many more frames? Just look at the frame # and you'll see ghost numbers throughout the entire run. Those being frames that once were.

If you don't have an idea of what needed to be accomplished, how would you know where to start.

Added on edit: This is what it looked like before the frames were removed:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tIR2rrNCmu2Mb8nLJB-ZGkXGGii5ktrO/view?usp=sharing

 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Chris Davidson

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:24 AM, James R Gordon said:

I came across another article that Raymond wrote on the Single Bullet.

Link to file is here:-

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/9689ad80-bad8-47d8-92d9-9c0869bbaee1/CUx97jVIvPM-dA27-99zUw2

James

This bears study.  I've avoided conversation about the Z film like the plague between the arguments over alteration and arguments over details in whichever version of a  altered or unaltered version someone believes in.  E.G. the limo stopped.  No it did Not!.  No, no, no It slowed down, an important point.  It focuses on, and seems to document, an aspect I've never really looked at or been exposed to much.  That JFK was hit in the throat before he went behind the sign in the film.  I've looked online at some more modern "enhanced" frames and it still looks like his hands go toward his throat as well as confirming action by others regarding something being amiss.  I know this is a can of worms well dissected by, experts.   

Edited March 10, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[Ron Bulman]

Though the term Bastard Bullet may have spawned the term Magic Bullet they are not the same.  The Bastard Bullet went in JFK's throat and was never really claimed except that afternoon by Dr. Malcom Perry three times the afternoon of the assassination.  The Magic Bullet went in JFK's back at the 3rd thoracic vertebrate, turned up and exited below his Adam's apple, turned down again, entered Governor Connally's right arm pit, plowed along a rib bone, exited his nipple, broke a wrist bone,  and deflected into his thigh.  Then fell out.  Leaving more of it in him than is missing from it.  Arlen Specter and Allen Dulles claimed this baby.      

[Michael Walton]

On 3/8/2018 at 3:04 PM, Chris Davidson said:

he bottom is reflective of this equation:

1296 = 486 x 2.66666 (48/18)
354.6666666 = 133 x 2.66666 (48/18)
941.33333 = (1296 - 354.66666)
470.666666 = (941.3333 / 2)
470.666666 - 25% = (1/2 x 1/2) =
353

Which in the end, removed 72.8% of the entire film.    

353/1296

These numbers make absolutely no sense.  And here is the ultimate proof that neither film was edited or altered in any way - two cameras running at approximately the same FPS by two different people totally unrelated to one another. Their films have been matched up - and all movements are exactly the same. So if 72% (in the past Chris said it was 67% so I guess he's made either a calculation error or correction since then) of the frames were removed, do you really think that these two films would be matched up perfectly like below?

Unless of course the Nix film was by some chance recorded at a higher FPS and a percentage of frames were removed from THAT film as well.

And of course the biggest and unsaid question of all - WHY were the frames removed in the first place? WHAT would those removed frames reveal about the film that they needed to be removed? Chris, do you care to elaborate?

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Michael Walton

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 8:32 PM, Ron Bulman said:

This bears study.  I've avoided conversation about the Z film like the plague between the arguments over alteration and arguments over details in whichever version of a  altered or unaltered version someone believes in.  E.G. the limo stopped.  No it did Not!.  No, no, no It slowed down, an important point.  It focuses on, and seems to document, an aspect I've never really looked at or been exposed to much.  That JFK was hit in the throat before he went behind the sign in the film.  I've looked online at some more modern "enhanced" frames and it still looks like his hands go toward his throat as well as confirming action by others regarding something being amiss.  I know this is a can of worms well dissected by, experts.   

The frame by frame analysis of before the sign is very important in conjunction with the actual frames presented.  They are subject to personal interpretation.  While some may present valid reasons for better ones I end up here looking for better frame by frame interpretation.

http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Interesting the film get's blurry right before JFK goes behind the sign.  Like Zapruder reacted to a car backfire (none reported), firecracker - the sound reported by some as such but no evidence of it, or to the sound of a gunshot? 

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[Michael Walton]

13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Interesting the film get's blurry right before JFK goes behind the sign.  Like Zapruder reacted to a car backfire (none reported), firecracker - the sound reported by some as such but no evidence of it, or to the sound of a gunshot? 

It was a hand held camera, Ron, shooting on a medium that is as big as a pinky nail with a lens that was consumer grade - and not that great considering 60's era tech. He was zoomed in from a decent distance away from the subject - this make it harder to hold a steady shot from each and every frame especially without a tripod. The point being, this was not a phone camera with 20 megapixels and with an auto stabilization and on a tripod. There's going to be jiggle and movements from frame to frame.