The Tippit Case in the New Millenium

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Who was it that originally pointed out that the head first went forward before snapping back? He has since come to the conclusion that it was an illusion caused by camera movement, and said by looking at the background you can spot the forward movement illusion.

Yeah....anything to avoid the obvious, I guess. (Just like my 2015 discussion with EF members re: the SBT.)

Edited May 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Gene Kelly]

Ron

The "Oswald's window" that you refer to was removed after the assassination - by the building's owner, D. H. Byrd - and mounted in his home!  Byrd was a rich Texas oil and gas entrepreneur who moved in conservative Dallas right-wing circles , an LBJ crony, and co-founder of the Civil Air Patrol.  if you read Joe McBride's book (page 314) he lays out some interesting coincidences.  The TSBD was vacant and unused, until Spring 1963 ... some think it was constructed as a deceptive 'Potemkin Village' (false front) for the assassin's lair.  Peter Dale Scott reported that Byrd profited $50M by buying 132,000 shares of Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) stock in November 1963, just before the JFK assassination. The stock increased in value once LBJ came to power and reversed Kennedy's troop withdrawal in Vietnam ... the first contract the Pentagon subsequently awarded was for a fighter jet to LTV.  Byrd was also close to the infamous Jack Crichton.

Gene 

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

The whole thing about the 1-2 frame forward movement was  misrepresented by DVP and Ayton in their book.  (What else is new?)

And Martin Hay, in his masterful demolition of that waste of paper, scored them for that error among many others.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ayton-mel-and-david-von-pein-beyond-reasonable-doubt

Thompson was the first guy to write about it.  But he was not the first guy to point it out.  That was Ray Marcus, and Thompson would admit that as the case.  In other words, it was the critics who first pointed out that almost undetectable forward bob.

Today, Thompson will tell you that he was wrong.  And he  feels badly about what he now says was a misleading observation.  Let me point out the relevant part of Martin's fine review.

In his online essay, Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, Thompson writes, "In the years since those measurements were made, I've learned I was wrong. Z312 is a clear frame while Z313 is smeared along a horizontal axis by the movement of Zapruder's camera. The white streak of curb against which Kennedy's head was measured is also smeared horizontally and this gives rise to an illusory movement of the head. Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator staff persuaded me several years ago that I had measured not the movement of Kennedy's head but the smear in frame 313. The two-inch forward movement was just not there." Thompson further explained in his 2013 Wecht symposium presentation, "Since highly exposed areas; that is bright areas of the film; have a whole lot of energy to them, if the shutter is open and the camera moved, then those highly energized areas will intrude into low energized areas. It's a basic photographic principle." Indeed, during his presentation Thompson demonstrated how this principle affected other objects in the Zapruder film besides Kennedy's head.

What all this means according to Thompson is that "there is no longer any solid evidence whatsoever that John Kennedy was hit in the head from the rear between 312 and 313." As Thompson's co-presenter, Keith Fitzgerald, demonstrated, JFK's head actually exhibits its fastest forward movement between frames 328 and 330, which just so happens to be precisely when the final shot from the Book Depository appears on the Dallas Police dictabelt recording if we align the Grassy Knoll shot with frame 313. This synchronization of audio and visual evidence fully supports the belief of Drs. Riley, Wecht, and Robertson that Kennedy's head was struck by two bullets; one from the front and one from the rear.

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

The whole thing about the 1-2 frame forward movement was  misrepresented by DVP and Ayton in their book.  (What else is new?)

And Martin Hay, in his masterful demolition of that waste of paper, scored them for that error among many others.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ayton-mel-and-david-von-pein-beyond-reasonable-doubt

Thompson was the first guy to write about it.  But he was not the first guy to point it out.  That was Ray Marcus, and Thompson would admit that as the case.  In other words, it was the critics who first pointed out that almost undetectable forward bob.

Today, Thompson will tell you that he was wrong.  And he  feels badly about what he now says was a misleading observation.  Let me point out the relevant part of Martin's fine review.

In his online essay, Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, Thompson writes, "In the years since those measurements were made, I've learned I was wrong. Z312 is a clear frame while Z313 is smeared along a horizontal axis by the movement of Zapruder's camera. The white streak of curb against which Kennedy's head was measured is also smeared horizontally and this gives rise to an illusory movement of the head. Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator staff persuaded me several years ago that I had measured not the movement of Kennedy's head but the smear in frame 313. The two-inch forward movement was just not there." Thompson further explained in his 2013 Wecht symposium presentation, "Since highly exposed areas; that is bright areas of the film; have a whole lot of energy to them, if the shutter is open and the camera moved, then those highly energized areas will intrude into low energized areas. It's a basic photographic principle." Indeed, during his presentation Thompson demonstrated how this principle affected other objects in the Zapruder film besides Kennedy's head.

What all this means according to Thompson is that "there is no longer any solid evidence whatsoever; whatsoever; that John Kennedy was hit in the head from the rear between 312 and 313." As Thompson's co-presenter, Keith Fitzgerald, demonstrated, JFK's head actually exhibits its fastest forward movement between frames 328 and 330, which just so happens to be precisely when the final shot from the Book Depository appears on the Dallas Police dictabelt recording if we align the Grassy Knoll shot with frame 313. This synchronization of audio and visual evidence fully supports the belief of Drs. Riley, Wecht, and Robertson that Kennedy's head was struck by two bullets; one from the front and one from the rear.

 

Thanks Jim - this is what I recalled but could not remember that it was Thompson who changed his mind.

dont you think we need a thread about Westbrook? 

[James DiEugenio]

Actually I do think so.

[David Von Pein]

On 5/27/2018 at 7:20 PM, James DiEugenio said:

The whole thing about the 1-2 frame forward movement was misrepresented by DVP and Ayton in their book. [DiEugenio is, as usual, dead wrong here. This topic was not "misrepresented" by Mel Ayton or myself in our book at all. Jimmy just doesn't want to believe the ITEK Corporation's findings, that's all.]

Jim is hilarious.

To think that the forward motion of JFK's head at Z313 is only being caused by the "blur" in the film is another example of "Ultimate CTer Denial In Action" --- especially since we know (and can SEE) that the President is being hit in the head WITH A BULLET at that exact moment in time on the Zapruder Film.

And yet, even though we know a high-speed bullet is definitely crashing into his skull at that EXACT instant, I'm supposed to believe that the ONLY thing that is causing the apparent "forward movement" of Kennedy's head is the "blur"???

Jim and Josiah are too funny for words!

Edited May 28, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Von Pein and Ayton misrepresented this issue in two ways.

First, they tried to insinuate that this bob forward was somehow ignored by the critical community.   What a bunch of malarkey.  Thompson's book was on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post. It had a large impact and sold well.  Second, they ignored Thompson's later discoveries with physicist Art Snyder about the smear on the film. I don't know if Davey is deliberately ignoring this, or if he just does not understand it.  I actually think its both. 

But just read the review by Martin Hay.

 Martin is one of our best contributors at Kennedys and King. He makes mincemeat out of what DVP calls a book.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ayton-mel-and-david-von-pein-beyond-reasonable-doubt

Edited May 28, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Jim,

Just keep looking at this super-slo-mo clip over and over a few times. And then try to convince yourself that the obvious forward motion of President Kennedy's head that you are seeing is being caused ONLY by a "smear" in the film. Good luck in convincing yourself of that fairy tale.

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Davey, is this supposed to be something we have never seen before?

Are you serious?  Or is it too late back in Hoosier country and you fell asleep watching Gene Hackman win the championship with Dennis Hopper?

That is not the argument partner.  You have not countered anything I said, or Thompson has said or Art Snyder said.  In fact, I do not even think you understand the arguments.  And there is  also something else: its Darrell Weatherly who worked out a mathematical equation about the smear which was in Livingstone's book.

Let me know when you try and counter it. 

(Sound of crickets in the night. E mail to McAdams.  Nothing.  E mail to Davison, "Who is Weatherly?" Email to Reitzes.  "Hey man, what is a smear?") )

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

...is it too late back in Hoosier country and you fell asleep watching Gene Hackman win the championship with Dennis Hopper?

Hey, that's a fine film. (One of my favorites.) And featured on my Classic Movies Website as well....

 

Quote

That is not the argument partner.  You have not countered anything I said, or Thompson has said or Art Snyder said.  In fact, I do not even think you understand the arguments.  And there is also something else: its [sic] Darrell Weatherly who worked out a mathematical equation about the smear which was in Livingstone's book.

Let me know when you try and counter it. 

(Sound of crickets in the night. E mail to McAdams.  Nothing.  E mail to Davison, "Who is Weatherly?" Email to Reitzes.  "Hey man, what is a smear?")

Nah. I don't need to e-mail anybody on this. I like my last post aimed at you much better....

"Just keep looking at this super-slo-mo clip over and over a few times. And then try to convince yourself that the obvious forward motion of President Kennedy's head that you are seeing is being caused ONLY by a "smear" in the film. Good luck in convincing yourself of that fairy tale." -- DVP

Only a "smear"!!??? LOL. What a crock.

P.S. to Jim --- Please learn how to spell the word it's. Do you ever spell it correctly (using the apostrophe)? I can't count the number of times I've had to add the proper punctuation to your posts when I'm transferring them to my site in order to maintain This Complete Archive Of The Conspiracy-Related Fantasies Of One James DiEugenio Of Los Angeles, California, USA. Thank you. (And apparently the misspelling of "it's" is contagious around here, because David Lifton just did it in his last post too, plus someone else did it just yesterday. Maybe it's an "EF thing". Strange.)

Edited May 29, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Oh I see, it's and "Go Hoosiers!"

 

And with that, Good Night.

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh I see, it's and "Go Hoosiers!"

And with that, Good Night.

Hey! You do have an apostrophe key after all! Excellent!

And, switching sports for a moment, even though I've been a Reds fan since 1970....

"Go Dodgers!"

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2012/04/cincinnati-reds-baseball-april-15-1972.html

Good night to you, Jim.

Edited May 29, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Hey, I finally found something on DVP's site where I agree with him about half the time.

HIs classic movies selection.

Granted, there are some really middle brow pieces of kitsch like Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur, and some low brow kitsch, Sound of Music, Star Wars, and The Ten Commandments plus some pretentious duds like In Cold Blood.

But there were some good pictures on it that I whole heartily endorse e.g. Lawrence of Arabia, The China Syndrome, The Exorcist, and American Graffiti.

So his cognitive impairment is only partial.  

[James DiEugenio]

By the way, there is a debate going on at DPF about the late witness to the Tippit killing, namely Jack Tatum.

This is the guy the HSCA discovered and said that Oswald delivered the coup de grace to Tippit by shooting at his head while he was on the ground.

Looking at the map, was not his car at 10th and Denver Street?  Was he driving on Denver at the time? Could he have really seen all that from that distance, down to the type of gun?

Or do I have his position wrong?

 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

...there is a debate going on at DPF [ Deep Politics Forum --- HERE ] about the late witness to the Tippit killing, namely Jack Tatum.

This is the guy the HSCA discovered and said that Oswald delivered the coup de grace to Tippit by shooting at his head while he was on the ground.

Looking at the map, was not his car at 10th and Denver Street?  Was he driving on Denver at the time? Could he have really seen all that from that distance, down to the type of gun?

Or do I have his position wrong?

You've got Tatum's position wrong, Jim. Tatum was on Tenth Street (having turned onto 10th from Denver) when he saw the shooting.

Jack Tatum re-created the shooting from his vantage point in his car for the PBS documentary "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" in 1993 (at 22:56 and 24:57 in the video below)....

https://drive.google.com / Video / "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" (PBS-TV) (1993) (Part 3)

Tatum was also a witness at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence mock trial in London, but unfortunately his segment was completely cut out of the televised version shown on Showtime Cable TV in '86. However, a couple of important excerpts from his testimony are revealed in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book. [See my next post.]

Edited June 1, 2018 by David Von Pein