Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jake Hammond

The turn on to Elm ...

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Faked? No.

Altered and edited... yes. 

......

Now you answer... the copy to Rowley in DC.... what happens to this copy after viewed in DC early morning Saturday?

what role did Abe’s partner play in all this and what does he say...

when do YOU think Hawkeyeworks has any film with which to work?

finally, you aware what Mrs. Z tells us about Friday night?

I look forward to real answers JC... 

Not faked, but altered and edited ?
Semantics ?
Ok, I'll try to reply to you later on today.
(who's JC ?)

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Not faked, but altered and edited ?
Semantics ?
Ok, I'll try to reply to you later on today.
(who's JC ?)

FC... sorry..

not semantics at all... HUGE diff between Faked and Altered...  Z did film the scene... so not Faked... yet what we see today is not all that was on the in camera original....

Faked.. forge or counterfeit

Altered... change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way

Try to remember the film is in 8 pieces

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, as always, presents evidence, visual aids, real data.

 

FC deflects and distracts.  DVP offers opinion.  

 

Can't debate those that ignore data,  facts.  They'll just point "hey look over there"  rather than deal with what's true.  Splices.  Multiple splices . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Sure, sure, Mister I-know-best Josephs, the Zapruder film was faked. OK. And the backyard photos were faked too. And the autopsy x-rays were faked too. And there were two Oswalds. etc.…
You know best.
Just one little question : the lady in pink who was in the limousine : was it the real Jackie or was it a look-alike ? Please tell me. I'd like to know.

FWIW - the rebuttal of a LNer...

FC - ever hear of COINTELPRO TECHNIQUES FOR DISRUPTING FORUMS?

Here are a few which apply perfectly...  :up

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

FWIW - the rebuttal of a LNer...

FC - ever hear of COINTELPRO TECHNIQUES FOR DISRUPTING FORUMS?

Here are a few which apply perfectly...  :up

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

 

'Zactly.  FC in another thread talking about LHO's own actions as proof. Presumably like vehemently denying he shot anyone.  It really feels like we've had a couple of disinfo artists deployed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally agree with most of what David Josephs says particularly the following.  The following is a general response for a lot of the things I've posted:

     47 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

FWIW - the rebuttal of a LNer...

FC - ever hear of COINTELPRO TECHNIQUES FOR DISRUPTING FORUMS?

Here are a few which apply perfectly...  :up

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance."

What is stated above can't be said better in such a short discussion.  I would like to have a reference for all of the points on cointelpro techniques, after all Josephs once accused me as being a cointellpro agent and has said from time to time I should be ignored for "playing" people on the forum for fools. 

But, then there are things I disagree with and this plus other things are why I am on his ignore list. The following is an example:

"      2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Faked? No.

Altered and edited... yes. "

I would rewrite that as:

Faked?  Yes.

Altered and edited...yes."

Altered and edited means faked.

The cointelpro statements are how I feel when trying to discuss things with certain folks like Ray Mitcham.  Ray has from time to time told me he is not a Lone Gunner (my term for a Lone Nutter) and I believe him.  But, not on much of his arguments.

 

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Can any CTer here tell us exactly WHY anyone would have wanted to remove any Z-Film frames that show the limo PRIOR to Z-frame 133? Nobody had actually been HIT by any bullets as of Z133. So what's the purpose of needing those frames removed (even from the POV of a CTer, or a "conspirator")?

You'd have to read the MATH RULES thread to understand the significance of these changes... the frame from which the limo emerges from the turn onto Elm and Position A are related... are you aware how?

Are you also aware that SHANEYFELT moved the path of the limo south for each one of the dots with frame #'s on the plat?

Survey%20and%20line%20art%20of%20limo%20

 

In essence, Shaneyfelt's move has 166 become 171 ala CE884..  .9 feet in 3 frames becomes .9ft in 5 frames - less than 3mph...
do you see the limo  moving at les than 3mph at 161 thru 166?

CE884%20-%20161-166%20and%20166-171%20ve

 

5a8c48014f247_168-171910thsofafoottraveled161-166changedto168-171inCE884.jpg.2f55151decbb23dd2e94455d08836a46.jpg

The only thing for sure... if you remove that turn, you can start the frame counter at any number you'd (Shaneyfelt) like.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. 

Dave... isn't the "farthest distance" to frame 133? 

What happens between 132 and 161 ? 
the syncing of the Towner film (at over 22 fps instead of the usual 16-18 fps) to Zapruder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I would like to have a reference for all of the points on cointelpro techniques

John...  Google, you might have heard of it??

And no John, I don't think you're a Cointelpro agent...  just that you and others use the techniques when confronted with actual evidence in support of a concept

While there have been agents in the JFK forums - and many probably still are - it doesn't take very long to separate wheat from shaft

Cointelpro_zpsi4z2eo2k.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

Thanks for your reply,

I'm having an increasingly hard time Googling anything and not getting anything but LN sites.  The simplest questions to often come up with nonsense and LN literature.  This has occurred for a period of time over a year.  This Google bias has been present since I ran a website on the Kennedy Assassination where I was free to entertain my speculations and theories.  The cite was very anti LN theories and most CT theories.

As far as my responses on the forum, I try to be as honest as I possibly can be based on the evidence I see.  However, a great deal of my theorizing is so outre and foreign to the thinking on the forum I often run into trouble from good people such as yourself.  Example:  I'm sure you recall the Mary Moorman business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I had posted this earlier but, don't see it.  One more try.

Jake Hammond   

  • Advanced Member
  •  
  • Jake Hammond
  • Members
  •  
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male

Initially this was going to be a question to LNers , along the lines of ‘ how do you explain the destruction, damage or cutting of several of the video and images showing the turn on to Elm?’ . Before inserting ones foot  in ones mouth however it may be prudent to ask if anyone knows of an good image showing this ? There is one I believe but it’s cropped quite tightly on the lower part of the car . Also , is there any GOOD evidence of the Z film been seen by people avec le turn ? 

Thank you

Edited Wednesday at 06:50 AM by Jake Hammond

The turn on Elm Street is an interesting topic.  I have spoken about that on various occasions here and elsewhere.  It is a huge problem not only for LNs but, for CTs also.  If you look at the presidential limo turning on Elm Street and pay attention to what the visual media show and more importantly what it doesn’t show then you will develop doubts about the main visual evidence for the assassination of JFK.  Particularly, The Zapruder film, Mary Moorman’s photo, Altgens 5, 6, 7, Muchmore, Nix, and most of the other assassination films.  All of these films and photos have been altered and edited.

 

There are many witnesses who said the president was shot in the head as the presidential limo turned onto Elm Street and others said they heard shots when the limo was in front of the TSBD.  Of 50+ witnesses I surveyed (those closest to the 6th floor Sniper’s Nest), over half stated something similar to the above statement.

I use Robert Groden’s The Assassination Films DVD from 1995.  I like the DVD because I think you can trust the images displayed in the various films.  I don’t think you can do that with newer, clearer images from enchanced films.  True, the DVD has poor imagery but, it is sufficient to interpret what is going on in the films.

 

The films on Groden’s DVD generally become so disturbed and disrupted you can not see what is going on in front of the Court Records Building on Houston Street.  If the Film’s content is not disrupted then it will skip pass the intersection generally out to Elm Street.  The exception is Robert Hughes but, the intersection and limousine is section is of such poor quality that you can not see what is going on in the limousine.

 

What happen’s during the Zapruder film gap.  There are some things available to look at:

 

    1. The Tina Towner film

    2. Tina’s dad, Jim I believe, took a picture during that time.

    3. Robert Croft photos

    4. Phil Willis photos

    5. Mary Moorman’s other Polaroid- the McBride Polaroid

    6. The John Martin film

    7. The Mark Bell film

There may be some other but, I am not recalling any at this time.

 

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The turn onto Elm Street, as I discussed it, opens up another question.  What happened during the turn onto Houston Street?  There is no one who considers this a problem except for me.

The turn onto Elm Street argument questions what happened there based on distorted, disrupted film images, and films skipping parts that should be documented but, have been cut from the film.  For instance the Zapruder Gap as the most noticeable in deleting information from the film. 

The presidential limo’s turn onto Houston Street suffers from the same problems of altered, distored, disrupted, and cut films.  Houston Street has these problems:

  1. Altgens 5 was edited.  Why do that if nothing happened there?

  2. Robert Hughes was edited.  There is the problem of the Cut Apart Policeman.

  3. Marie Muchmore was edited.  There is the problem of Phil Will the Flat Headed See Through Man.

  4. Phil Willis' location in the intersection and on the west side of Houston.

  5. Orville Nix’s location.  Orville Nix could not have filmed the Houston Street scenes if he was located as most people locate him on Main Street below the Houston / Main Intersection in maps that locate photographers.

  6. Altgens photo (could be 3 or 4) that was cut into pieces showing that some editing was going on.

  7. Marie Muchmore initially said she heard shooting on Main Street when she was in the intersection.

  8. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said he heard two shots as the limo turned onto Houston Street.

  9. Alan Smith said he heard shooting on Main Street.

  10. The AMIPA film events on Main Street.

With this level of alteration one has question what is going on in the assassination other than the faked evidence presented in the Zapruder film and others.

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Butler...

Your post above, your insistence below that Moorman and Hill were moved from up the street (among a number of interesting photographic suggestions of yours)... is the reason I block you and prefer not to read your posts...

5a611fba99ef7_HillandMoormancomparedtotheSWcornerofElm-Houston.thumb.jpg.d6abf9ff75763cb8e49b6e29d1a4db26.jpg

 

As Chris D. proved, the turn was removed not only to hide the wide turn but to create an artificial starting frame #... 133 which somehow relates to 161 and Pos A

Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. 
-----
Mr. SPECTER. This chart has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 886.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 886 for identification.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film.  The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street. 

5aabfc5e1f296_PositionACE886.thumb.jpg.4839f48c68fbb25c739d85bfcf1dc2dc.jpg

So the one REAL QUESATION we have is Since the limo passes thru POSITION A... how does the limo get to z133 when the Secret Service follow-up car is literally on the limo's back bumper... maybe a 5-8 foot spread?

So maybe the limo turned wide yet the Queen Mary didn't...

Position%20A%20and%20Z133%20-%20appears%

determining%20distance%20between%20133%2

Between 138 and 161 Hickey and Rosemary Willis react at street level that look like a reaction to something hitting the street

z138---z154--Hickey-looking-down---bulle

162%20JFK%20facing%20right%20willils%20r

 

Another question would be the total time/# of frames it takes for the limo to get from z132, to its position at 133 and/or Pos A

1272596097_PositionoflimoinBELLshouldbePOSITIONAbutitisnot.thumb.jpg.4a4046b4c5f8e3290f70675673322421.jpg

 

The limo was just turning off Main onto Houston as the lead motorcycle enters the turn...  the limo travels about 250 feet to get to z133
at 12mph = 17.6 feet/sec = just over 14 seconds...
y'all can take it from here....

131-133%20time%20markers_zps89fcib3c.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,

That's true.  But, there were other things going on there.  David Josephs has commented on some of these.  The post you pasted has more to do with what I question about the authenticity of what we know about the presidents turn onto Houston from Main.  There is enough contradictory evidence there to make that event suspicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Josephs,

The importance of the Mary Moorman argument is neither here nor there.  It’s time to move on.  You are not about to change your position and neither am I.  Just for your reference I never said Mary and Jean were moved up the street to the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  What I actually said there was some evidence to suggest that Mary and Jean were moved from the SW corner of Elm and Houston to the area in front of the Grassy Knoll.

The real problem is the missing Zapruder Gap which you deal with adroitly in your calculations.

Josephs said “Another question would be the total time/# of frames it takes for the limo to get from z132, to its position at 133 and/or Pos A.”

 The time of the Advance Motorcycles (not Lead since there are 3 motor bikes rather than 5 in the Lead Motorcycles) is exactly 14 seconds as you have analyzed.  Watching and timing the film gives exactly 14 seconds for those 132 frames and the Advance Motorcycles to travel down Elm Street.  The same as the calculation made by Josephs.

But, there may be something wrong with that.  132 frames divided by 17.6 ft per second gives 7.5 seconds for the distance traveled not 14 seconds for the 132 frames.  If that’s true they must have been traveling at half that speed.  They must have been moving slower than 12 mph say, perhaps 6 mph.  I don’t know how to account for that difference but, it is important.  So, how long was the Zapruder Gap?  The speed the motorcade elements were moving is crucial to judging how long the Gap is.

In between the Advance Motorcycles numbering 3 elements and the presidential limousine there are the Lead Motorcycles (5 in number) and then the Lead Car with Chief Jesse Curry.  How fast did they travel through the intersection?  It is all guess work but, if you give 7.5 seconds for the Lead Motorcycles and the Lead Car to pass through before the presidential limo shows up in Z frame 133 then you have 22.5 seconds for the whole event.  The first 132 frames and the time in the Gap is 22.5 seconds before the presidential limo pops into existance at Z frame 133.  This gives about 15 seconds for the time in the gap.

 Now, if you calculate 14 seconds as the basis for the Advance Motorcycles on Elm Street and use that as a basis for the other elements you have 42 seconds before the presidential limousine shows up.  You have 28 seconds for the time in the Gap.  Either period of time is enough for a lot of things to happen.  The 28 second guess gives more time for things to happen.

If we had the Zapruder Gap film we could see what the 25+ witnesses saw and judge whether what they said was accurate or not.  Other witnesses heard other things.  Here’s an example of the problem.  Billy Lovelady said after the presidential vehicle passed at that he heard shots coming from down the street.  At the time Lovelady was in the doorway of the TSBD and heard shots coming from the Elm Street viaduct.  Did anyone take him seriously?  Was he believed?  It didn’t fit the narrative.  The other 25+ witnesses that heard shooting while limo was in the intersection and in front of the TSBD didn’t fit the narrative either. 

There is more to the Zapruder Gap then just missing film.

Rosemary Willis flinches as something happens when the limo appears or just shortly thereafter.  At Z frame 161 the limo is at the SW corner of the the TSBD when she stops.  She makes a statement and no one really believes an eleven year old girl.

She said,

linda-rosemary-statement-part-2.jpg

Edited by John Butler

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

×
×
  • Create New...