Alan Healy Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 (edited) Bell is killer.BTW - I put a lot of my thinking into what happened in the operation into that seminar section on The Zapruder Film Conspiracy. However, I want to add one observation: There were definitely cameras back there, as per those who have seen other films, and etc. I still believe that some sequences of footage taken from some of these cameras was inserted as an underlayer in the Zapruder film. Does this mean that one or more of these lenses may not have in fact been the reflection/refraction of a spotter's scope? Definitely worth considering as a very likely factor. One behind the wall, and one on the stairs. Very possible. Especially if you discount a South Knoll windshield throat shot for a North Knoll shot. I am really puzzling myself over the operative I found in Muchmore, who is lying prone on the stairs. I am really beginning to believe he's our boy for the final headshot. A 30-06 or something, from less than 20 feet. He has something like a newspaper or something draped over the weapon. Anyway, here's a job I did on Bell awhile ago. Time for them to come out from their hiding place in 2005. - lee <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lee. The "figure" in Muchmore that you found, is just a combination of the the shadows, grass & steps IMO but please keep looking. However, if you are now going to start saying that "he" may of been a source for the headshot, then I have a problem with that. I think that's quite an extraordinary suggestion. You have(how many?) five? people behind the wall & one of the "two on the steps" is the source for the head shot? Surely you jest? How about an alternative? None of the photos were altered because any operative that was visably ""breaking the law" that afternoon was out of sight of the people with cameras dotted about the plaza? Not necessarily exactly what I believe but I'd go with that over what your suggesting. By the way, do you still have that exact frame from Bell you used above & could you show it us please? If you don't show the source alongside your analysis I can't decide what is or isn't...... Alan Edited March 7, 2005 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 (edited) Bell is killer.BTW - I put a lot of my thinking into what happened in the operation into that seminar section on The Zapruder Film Conspiracy. However, I want to add one observation: There were definitely cameras back there, as per those who have seen other films, and etc. I still believe that some sequences of footage taken from some of these cameras was inserted as an underlayer in the Zapruder film. Does this mean that one or more of these lenses may not have in fact been the reflection/refraction of a spotter's scope? Definitely worth considering as a very likely factor. One behind the wall, and one on the stairs. Very possible. Especially if you discount a South Knoll windshield throat shot for a North Knoll shot. I am really puzzling myself over the operative I found in Muchmore, who is lying prone on the stairs. I am really beginning to believe he's our boy for the final headshot. A 30-06 or something, from less than 20 feet. He has something like a newspaper or something draped over the weapon. Anyway, here's a job I did on Bell awhile ago. Time for them to come out from their hiding place in 2005. - lee <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lee. The "figure" in Muchmore that you found, is just a combination of the the shadows, grass & steps IMO but please keep looking. However, if you are now going to start saying that "he" may of been a source for the headshot, then I have a problem with that. I think that's quite an extraordinary suggestion. You have(how many?) five? people behind the wall & one of the "two on the steps" is the source for the head shot? Surely you jest? How about an alternative? None of the photos were altered because any operative that was visably ""breaking the law" that afternoon was out of sight of the people with cameras dotted about the plaza? Not necessarily exactly what I believe but I'd go with that over what your suggesting. By the way, do you still have that exact frame from Bell you used above & could you show it us please? If you don't show the source alongside your analysis I can't decide what is or isn't...... Alan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Credit: D.Roberdeau Dons highly detailed Dealy Plaza map: http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg Edited March 7, 2005 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I was wondering whether these two objects are actually in the film or just part of the page beneath showing through(note the text on the south wall), I've not noticed them before. Alan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Alan Good to see you again, that white spot is interesting. As i read it, Lee thinks that it may be a camera lense. QUOTE: Anyway, for what it's worth, IMO, this area indicates the lens of a camera. I find that there is some strange type of phenomenon when the lens of a camera captures another lens - some sort of refraction or multiplication of the light occurs, resulting in what appear to be small balls of light. I'll see if I can import this photo into my old machine and take a whack at it. Can anyone else see a man in a suit walking towards the steps in this image, just to the right of BDM, or am i seeing an illusion.? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Robin, yes good to see you here too. What I was looking at is to the left of the "camera lense". What you mentioned is a bright white circular shape but I'm talking about the two grey objects to the left of that. I'm wondering if they're anomolies in the photocopy(or not). I too have a theory on that which you are calling a camera lense, I'll try & post it by tomorrow. Cheers Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 (edited) Thanks Robin,that close up of the wall in Nix still looks better than anything that I've seen from other sources. I was wondering whether these two objects are actually in the film or just part of the page beneath showing through(note the text on the south wall), I've not noticed them before. It is also curious how these experts could miss this flash in that enhanced version of Nix. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1458 Hopefully Groden will release the work he did with Nix on a superior format one day. Alan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alan Yes i know what you are saying about the two spots that you have indicated with the curved arrow. I'm not sure what they are, i will try to blow up the image and have a better look. Edited March 11, 2005 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Lee. The "figure" in Muchmore that you found, is just a combination of the the shadows, grass & steps IMO but please keep looking. Don't worry Alan! I don't need to keep looking. Thanks for your opinion. I respect it. However, if you are now going to start saying that "he" may of been a source for the headshot, then I have a problem with that. Understand that I am struggling with it myself. I think that's quite an extraordinary suggestion. You have(how many?) five? people behind the wall & one of the "two on the steps" is the source for the head shot? Surely you jest? Not at all. And let's make it clear - IMO, there were as many as 3 hits to Kennedy's head - this is very well supported by the medical [that is left to work with] and eye-witness accounts - even eye-witness accounts of the original unaltered Zapruder film. How about an alternative? None of the photos were altered because any operative that was visably ""breaking the law" that afternoon was out of sight of the people with cameras dotted about the plaza? No. I could never agree to that. My theory will continue to be that most of the operation was in 'plain' sight. This is not to say that the operatives weren't concerned with an escape path. Also, they chose locations which provided them a significant amount of cover. The US Government deliberately removed or concealed them - through overexposing negatives [and blaming it on the amateur nature of the photographer - what an insult], matting, tinting, splicing, destroying, seizing, defacing, etc. They left some interesting puzzles behind, which I have tried to figure out. I'll show you an interesting one. Not necessarily exactly what I believe but I'd go with that over what your suggesting. By the way, do you still have that exact frame from Bell you used above & could you show it us please? Sure. If you don't show the source alongside your analysis I can't decide what is or isn't...... Alan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Alan, As per your request. I went one step further and created a gif. FYI, I did not highlight all of them, and I may have indicated areas incorrectly. I did this one awhile ago. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Here's an interesting comparison of the 3 men on the stairs to the Moorman. Uncanny. The question remains - why was the Phantom introduced? What was his role? Is he concealing a shooter, blocking a possible fence trajectory, has he been added to cover the man who fled the scene causing the rush to the knoll, or something else? For anyone that may not have read it, the man standing next to Emmett Hudson is not the 'young man' he speaks about in his testimony. I assume that 'red shirt' man, whom I believe to be an operative, is the young man Emmett refers to in his testimony. Multiple contradictions, especially given his 'behavior' in Nix. Also worth noting are the exhibits presented to Hudson during his testimony. Willis 5 and I believe an FBI re-enactment shot - I may have to go back and doublecheck. Hudson suggests that he could more appropriately locate himself as per the photo in the Dallas Times Herald [Moorman]. Which he believes was taken by the fellow across the street. Willis 5 does indeed seem to have only 2 men in the position of the stairs. A much safer bet than presenting him with the Moorman 5. Mr. LIEBELER - Can you see yourself in that picture anywhere, can you mak yourself out? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; I can't , unless it is one of these two men right here - I can't tell - if I had that picture that was taken in the Times Herald paper - I can show you myself in it. Mr. LIEBELER - Which one is that? Mr. HUDSON - Well, it was in the Times Herald paper the next morning after, I believe, after the assassination, maybe the evening after the assassination. Mr. LIEBELER - Look at this picture. Mr. HUDSON - [Examining picture referred to.] I don't know - if that's one of them men myself or not up there. Mr. LIEBELER - I have shown you Commission Exhibit No. 203 and you are not able to point to yourself in that picture at any place. Actually, Commission Exhibit No, 203 shows a different area. Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir Mr. LIEBELER - That's a picture from the front of the Texas School Book Depository Building and you wouldn't be in that picture, according to where you placed yourself by looking at Hudson Exhibit No. 1. Mr. HUDSON - No; I wouldn't be in that at all - I know. If they had that picture that was taken - a fellow was shooting from across Elm up toward those steps here, that showed my picture in it, I believe. Now, I could be one of those men standing right there - I'm not for sure - I wouldn't say for sure that I was one of them or not, but I can't see it well enough to tell. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 (edited) Here's an interesting comparison of the 3 men on the stairs to the Moorman.Uncanny. The question remains - why was the Phantom introduced? What was his role? Is he concealing a shooter, blocking a possible fence trajectory, has he been added to cover the man who fled the scene causing the rush to the knoll, or something else? For anyone that may not have read it, the man standing next to Emmett Hudson is not the 'young man' he speaks about in his testimony. I assume that 'red shirt' man, whom I believe to be an operative, is the young man Emmett refers to in his testimony. Multiple contradictions, especially given his 'behavior' in Nix. Also worth noting are the exhibits presented to Hudson during his testimony. Willis 5 and I believe an FBI re-enactment shot - I may have to go back and doublecheck. Hudson suggests that he could more appropriately locate himself as per the photo in the Dallas Times Herald [Moorman]. Which he believes was taken by the fellow across the street. Willis 5 does indeed seem to have only 2 men in the position of the stairs. A much safer bet than presenting him with the Moorman 5. Lee. Interesting testimony from hudson about not being willing to put himself on the spot after being grilled by Liebeler. - lee <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Edited March 11, 2005 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Alan,As per your request. I went one step further and created a gif. FYI, I did not highlight all of them, and I may have indicated areas incorrectly. I did this one awhile ago. - lee <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lee, thank you! I enjoyed your previous reply & the tone of it was appreciated. Now I should make it clear that I am open-minded to the alteration of certain important evidence, the films & photos included & I certainly didn't want to discourage you in anyway, just voicing an opinion. I also realise, that after studying & getting help with understanding the various scenes of the "aftermath" that were caught on film I/we still might be very far away from knowing how it "really" happened, these images could be lieing to us. Maybe I don't want to deal with that possibility right now, I don't know, but whatever the case, I don't dwell on it. We can make sense of all the photographic record, as it stands, put it in order & have a good understanding of how the murder went down, that's the area I generally study. I'll continue with this the first chance I get. As for that Bell frame, it's not great is it? Where's it from? Regards Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 As for that Bell frame, it's not great is it? Where's it from? Regards Alan You said it Alan! It's either a ripped down MPEG or a screen capture. I can now split images from DVD, but I find these are also of poor quality. I'm very tempted to invest in the SW which will allow me to take video and convert. I believe I have the hardware -not sure since I bought this pc in a hurry. I greatly appreciate your keeping an open mind. It's difficult, especially when viewing someone else's work. I challenged quite a few Researchers to simply try to enhance the same frames, and even provided a technique - no takers. I got back responses like, 'Good luck with your project.' All I wanted originally was for someone else to take it over. I'm not interested in profitting by it - just want the truth revealed. FYI, I initially discovered one [1] man on the stairs. I thought for certain he was a shooter. I then spent several hundred hours enhancing every Moorman I could get my hands on, Muchmore, Bell, Nix, etc. I also researched every known witness account. Emmet Hudson makes rather damming statements about a bunch of people being there - Altgens gave an interview with David Lifton where he said that a bunch of men showed up suddenly in the location of the retaining wall, Charles Roberts saw a policeman pursuing a man running from the area of the stairs with a strange camera [those are all quoted in the Zapruder Film Conspiracy seminar]. I have been trying to in touch with Bill Newman, unsuccessfully, to simply ask what he saw on the stairs and behind the retaining wall. RB Cutler has 4 men behind the retaining wall on his map of Dealey Plaza. Etc. People have asked me, 'But why would the operatives have selected this position, which was in plain sight?' I don't pretend to know any of the operatives to ask - and the logic of attempting to figure out why the operation would have selected some locations in plain sight is in fact a bit illogical. It's simply a fact that I see them hidden in this location in the majority of media of the area. I also try to be on the lookout for any unreleased/unpublished photos. All I need is one shot of this area to confirm the alteration and cover-up. The attached is a bit old, and for the record - it's hardly conclusive. It was my attempt at studying and comparing various Moorman's to determine whom was present in the 'original' & 'early' generation versions [red], compared with what may have been matted in afterwards or changed [green]. Without the 'original' Moorman it's a bit of a crap shoot. It's old, so it's not of much value, and I'm sure I would revise it if I were to redo it - however, it is worth noting: a. How the red shirt man on the stairs goes through an interesting transformation to thumbrpint Moorman [looking at an object in his hands close to his mouth, to turning, possibly aging, clapping his hands and looking in the direction of the motorcade] b. How the men, or at least the 'man' I originally uncovered, squatting on the stairs, persists as early as the Dallas Times Herald 11/24/63 edition. The question that is plaguing me concerns the cameras. I believe there are quite a number of lenses which can be uncovered in the various films and photos. There is a heavy concentration in the vicinity of the stairs, retaining wall [interesting coincidence], and behind the fence. How many assassination films does one need? That's what led me to other interesting conclusions which I posted in the Zapruder seminar on this forum - however, what I did not post, and what is really an open issue for me, is whether or not one or more of these 'cameras' is in fact a spotter's scope. FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Robin, I don't have a decent program on this machine to enhance your enlargement. But I refer you to the same frame you posted from Towner. There are quite a few 'things' that may or may not be worth noting [what seems to be a floating head at the top of the black box, for example], but I draw your attention to the red box. - I have theorized before that the Towner is perhaps the only photo of the knoll, of which I am aware, where over-exposure and tinting was not used, or at least, not extensively [blue sky, etc.] to cover the operatives. Consider that this is what the other films and photos should have looked like! The men we see heading off in the direction of the Parking Lot, IMO, are in fact part of the team. Instead of darkening the area, the cover-up chose to instead have them defaced - similar to more than one individual in the area of the doorway of the TSBD in Altgens 6. Badgeman can be seen behind the retaining wall/fence also in this photo, close to the tree, but again, he has no facial features. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Badgeman in the Towner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 (edited) Great shots. In the one directly above (Post 30, Towner) I see three men between the wall and the fence, clearly. The team on the stairs has moved back up the secured corridor. The cleanup of the area has begun, but two or three people are strangely well ahead of Secret Service and Dallas police The red shirt operator does watch, watch, watch, jump with hands up to his mouth and run up the stairs...like a baboon at a waterhole, very focused for a payoff and then jump and act...extremely suspicious actions. This area, where Lee F. sees a crouching 4th man, is in military jargon "A Salient" or an [ offensive tactical salient ] it juts out of the protected fence/parking area to a point, a point close to the planned ambush's headshot. Occpation, control, and activity here is obvious in this photo and NIX and shows a conspiracy acting to secure the Salient offensive point closest to the fatal shots, when the Limousine was closest to fully stopped. The red shirt man, the other operative with red shirt man, were babysitting Emmett Hudson, and have NEVER BEEN IDENTIFIED. Lee this photo also shows someone at the NIX classic gunman position, and another, possibly on a radio, at the PERGOLA near the parking lot. I Believe the NIX classic gunman was just Whited Out in Moorman (see above, trinagular light sky where Nix has dark foliage). Above the wall in Moorman was out of bounds, but the gunman is clear in NIX... The presence of the additional figures and lenses reminds me of a WEST VIRGINIA Story. While driving late at night, a buck deer was caught in the headlights and reared. He stayed in the right lane and we passed him, but many little creaatures eyes could be seen along the medians, glinting in the brush...a similar morbid curiosity is seen in these lenses. Somewhere a complete, untinted, properly exposed series of photos may still exist. Edited March 8, 2005 by Shanet Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 (edited) Badgeman in the Towner. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lee. A "blowup" of your towner image, in the BDM position: I have uploaded a "very large" full size towner Blowup to my webpage here is the link. http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri2/TOWNER3LG.jpg Edited March 11, 2005 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I have uploaded a "very large" full size towner Blowup to my webpage here is the link. Robin, Wow. That was impressive. I looked over your enlargement and saw all kinds of things - some I'd never even noticed before. Like what appears to be a man behind the retaining wall, close to the tree in the corner. Face removed. Perhaps the 2nd badgeman that I have been seeking for quite some time. I'll try to demonstrate some of it for you. There is something very curious which has bother me for awhile. I noticed it first in Willis 5 I think. Then Betzner, Moorman, and a few others. Your Towner re-opens the issue for me. It concerns my having designated what appears to be human shapes in front of the bushes as possible 'additions.' See that Moorman study I posted for reference. Jack White informed me that those were prickly holly bushes, and not the best place to set up camp - however I was seeing movement in this location somewhere. I'll need to go back to the old files. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now