David Josephs
-
Posts
6,169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
David, Governmental investigations and inquiries SHOULD NOT REQUIRE BELIEF - the evidence and conclusions presented SHOULD MAKE LOGICAL SENSE and be supportable.
That YOU NEED TO BELIEVE in these reports is probably the beginning of your problems...
We BELIEVE in G^d, we BELIEVE in concepts... We PROVE innocence/guilt with authenticated evidence... got any?
American Politics rule #1 - Don't Believe ANYTHING until it has been officially denied
(from one of DVP's "Gov't inquiries").....
C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to
it, that President John Kennedy was probably assassinated as a
result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other
gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
1. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved
in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved.
4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group,
was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but
that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that
individual membersmay have been involved.
5. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency, were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
-
Okay, Pat:
If the SBT isn't correct, then tell us what the most reasonable explanation is to explain the wounds in both JFK & JBC, and the total lack of bullets in the body of President Kennedy?
Key words: "Most reasonable explanation".
I'd like to see if your explanation is more "reasonable" than the SBT.
David, the SBT does not work because an object cannot exit at a point HIGHER than the entry, when traveling DOWNWARD at 17+ degrees
and NOT striking any bone...
NOt having a reasonable explanation that YOU like does not give the SBT any more validity... it simple means that YOU do not accept other explanations...
The responsibility os on YOU david, not us... YOU claim the SBT works... yet your supporting evidence proves the opposite...
Maybe if you took the time to make your case, instead of tautological reasoning, you'd have a SBT to defend... rather than one that trips you up each and every time you try to.
-
I should have googled it first. From amazon reviews I've learned -relearned- it is about international bankers and the NWO. Since this was my first book, I was not yet aware of details regarding such things. I went straight from that book however to learning all about the international bankers, and ties to Nazis etc. ...from various authors. Maybe I will reread this sometime.
Dawn
No worries Dawn.... from the macro, people are people with their flaws.... mega wealthy "people's" flaws simply affect more "other" people.... add the desire to organize and have an overriding purpose to control and IMO, we have the core group that JFK's PEACE would have affected the most. Hrnce they had the most to both gain and lose....
All the other players were just that... players on stages at so many levels and inter-dependencies one gets the feel;ing that we, they nor anyone actually knew what was going on...
Peace
DJ
-
The evidence in this case clearly and unequivocally proves that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy.
The above statement by Don Jeffries is nearly as absurd as this one by the late conspiracy icon Mr. Weisberg.
This question that I posed yesterday is worth repeating again today --
Why do so many conspiracy theorists fight the "Oswald Did It" evidence so vigorously?
The only possible way to make Oswald an "innocent patsy" is to either totally ignore the evidence against him (for two murders, not just one)...or for the CTers to fall back on the lame claim of "All the evidence is fake". Because the only way that Oswald can be innocent of killing both JFK & Tippit is for all of the evidence to be manufactured. And just exactly how likely is that (even in a CTer dream world)?
Evidence that can be AUTHENTICATED does not support that conclusion David.
Evidence that CANNOT BE AUTHENTICATED does support that conclusion.
If you want to conclude "Oswald did it" you have to present supporting evidence which could pass the requirements a court of law would expect and demand.
You fail to do so repeatedly... the "commissions" and "committees" which have presided over these "investigations" did not have anywhere NEAR the evidentary expectations
even your local traffic court would expect.
So David, as you seem to be asked in most every case and discussion... present and authenticate the evidence that the WCR used to reach its 12 conclusions, that the subsequent investigation used to reach their conclusions....
and just present a case that is not so easily refuted by the same evidence you use to make it...
-
The possibility also remains that those "in the know" would not be concerned even if Lee had run out into the street and hit JFK with a bat....
the EVIDENCE was not going to show him visible in DP, the witnesses would all be "wrong" ala the GK...
I really do not think we grasp the magnitude of arrogance related to whatever "evidence" was to be gathered that day.....
Think about it... they REMOVED a 2 second stopping of the limo during the headshots...
Evidence of more than a couple shots
the FACT that men showed fake SS credentials in DP immediately afterward....
Wouldn't you suppose that whoever was using Oswald would use these "weaknesses" to their advantage... talker, arrogant, disrupter, etc....
and NOT be worried about the evidence....
DJ
-
And miss out on this?
and don't miss the FBI/DPD wind up Doll... pull the cord and listen as it takes back every Mistake about Oswald's innocence ever uttered.
you think they'll have a 21 gun salute
or just the 3 that fired that day for accuracy?
-
Thank so much Don... great explanation...
Although... the earlier Moorman photo does show considerable background blur.... it still seems to have been able to sharpen up what should have been very blurry...
Cheers
DJ
-
As we watch the Zfilm, we see Moorman pan as the limo passes her (not my gif btw)
Shouldn't we be seeing the same effect in Moorman as we expect in Zapruder? - where either the limo is in focus and the background blurred or vice versa?
Or is the polaroid fast enough to freeze the entire image in focus?
One would think that with as many things moving during that photo, more would be out of focus...
like we see in the previous Moorman photo
or in reality, they were moving v - e - r - y slowly so there was no motion to blur....
thanks
DJ
-
David,
"Pronksters"??? Was that some kind of prank?
--Tommy
P.S. Any evidence LHO dropped acid?
Typing a little too fast...
Not Lee, but Harvey looked like a real partier...
let me ask YOU... is there any "authenticated" EVIDENCE that LHO actually did ANYTHING ?
-
Trask is the source for most if not all this information….
According to the Lancer Timeline, Trask-120; Wrone-26; Zavada Study 1
“In the morning of 11/23 the FBI view a 16mm version at KODAK….” this could EASILY be 0184…. unless you have anything related to a different 16mm showing?
and as you said – they only had 3 rolls of 8mm… why again couldn’t 0184 be a 16mm copy of 0183 that was left at KODAK?
Everything I have ever read says there was no break in production of 185,186,187 and 0183… and there is no explanation for the missing number…
To continue:
Phillips sends this note to Rowley: which suggests the film sent is an 8mm 50+ foot film including Z’s family… according to Zavada’s study… only SS copy #1/0187 meets this requirement…
SS #2/0186 – was spliced and looped…. 0183 and 0185 go to LIFE and Zapruder is not left with a copy at all?
…
According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of
the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder.
Note: Disregard personnel scenes
shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder
is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints
were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.
The third print is forwarded.
Zapruder is said to have taken the original AND BEST FIRST DAY COPY home with him at 11pm 11/22.
Let’s say 0183 and 0185 (cause 0186 was DEFINITELY the one given to the FBI and the other copies do not have the copy # on them, only the 0183 reproduction)
0183 – the original – is taken by Stolley on the morning of 11/23
0185 – the BEST COPY – is taken by Stolley on the afternoon of 11/25 (author cites an email from you on 5/14/10)
==================================
According to Phillips’ letter to Rowley, Sorrels has 2 copies – 0186 and 0187, with the THIRD PRINT FORWARDED?? Which print would THAT be?
=====================================
9pm 11/22 - Zap and Schwarz drive to DPD HQ, find Sorrels who then asks Zap and Schwartz that 2 COPIES BE taken to Max Philips
Zap and Schwartz find Max, give him TWO COPIES and retains none (Zap is supposed to have 0183 AND 0185 that night already, and now also 0186 and 0187 from Sorrels to give to Max)
If 0186 is given to Kelley in the morning… in Tink’s Six Seconds, page 311-312 Max sends 0187 to Rowley and retains 0186 to give back to Sorrels…
Trask p120
0186 is given to Kelley on 11/23 who in turn gives it to FBI Bookhout to Barrett to Shanklin – HOW DOES KELLEY HAVE A COPY to give to the FBI – From Max or Sorrels? When did this transfer take place?
0187 HAS to be the copy that Philips sends to Rowley BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SECOND PRINT – NOT the THIRD PRINT…
How can Max forward THE THIRD PRINT 0187… when LIFE has 0183, Zapruder has 0185, MAX/KELLEY has 0186 11/22 while the FBI has 0186 on 11/23 FROM Kelley, and Sorrels IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE been given TWO PRINTS, this date?
Can anyone explain that for me?
-
btw - something many may have not known...
One of the subjects in Tim Leary's experiments was Robert Hunter... who joined with Jerry Garcia to become the main lyricist for the band....
...you aint gonna learn, what you dont wanna know....
... if you get confused.... listen to the music play...
Peace
DJ
Around 1962, Hunter was an early volunteer test subject (along with Ken Kesey) for psychedelic chemicals at Stanford University's research covertly sponsored by the CIA in their MKULTRA program.
Thanks Martin... was sure it was at Harvard though... but Stanford makes more sense.... Whose "test program" was it at Stanford?
From what I remember, Bear got the recipe and made it himself... lots and lots of it... there were an awful lot of underground chemists at the time...
But I will look more deeply into it
DJ
-
btw - something many may have not known...
One of the subjects in Tim Leary's experiments was Robert Hunter... who joined with Jerry Garcia to become the main lyricist for the band....
...you aint gonna learn, what you dont wanna know....
... if you get confused.... listen to the music play...
Peace
DJ
-
The CIA's role in the birth of the Psychedelic Revolution is not really disputed, Ken Keasy and many of the early acid heads around San Francisco 1st tried LSD etc. when they were guinea pigs in CIA tests.
Ken Kesey and the merry pronksters were NOTHING compared to Augustus "Bear" Owsley Stanley... he dosed more people than maybe even the CIA....
and the Grateful Dead was the soundtrack of that Psychedelic Revolution.... Kesey simply had MONEY from the book and helped finance much of these activities....
and finally... look around... there aint no revolution no more.... the hopes and dreams of the counter culture can now be heard in a 20 second soundbite on your iPod...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/15stanley.html?_r=1
In 1963, Mr. Stanley enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley. The next year, he encountered LSD, a transformative experience. “I remember the first time I took acid and walked outside,” he said in the Rolling Stone interview. “The cars were kissing the parking meters.”
Mr. Stanley had found his calling, and at the time it was at least quasi-legitimate: LSD was not outlawed in California until 1966. What he needed to do was learn his craft, which he accomplished, as Rolling Stone reported, in three weeks in the university library, poring over chemistry journals. Soon afterward, he left college and a going concern, the Bear Research Group, was born.
In 1965, he met Mr. Kesey, and through him the Dead. Enraptured, he became their sound man, early underwriter, principal acolyte, sometime housemate and frequent touring companion. With Bob Thomas, he designed the band’s highly recognizable skull-and-lightning-bolt logo. Mr. Stanley also made many recordings of the Dead in performance, now considered valuable documentary records of the band’s early years. Many have been released commercially.
-
I've been informed by Gary Mack that "Horne's alteration theories are idiotic."
That's cause he's figured out that the "Sixth Floor Museum" would be a complete oxymoron...
Maybe a change to "The Sixth Floor Ripley's Believe It or Not museum of BS the governement wishes was true"
Cause you know Ron... Historians write history, and the 6th Floor is about HISTORY... regardless of the accuracy, authentication or reality of what is being presented...
DJ
-
My bad buddy... saw it change to Jarman...
thanks... and welcome back to the fray... always enjoyed reading your posts
DJ
-
Norman was as compromised as Givens. He wasn't officially interviewed until the beginning of December and is on record, when testifying to the HSCA, that the statements containing his signature from the 26th of November are not his.
Wow. Lee, could you give the cite to that info? I can't seem to locate it. In fact, Norman is not even listed in the index of people who testified to the HSCA. You must have him confused with someone else.
Hi Barry,
There are many interviews by the HSCA that are still not released in full. I'm very interested in seeing the dozens of pages of testimony given to them by William Lowery that is still withheld.
I can assure you that Norman was interviewed by investigators of the HSCA, as was James Jarman. In fact, it is James Jarman's HSCA testimony that throws a spanner in the works concerning Bonnie Ray Williams chicken dinner on the sixth floor story.
Please read through pages 13 through 17 of the following link that has several pages of Norman's HSCA recorded testimony.
Cheers
Lee
I stand corrected Lee. This is absolutely dynamite. A fantastic find, thanks!
Not trying to be a buzz kill... but the testimony linked to is the WCR testimony...NOT the HSCA of Norman...
Is there a llink to his HSCA testimony?
DJ
-
Can't deal with the argument presented so resort to insults and non-sequitor? nice.
In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
While the word xxxxx and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context.
SOUNDS familiar.. again nice to see you staying with within your limits and abilities
When asked what he did, does the man EVER SAY, "I stopped filming the motorcade for a few seconds"? No.
In fact he says quite the opposite...
Regarding the 10% decrease ... can you at least provide Zavada's tests that prove such a thing?
As sadly, my week with the original frames was last month...
And no Craig, it is only consistent with SOME of the stop/starts and completely DIFFERENT from the most recent STOP/START at z001...
Please post any other STOP/START frames you have and prove what you claim, that the others did not look like z001, and had the 10% decrease in the following frames
Didn't they used CAMERA ORIGINAL stock to create the copies... the copies are IDENTICAL to the original... and two of the tree copies do not have 0185 or 0187, just 0183 print thru...
Zavada NEVER got the orignal film... he got what was given to him... Alterations and copying occuring well before he had his hands on any "original"... unless you can prove otherwise
Repeating the same answer does not make it any more correct Craig... Zapruder does not say he stopped filming... Zapruder DOES SAY he saw, while filming, the turns onto Houston and onto Elm...
The film itself is not proof of itself... but nice try. Like saying CE399 was THE bullet because we have THE bullet and it's obvious...
Why don't the other two prints have their print copy numbers on them Craig? Yet the one produced between the other two, does.... 0186...
If the film was altered and copied onto CAMERA ORIGINAL STOCK... wouldn't the final copied film LOOK original under any analysis?
-
Barry,
I've just listened to your spot on Black Op Radio, recorded yesterday. Your 'deductive proof' seems to require that five shots were fired in Dealey Plaza on that day.
You talk of the one-in-a-million chance of flipping an unbiased coin 20 times and getting 20 heads. What are the odds then, in your opinion, of three quarters of witnesses hearing three shots when there were in fact five?
Kind Regards,
Paul.
You do realize there is a HUGE difference between HEARING 3 shots and there actually being more shots fired, right?
And I'm not talking silencers which, on rifles in 1963, were r4eally supression devices, not silencing ones...
In any case.. 3 teams, all with Collins Radios..
FIRE is spoken into the radio
3 shooters fire at the same time
1 SOUND = 3 SHOTS
A FLURRY of shells enter the limo....
THREE shots cannot account for all the damage done in DP in those few seconds....
let alone that one bullet can account for what the autopsy said happened to his head and one more for his back and throat...
Why do you suppose Homer McMahon, a photo anlysis EXPERT, would say he saw 6-8 shots from 3 directions... if he didn't? When at the same time the FBI/SS is INSISTING to witnesses and government analysist alike that there was only 3 shots, and there will always only ever be THREE shots..
-
This is a bit of a surprise...?
The SS has an EXTRA COPY OF THE Z FILM - which is plain as day... Zapruder can't have a copy AND the FBI AND Sorrells AND Phillips...
Was Zapruder's BEST DAY COPY taken by Max Phillips and then returned to Zapruder?
Or was the remaining print that Sorrels has sent?
And are they in 8mm or 16mm format at this point... I see notes where both 16mm and 8mm films arew shown on 11/23
thanks
DJ
-
As I see it... Zapruder has an 8mm copy of the film to show on 11/23 in the morning... Sorrells has 2 copies, and Phillips sends a THIRD PRINT to Rowley on 11/22
1) Zap = original and best of three copies (this copy supposedly given to Stolley 11/25)
2&3) Sorrells gets two films
4) Phillips sends one to Rowley
Of the two films Sorrels is supposed to have, 0186 winds up with the FBI - via Kelley - 0185 and 0187 stay...
Zap keeps one, say 0187 and all that's left is 0185
With only one left in Sorrels possession how can Phillips both leave a copy with Sorrels AND send one to Rowley?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ2.htm
On Zapruder's behalf, WFAA contacted the Eastman Kodak Company on Manor Way, who agreed to process his film right away. Kodak employee Phil Chamberlain recalled there was only three reels of camera film available to make first-generation copies. Later that afternoon, Sorrels received two of the copies at Zapruder's office. That evening, one of Sorrels' copies was on its way to Secret Service Chief James Rowley in Washington.
Yet not according to Max Phillips a third copy was sent... and Zap has a MASTER, which I guess is the same as an ORIGINAL?
According to Zavada, SS copy #1 has no 0185/0187 designation on it, just the 0183 print thru.
0186 was SS copy #2 that was looped by the FBI:
Stolley winds up with the original and Zaps copy (0187)
So SS#1 has to be 0185... which would have remained in Sorrel's possession -(and gone to Rochester then to NPIC?)
8 pm
16 mm film brought from Kodak in Rochester to McMahon and Hunter at NPIC by "Secret Service Agent Bill Smith." Hunter recalls nothing of "Smith" or "Rochester". McMahon says it was original film, but Hunter recalls working on a copy with no intersprocket images. Hunter says film "not high resolution."
Horne, 1222 ff; Bugliosi endnotes, 354; “Murder In Dealey Plaza”, 314-322; Thompson, 2001
Which film does Max send to Rowley ?
CD - 87 Folder 1
CO2 34030 11/22
9:55
To: Chief Rowley
From: Max D. Phillips
Subject: 8mm movie film showing President
Kennedy being shot
Enclosed is an 8mm movie film
taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas
Texas (RI8-6071)
Mr.. Zapruder was photographing
the President at the instant he was shot.
According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of
the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder.
Note: Disregard personel scenes
shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder
is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints
were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.
The third print is forwarded.
Max D. Phillips
Special Agent - PRS
-
Just the smallest of wrenches...
Now I've been mentioning this passage as evidence against ce399 for a while.. it read very strangely
yet... Wasn't Frazier the Ballistics expert and not a blood expert? "Firearms Identification Expert, FBI."
Would it have been his call to examine the bullet for blood and residue, or would that have been ... ?? Hey wait,
not a single person on the witness lists is an FBI BLOOD/Bodily Fluid expert... isn't that a bit strange in a murder?
Questioned document expert, FBI.
Polygraph operator, FBI
Fingerprint expert, FBI
Agent / Inspector, FBI
Photography expert, FBI
Hair and fiber expert, FBI.
who would have been given the role of blood typing the residue on ce399 or any of the evidence if there was any?
-
I see what you mean now David. You're right. I went back and read all of Zapruder's statements I have available, and I can't find any reference to him saying he stopped filming at any point.
While reading his testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw, I found this bit interesting:
Q: After going to the Eastman people did you go anywhere else with your film?
A: Yes. They advised me not to cut the film. This was 8 millimeter of the old type that was actually a 16 millimeter film, it was cut after it was developed, and they advised me to go to another -- I think it was Jamieson film, or something like that, to have them developed there into a 16, and they were to somehow process it and split 8 millimeter, and that's what I did.
I really don't know much about film. What does Zapruder mean by cutting the film in this statement? And if he was told not to cut it, and didn't, who did? Is this just something that had to be done after developing a film?
Excellent questions Josh...
Google "Technical Aspects" by David Healy... while there is some commentary in there, he illustrates very plainly what happens with Zapruders original 16mm WIDE (two opposite sides of 8mm film in a cartridge that is taken out and flipped to record the second 8mm side - when complete we have two 8mm film sequences, on runing down the film, the other running up. The 16mm width is split into the two 8mm films and spliced together to create on long 8mm film - these cartridges are usually 25 feet so when done you have a 50 foot 8mm film. At the time there were 16mm projectors which would show the 16mm pre-slit film... This is what was supposedly shown at Kodak)
As I am working on the day to day movements of the MASTER: 0183, the missing 184, and the copies 185, 186, 187 the RECORD shows there was an extra 16mm original and NO 8mm films created on 11/22. If an 8mm film was created at either Jamieson or Kodak, I have not seen the evidence for it... Yet Zapruder was showing an 8mm version in his office to Stolley...
As soon as I'm done with the table, I'll start a new thread...
DJ
-
And as is Obvious... there is no STOP-START occuring at Z133.. per the evaluation of the camera by Zavada who states:
(I paraphrase)- "First Frame overexposure can be seen within the personal sections of the film and ONCE at the beginning of the motorcade Z001."
There are no characteristics of Z133 that indicate a START frame...
yet on Z132 the lower IS area is the UPPER IS area of Z133...
the only way this occurs without STOP-START is to splice out what used to be Z133 - "Unknown Frame" so that "Unknown Frame" becomes Z133 and shows the limo.
If he had stopped the camera, Z133 would not look like that.
At the time Z132 is exposed and z133 UPPER IS becomes the lower IS area... Z133 would NOT have included the motorcade.
Are you claiming that when Z stops the camera it stops exactly on frame 132, centered and perfect... and then starts again with no noticeable change in
the appearance of the film whatsoever... and THIS supports a STOP-START scenario?
According to Z, he did not stop filming... prove otherwise please.
Once again you prove my point perfecty. You don't have to first clue about how any of this works and yet you let your bias and worldview run amuck.
Nice selective quoting of zavada btw, as one might expect form you.
"First Frame Over-Exposure:
The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.
Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll."
And then lets review what ZAvada told Tink Thompson aobut this:
"Livingstone's claim is that the transition between Z-132 and Z-133 shows no such over-exposure and that therefore the camera was not stopped at all. Rather, says Livingstone, a number of frames were simply excised.
What does Zavada have to say about this? I called him on the phone and asked.
Zavada points out that he was aware of the challenge from Livingstone and did some further research in 2004. His research using Photoshop histograms for luminosity showed there were two examples when the camera was stopped and started which showed significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These two restart frames showed the characteristic overexposure due either to light leaking into the camera or mechanical inertia at startup. However, other instances of stopping/starting appeared to show no significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These instances, however, did show a tell-tale 10% decrease in exposure as one moved from the first frame after restart to the second. One instance is the transition from Z-133 to Z-134. Other examples are found in the Zapruder home movie part of the film: (1) the stop/start between a toddler at various zoom angles and a toddler walking in the grass; (2) the stop/start between a toddler outlined against grass and shadow and a young boy standing by a lawn chair. These sequences are reproduced onpages 136 through 138 of Livingstone's book. To the naked eye, both the stop/start between Z132 and Z133 and the other stop/start sequences in the backyard portion of the film show no overexposure. "
Thanks for proving me correct...again.
So, in essence, Zavada is saying that while it does happen in the Zapruder camera, ie Z001, it doesn't happen at other stop/start locations.... 132/133 being one of them....
You can show that 134 has a 10% decrease in exposure to 133? that would be helpful to see, if that is really the case... and whether or not anything else can explain a change in exposure....
All we really have then is Zapruder's testimony telling us whether he filmed the entire turn or not... does he EVER explain that he didn't want to waste film on motorcycles, or desired not to run out of film so he paused...?
Can you offer ANYTHING that suggests Zapruder stopped filming... since his testimony both at in the WCR and at the Shaw trial below is pretty consistently describing a non-stopping situation.
He SAYS he filmed the entire time. So yes, while the camera MAY or MAY NOT create the overexposure after a start/stop.. as is plainly evident at z001,
you can present no evidence that the camera did indeed stop filming,
AND the transition from 132 to 133 ALSO appears as a splice would appear... Doesn't it? This is an actual question... IF the film was spliced and copied, this is EXACTLY what it would look like, no?
Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury.
A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass. As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out.
We have to take it on faith that it did not occur THIS TIME, even though there is no evidence to support Zap stopping his filming, and we have evidence that the START time prior to 133 exhibited the over exposure to an extreme extent.
-
Hey there Josh...
I have to run right now, but will address your questions and interest shortly... Zapruder never says he stopped filming...
Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.
The Warren Commission
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Did the Warren Commission knowingly cover up a conspiracy?
Glenn,
When Allen Dulles withholds the FACTS about CIA/MAFIA assassination attempts on Castro - does this not go a long way in knowingly covering-up one of the ALTERNATIVES to Oswald=Lone Nut?
One of the KEY ELEMENTS in determining whether Cuba, Castro or related COULD have been involved, and therefore takes attention away and adds reasonable doubt to the Oswald case?
Is this not KNOWINGLY covering up a conspiracy? The conspiracy to assassinate Castro.. which, at the time of the WC, would have direct bearing on the JFK assassination
Especially after Castro's warning whcih also losses meaning without knowledge of the attempts on his life...
When Warren refuses to even LOOK at the files on Oswald.... and is told by LBJ to head the Commission due to what he knows about Mexico City... which is DIRECT EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY to kill JFK,
and that Warren MUST HELP AVOID WWIII...
If Dulles, Warren, Hoover and LBJ all know that there is direct evidence of CIA assassination attempts AND Oswald enlisting help or working thru communist countries...
How again is this NOT the WC knowingly covering up a conspiracy... infact they knowingly covered up MANY conspiracies....
Or am I missing the point too?