Paul Baker

Why should Craig Lamson bother to respond, given that Jim is incapable of engaging in sensible, logical argument? Fetzer describes himself as a scientist. It's up against some very stiff competition, but that has to be his most ridiculous and fallacious belief.

Lest we remind folks that up to 90% of the American public thinks the 1963 murder of JFK was part of a conspiracy. After all these years... hmm...

Assuming that is true - which I don't believe it is - what does it prove, exactly? David, be careful. If you continue to laugh your 'FA' off, you might end up with nothing left to speak out of.

What books have you read that changed your mind?

Murder In Dealey Plaza convinced me that there was no conspiracy. I've got Reclaiming History, I've read about half of that, but I'd already made up my mind by then. I haven't read Case Closed. I've read two of Matthew Smith's books, The Second Plot and ... I can't remember what the other is called but it was even worse. The approach of many consipracy theorists is less about serious research or scientiific study, and more akin to shooting xxxx from a blunderbus to see what sticks.

And since you seem to have no doubt about that, the purpose of your involvement in this forum of inquiry is hard to fathom.

This isn't a forum of inquiry. I'm here because I'm interested. I'm fascinated by the case and by people like you.

Paul.

Your certainty ("I'm sure") is the result of blind reliance on authority

No it isn't. I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any.

And Bernice I agree with you 100% that Paul will never debunk or even come close to doing anything that would make me rethink any of Jack's work, what he does not understand is that not only do I think of Jack as one of the best researchers on the case but who has put in more time researching then Jack?

Dean, why do I have to debunk any of Jack's "studies" when that work has already been done? You state that Jack's work has not been debunked. Er, what can I say? It has. Look around, take those blinkers off. Oh, and the amount of time that Jack has wasted over the years has nothing to do with anything.

OR BETTER STILL STUDY THEM FOR 46 ALMOST YEARS EARN JACKS CREDENTIAL'S THEN GET BACK TO ALL OF US INCLUDING JACK....THAT I SHALL AWAIT..

DEAN MCADAM'S blink.gif ISN'T THAT WHERE THE NEOCONS PLAY THEIR GAMES..I DO BELIEVE.THOUGH ON OCCASION THEY DO TAKE A STROLL.....TAKE CARE..BEST B wink.gif

Yes, well said. Take caps lock off and learn English. All the nutters seem to be in the conspiracy camp!

Quite right Sir. There are no discrepancies in the photographic evidence. You can examine all the films and photographs until the end of time and you will still find that there is not a single shred of photographic evidence that implicates Lee Oswald.

I'm sure some trajectory analysis has been undertaken using the Z-film which demonstrates that the bullets came from the TSBD. Isn't that a 'shred' of photographic evidence that helps to implicate him? Tell me if I'm wrong, I really don't mind being wrong.

what we need Paul are your replies in a public, face-to-face forum (with cameras rolling). A forum where you can't hide behind aliases, thus certifying your experience, capability and viability answering/commenting on technical questions, especially film composing techniques regarding case relate films-photos. And lest we forget, your blanket approval of *known* WCR failings. Till then, son you're just another lone nutter-xxxxx with an opinion demonstrating not a clue concerning the photographic record of the JFK assassination.

Carry on (as I'm sure you will in that typical nuuter-xxxxx inane way)

You almost became coherent there David, well done. Shame you couldn't answer those questions. Have you ever answered a question?

They were not technical questions. Using my eyeballs, wired up to my brain, I have never seen any convincing discrepancies amongst the photographic record. If anyone would care to point me in the direction of the evidence I'd be interested to see it. I'm not a "lone-nutter xxxxx", by the way. Believe it or not, if I saw evidence of a consipiracy I'd change my stance and admit that my judgement was wrong. Go on, try me.

All of Jacks work has been debunked? By who? You?

Please show me all of Jacks work that you debunked

Dean, go off and search for any of Jack's "studies" in this forum. I haven't seen one yet that hasn't been debunked. Personally I haven't debunked any of them, why do I need to?

Darkening the back of JFK's head to mask the rear exit wound blowout. Sanitizing the view by reducing number of frames in which blood spray appears, making temporal wound seem an exit wound. Painting in an overlarge temporal wound skull flap to disguise frontal entrance. Making the timing of the shots harder to establish. Masking wounding of JFK with overlarge Stemmons Freeway sign, now undamaged by rifle fire miss.

Two important questions to consider:

1. Why did 'they' leave the apparent rearward headsnap in, which gave fuel to the conspiracy fire when the film was first shown on American TV in 1975?

2. How did 'they' ensure that the altered Zapruder film was consistent with the entire photographic record of events in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day? (Please spare us any reference to any of Jack White's 'studies', all of which have been debunked).

I'd be interested to read sensible answers.

Paul.

I feel great having David Healy in my "camp" his research is outstanding, have you read TGZFH Paul?

If not then read it ASAP

I have read parts of TGZFH. It's not worthy of sensible critique.

I'd suggest you read this ASAP: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/, in particular this page: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/healy.html.

Two HUGE facts to remember:

NO witness can say with 100% certainty that Oswald carried THAT rifle into the TSBD on Friday, November 22, 1963, or on any other day.

NO witness can place Oswald in ANY 6th floor window with ANY rifle at the time the fatal shots were fired.

I don't think you can distill all the evidence that points firmly at LHO into these two "huge" facts. If this was all that was presented to a jury, they may well have found him not guilty. As it is, there are numerous other pieces of evidence which prove that LHO killed JFK, and did so on his own.

my goodness, a young lone nutter - how quaint.... So, one and ALL, hear this now: the SBT/WCR/LHO did it all by his lonesome nuttter-xxxxx legacy will live for another 90 days. Cheers.... LMFAO!

I wonder how consipracy theorists feel about having a moron like Healy in their camp. He seems to spend all of his time LMFAO-ing, like some drug-crazed monkey.

Oswald could not have been in position to fire the shots.

I bet he wished he'd never bothered taking his rifle into work that day.

The perpetrators were certainly smart people. They even had the power to alter the weather at the last moment to ensure that the bubble top on the presidential limousine was removed.

It is too obvious.

Take a look at the evidence Peter. It all points to a rather obvious conclusion. Some might even say it's a no-brainer.

And why Dealey Plaza? Of all the places an assassin could get to JFK, Dealey Plaza hardly seems like a assassin friendly shooting range.....

Why Dealey Plaza? Simple. The opportunistic assassin just happened to work there. If the motorcade hadn't passed the TSBD on 22 November 1963, JFK might still be alive today.

1. JFK - Hugh Grant;

I hope they don't use blanks.

I agree John. Simple common sense can be tiresome.

Jim DiEugenio will be debating John McAdams tomorrow evening at 6pm (EST) on Black Op Radio.

If I were to hold a debate I would want either Jim or Walt Brown arguing for the critics.

It promises to be a very interesting affair.

Does anyone know whether this went ahead? I'm in the wrong time zone to listen live, and there's nothing on the Black Op website as yet. Len usually gets at least a link up in the archives section by now. I've been looking forward to it.

Paul.

luaP deirub I

(rekaB ton yentraCcM)

Reverse speech? Does anybody even take that seriously?

.od stoidi ,seY

Do keep it up, "infinitely"!

Take a bow.

I can't believe some of the posts I'm reading. First of all, you're dealing with tampered piece of evidence in the Zapruder Film. I suggest you read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, edited by Dr. Fetzer. Harvey Oswald, whom the police arrested, didn't shoot at anyone that day. He was the patsy, though there might have been more potential patsies elsewhere during the motorcade. I suggest you also read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong (whom I never met, spoke to, or corresponded with).

Kathy C

I have read it. That's why I'm convinced there was no alteration. The Great Zapruder Film Hoax proves nothing and should be sold with a health warning. I slipped into a coma before I got to the end.

yes indeed while you're on the subject -- it's originality son.... nutter-trolls need originality, its the same old "whine", we've awaited the next generation nutter-xxxxx we haven't be disappointed ....

Reading your replies, David, is almost always cringeworthy. Why do you bother? Do everyone here a favour and stop, it's extremely tiresome.

Blood and brain matter explodes out of the front of Kennedy's head, which is indicative of a shot from behind (a high constrast rendering of frame 313 shows this clearly). From Oswald's position on the sixth floor as he was shooting, I'd imagine there would have been a clearer separation between Jackie and her husband than that suggested by Zapruder's side-on position.

Who knows, Oswald may even have stopped himself from pulling the trigger if he thought there was a possibility of hitting the first lady. But, whichever way you look at it, I think it's fair to say that Jackie was in some danger.

Paul.

That could be an explanation. Jerry: I am always surprised how guys like you, which such an clear intellect, can be victims of that stupid Lone Nut cover-story. In case of Gary Mack everybody smells his intellectual dishonesty, and I believe he is doing what he is doing for money...(he is the best paid LNter in the US , I believe) Whats your motive for promoting this fairy tale, fabricated by some psyop. specialists half a century ago, postmarked by the FBI within 14 days after the murder, and gentled by the WC? "Higher duty"?

Typical paranoid conspiracy theorist drivel.

It is clear to most people of any intellect that the Zapruder Film was not faked. Nobody has come remotely close to proving otherwise.

What I find laughable is that, at one time, people like you believed the film to be genuine, because it suggested a shot from the front. When those who understood physics and ballistics pointed out that it demonstrates shots from behind, it became a fake.

While I'm on the subject, proof of a second shooter on the grassy knoll is not proof of a conspiracy. There could have been two people operating independently. It's a remote possibilty, sure, but infinitely more likely than a fake Zapruder film!

It is a common strategy amongst desperate conspiracy theorists to continually dredge up already debunked "studies" from the bottom of the cess pit. I'm just surprised that people bother responding to this utter nonsense.

Paul.

Your reply was an ad hom to the nth power. IMO, if you do 1/100th or 1/1000 of the work Jack has done toward truth in the events of Dallas or 911 you should consider yourself lucky - and a changed person. How about something substantive and not just an attack on Jack?!

That wasn't an attack, Peter. That was a very simple statement of fact. And how does it compare to Jack's implication here that somebody else is mentally handicapped, simply because that person perceived a blurred blob on a film as a bird, rather than an alien spacecraft?

Here is another simple statement of fact: Not one of Jack White's "studies" has ever moved anybody closer to the truth. (Unless, of course, the truth happens to be "Jack White is a complete waste of time").

Though I have to admit, I do have something to thank Jack for. His contribution to Murder In Dealey Plaza helped to convince me that the murder of John F. Kennedy was the act of a lone gunman. After all, if that's the best a respected conspiracy researcher can do, there was probably no conspiracy. So thanks Jack!

West is visually challenged or mentally handicapped to see this as a BIRD

Jack, what a terrible thing to imply. And you go on and on about ad hominem attacks! Who are you to cast aspersions Jack? Every single one of your "studies" I've ever seen (I've stopped bothering to look at them now) is flawed. Even my ten year old nephew managed to debunk one of your appalling "studies" in Murder In Dealey Plaza.

Why do you you waste your life and everybody else's time?

I'm no expert, but I don't think you need to be one. Compare photos 5 and 9 and see that spectators don't move, and neither does the water. All shadows and the position of the truck in the water are identical in those two photographs. So I'd argue only the last picture is a fake.

... (later) ... sorry, when I posted this I couldn't see Duncan's attachment, which says it all.

... apologies if this is a bit of a pointless thread, feel free to delete it. I was a bit over-excited about this find, I think.

Hi Folks,

I'm moving in with my girlfriend at the moment. Yesterday I took a few boxes of books to her place, and - being a photographer - she noticed Pictures Of The Pain and flicked through it. She suddenly said "I think I've got one of those", then disappeared for a short while. I was intrigued when she returned a few minutes later with a hard, black case. She opened it and pulled out a movie camera equivalent to the model Zapruder used! She has a treasured collection of old camera equipment.

I'm not sure how rare they are, but I thought I'd share this story and offer to take any pictures of it if that's of any use to anyone. She also has the original manual.

In any case, I was very surprised. It was quite eerie holding it and looking through the viewfinder. I wasn't sure how to work it though. I flicked the switch to 'Automatic' and the wind handle span round until my finger got in the way

Paul.