Karl Kinaski

Thx. Great GIF. Yes it is that Lamppost-movement compared to the background, which I miss in the Z-film... KK

Good GIF... but the lamppost SHOULD move slightly to the left, compared to the firewall and the flowers in the background, while Zapruder moves his camera to the right. That would be the phenomenon of parallax. Do you see such a movement? I don't... But I CAN see a (very slight) lamppost- movement (to the left) here: (compare the lamppost to the firewall)On Zapruder's pedestal It is the same movement(jump), your thumb (or any other finger) makes compared to any background, when you put him in front of your face, and than you close one eye, than the other...(alternately)...that movement is an natural law and should appear in the Zappi film...and it does not... KK Everything you need to know about the lamppost. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html Yes, Jack. I know that side quite well. But I am not talking about the angle-problem , I am talking about the missing phenomenon of parallax: the lamppost in the Zappi-Film should move a little bit to the left, compared to the firewall in the background, while Zappi moves his camera to the right following the Lincoln... (Maybe you have mentioned that, and I ve overlooked it.) KK I hope the pic below helps to explain what I mean by the "missing phenomenon of parallax." KK

Good GIF... but the lamppost SHOULD move slightly to the left, compared to the firewall and the flowers in the background, while Zapruder moves his camera to the right. That would be the phenomenon of parallax. Do you see such a movement? I don't... But I CAN see a (very slight) lamppost- movement (to the left) here: (compare the lamppost to the firewall)On Zapruder's pedestal It is the same movement(jump), your thumb (or any other finger) makes compared to any background, when you put him in front of your face, and than you close one eye, than the other...(alternately)...that movement is an natural law and should appear in the Zappi film...and it does not... KK Everything you need to know about the lamppost. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html Yes, Jack. I know that side quite well. But I am not talking about the angle-problem , I am talking about the missing phenomenon of parallax: the lamppost in the Zappi-Film should move a little bit to the left, compared to the firewall in the background, while Zappi moves his camera to the right following the Lincoln... (Maybe you have mentioned that, and I ve overlooked it.) KK

Good GIF... but the lamppost SHOULD move slightly to the left, compared to the firewall and the flowers in the background, while Zapruder moves his camera to the right. That would be the phenomenon of parallax. Do you see such a movement? I don't... But I CAN see a (very slight) lamppost- movement (to the left) here: (compare the lamppost to the firewall)On Zapruder's pedestal It is the same movement(jump), your thumb (or any other finger) makes compared to any background, when you put him in front of your face, and than you close one eye, than the other...(alternately)...that movement is an natural law and should appear in the Zappi film...and it does not... KK

That Lady is right. The lamppost (in the foreground)should move in relation to the background, (Firewall, Flowers etc...) while Zapruder moves his camera. but the lamppost doesn't! KK The forgers forget to insert what is called THE PHENOMENON OF PARALLAXE

J just read this on Facebook That Lady is right. The lamppost (in the foreground)should move in relation to the background, (Firewall, Flowers etc...) while Zapruder moves his camera. but the lamppost doesn't! KK

That is common knowledge. O'Donell and Dave Powers where in that car. Surrounded by 6? 8 ? SS men while their friend and president was all alone in the Lincoln in front of them like a pumpkin on a tray ...ääh, excuse me: what has that to do with JVB and Oswald in NOLA???? KK

xxxx

Costella in his so called review shouldn't have mentioned Horns Holocaust Museum job. A la : Horne went working for the Holocaust Museum, therefore one can't trust his JFK research. That was a strange idea...maybe he can explain that claim further??? Horne with his IARRB carved in stone the body-alteration done by Humes at Bethesda prior to the official "autopsy". For that deed alone he is worth the Pulitzers prize... KK

Horne another Blakey, or Joannides? Come on. KK

The CIA got a DCD a "domestic contact division" not far away from the Withe House founded in 1962, or 63. With Howard Hunt as one of its employees. It was one of the greatest cover storys, that the CIA was only responsible for international matters. I wonder how a man like Costella could forget such a fact. To me it is consistent that the CIA was "investigating" a crime that the CIA committed within the US: the murder of JFK. KK

That sounds like a threat. Why not just put your information out there without attaching heightened and personal rhetoric to it? I am indicating that I don't want to be drawn into the discussion at this time. Sounds like an "I surrender." ... The longer this thread continuous the more my respect for JVB grows. She is like Kasparow playing chess against Barb, J. Simkin, Jack W., Lifton, Roy, G. Viklund etc. simultaneously...and she wins. KK

xxx

There is a convincing story that he was pressured into putting his name on the report but this is something to consider. But what difference would it make? There was a Impeach Warren movement, initiated by Gerald Ford prior to the assassination. After Warren accepted to be a member of the Commission, that movement disappeared from earth. (Ruby had something to do with Impeach Warren placards, hours before he shot Oswald.)

Well, that's exactly the manner the Warren Commission misused Lee Oswalds life... KK

xxx

Ergo. I read it 10 years ago in a german translation. Lane got a good sense of humor. Even a high ranking CIA man, he interviewed in his Office on Capitol -Hill was not immune to Lanes jokes. The CIA-guy laughed, and making notes in his pad, he said: "Oh, they told me, you are good." (Whatever that means, coming from a Langley-knight.) KK

Yes. What means involved? Are you involved in something, when you just got a kind of foreknowledge, (place of the event, time etc.)? Bush got some foreknowledge, like LBJ, Rose Cheramie, Howard Hunt, Chauncy Holt, Ferrie etc. AND: he can't remember, where he was that faithful day like Richard Nixon (he provided four versions of his whereabouts) or Howard Hunt... That makes Bush a suspect of foreknowledge... note: his (Kennedy hating)father was a friend of the famous Steward Menzies. They were working together in France during WW 1. Therefore the Bushes got a long history of being involved with the IC of Merry Old England and the US, and their secret history...just like the Dulles-Clan...when you re playing the big game, IMO you have to be like they are... KK

That's right Martin, the proper way to deal with the simple, blindingly obvious truth is to ignore it. Paul, as a long time member and observer of behavior on this forum, I have noticed that when any person of historical interest comes here, there is someone waiting to pounce on them and make their bones by "exposing" them or some such thing. Sometimes they have legitimate complaints. Sometimes not. It's clear from your posts, however, that you plan on harassing Mr. Lane on points raised and spun by others with the clear-cut agenda of discrediting Mr. Lane. If you do so, you should at least first familiarize yourself with Mr. Lane's previous response to Bugliosi, etc, starting here: Lane's response to Bugliosi After reading Mr. Lane's article, and taking notes, you should start a separate thread in which you ask him questions not answered in his article. He may or may not respond to this thread, I don't know. But that's the proper way to ask the man questions. Posting on every thread in which he participates and saying "But Mark, what about Bugliosi..." can only be considered harassment. And no, there's no double standard. I, for one, think it would be swell if the likes of McAdams, Posner, Myers, and Bugliosi were members of this forum, so that people could ask them questions, which they would be pressured into answering. Tellingly, however, none of them will participate in a forum such as this, where the weaknesses of their argument and occasional lapse into lying would rapidly be exposed. Is there a way to ban this OSSI DID IT prayer mill Baker from the forum? (To him everything is clear. He is nothing than a "case closed xxxxx.")I admire M. Lane very much, he was the man who defeated E.H Hunt in court, by convincing a grand jury, that Hunt, Sturgis, Lorenz, etc were in Dallas the day prior to the assassination...I don't wanna see Mark Lane offended by this little man p.baker... KK

To me Ed Hoffmann always was the main witness of the two interacting men behind the south fence of the grassy knoll. Lee Bowers, who IMO saw the very same two man, passed away much earlier and under suspicious circumstances. RIP

Despite our different views on JVB, it seems that we have something in common. Ad Block plus is a gift of God... Greetings from Austria KK

Well, is that the last remaining argument of the Judyth bashing group? I DID NOT BELIEVE HER THEN AND STILL DON'T ??? A bit poor. If Jusyths Story is false, there must be another, and even better explanation of all those coincidences of her life and the life of Lee Oswald in that summer 1963 in N.O. But...there is non. So what we are talking about? If someone got a better explanation...come forward. But don't keep saying: I can't prove false the key facts she is providing, but I did not believe her then, and still don't. It is a bit like the germans after WW 2. The couldn't believe, there was an Auschwitz. The story was to big for there brains to accept.

Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)? Answer: hardly any time and energy at all... If I remember rightly, this "throat wound caused by fragment" theory was the standpoint of an NY-Times article in December 1963, well before the stupid SB-Theorie was created, which became the credo of all the big newspapers in the US in 1964. KK

Spiral nebula alright. But do we know whats that is?

edit KK