Karl Kinaski

@ K. Collins The face of the running "agent" on the south of elm, is obscured with a black shadow too. @ J. Withe: G. Mack told me, that those frames are hardly from a take by Oliver Stone, despite the fact, they appear in his movie JFK. The frames remain cryptic. Karl...what is the source of your mystery image? I have never seen it before. Jack It is a piece of film out of Stones JFK. It appears at 2h 35min 22sec. ( Length ca. 2 seconds.)And it doesn't look like a Stone "take.". Note: at the end of that particular piece of film, a man is stepping down the stairs in front of the fence, at the top right corner of the frames...away from the spot where the shots came from... KK

@ K. Collins The face of the running "agent" on the south of elm, is obscured with a black shadow too. @ J. Withe: G. Mack told me, that those frames are hardly from a take by Oliver Stone, despite the fact, they appear in his movie JFK. The frames remain cryptic.

No, it's no april fool hoax. The frames by themselfes are a hoax (or not?) and I wonder, that they appear in the Stone movie JFK! Note: the four Ladys, and this "agent" on the south side of elm street. What a difference to the well known Zapruder film versions. Otherwise, watch the bulge on the back of the jacket of the "dark complected man". The bulge is a detail proved true. Why so accurate here (bulge) and so inaccurate there ( five individuals opposite the umbrella man)? BTW Robert Groden was Stones adviser, I can't believe both man made such a "mistake". Are this frames from the Zapruder-film-Copy, that Bill Turner provided Stone, when he did the shooting of JFK? My question is: mystery frames: made by whom, and why? BTW The old lady in the silver-pinkish- dress, http://i30.tinypic.com/2uq11yv.jpg (south of elm, across the umbrella man, right upper corner of the frame))can be seen on this frame http://i40.tinypic.com/2wgr7ue.jpg -- but at a very different position! What about that frame? Is this a frame out of the (original)Hughes film? A hoax-frame too? One is for sure: the old lady in the pinkish-silver dress jumps from just across the traffic sign(mystery frames) several yards westwards! (Supposed Hughes frame). PS http://i40.tinypic.com/2wgr7ue.jpg On this (Hughes?) frame I can identify Moorman, Hill, Babuschka, Brehm and son, patrolman Smith running across the street, the three Newmanns, on of the "twin" ladys (sitting)...but what about the old lady in the silver-pinkish dress? And what about the suit man (agent?) with the hat watching in the direction of Smith?

Could anybody of this big and skilled research community match the frames below? Thx KK edit 6 11 2015 since the tiny pic links are dead

Bill Miller quote When it comes to the alteration of the Zapruder film (shot with Kodachrome II film) it is IMPOSSIBLE from what I have learned for it to have been altered and be undetectable by forensic science today. close quote Nice claim, but you know, as I do, that no independent Zapruder film investigation of any forensic science team exists.

That reminds me of ( the CIA asset) Charles Spiesel in the Garrison-case. The guy, who testified, that he is taking the fingerprints of his daughter, when ever she starts on a journey, to assure himself, that it was the same daughter, that came back. (Source: On the trail of the assassins by Jim Garrison.) KK

Mr Purvis wrote: quote: Nope! Since there was no "exit" wound located there...(in the back of the head) Close quote Oh, really??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR_nozcEiDU KK

Carrs line of sight in Google Earth. Note: he was looking over the roof of the old courthouse Building! http://s5.tinypic.com/erfpnc.jpg

Let me take your own pic, Mr. Lane, to prove my point: http://s5.tinypic.com/14docxk.jpg KK

Sorry, Carr was not looking over the roof of the majors-, he was looking over the roof of the old courthouse building. But...the line of sight IS possible! If you could DRAW a line of sight, without passing any obstacles, than that line of sight exists, IMO! One should go to the 6th, or seventh floor of the the new courthouse- building, to prove my claim. I am pretty sure, that I am right... KK

To me RR. Carr was a credible witness, because... http://s5.tinypic.com/6tpp8o.jpg

"They" set a similar trap for Jim Garrison in 1967. He escaped at the last moment with luck. (Source: On the trail of the assassins.) KK

One has to be very careful: some Nix frames are missing, others are corrupted(According to Nix himself)...maybe this "dust" was put in afterwards...by brush...(like the pinkish- gaping head wound in Z 313 314)... Not only the Zappi film is altered... (I rather trust the eyewitness(Hill, Hofmann, Bowers, Holland, Carr, Price, Brehm, Brennan Newman, than any pics or movies taken that day at DP. KK Pics and movies are very impressive...and thats why the most impressive falsifications are...movies and pics...no better stuff than pics and movies to mislead researchers... KK

Goebbels was a racist low life. IMO, comparing these two people is extreme and inappropriate. I never said, Mack is a racist. I claim: Macks and Goebbels skills of history- falsification are very subtle and bold. That is rather a commendation for Gary Mack... KK

Yes- the hole Lone Nut stuff, (The greatest hoax ever perpetuated: Richard Nixon), one can put aside as 100 percent propaganda. In 1936 Goebbels created a DEUTSCHE WOCHENSCHAU,(shown in cinemas prior to the movies) showing pics of the destroyed Spanish village GUERNICA. The speaker claimed: Guernica, a village destroyed by a gang of Bolsheviks. The SBT and the Lone Nut story is the same Propaganda Trash and nothing more than the same Propaganda trash. PS: Another example: Since 5. 45, we are shooting BACK. (Hitler on Sep. 1. 1939 at the Reichstag.) There were no Bolsheviks destroying Guernica, there were no Poles shooting at german soldiers on September the 1. 1939, and there was no Oswald, or any Lone Nut shooting at JFK on Nov. 22.1963. KK

Mark, here is how you can tell if it is from me ... If I post information that Gary Mack has given me, then it will say so in my response. If it does not reference Gary Mack, then it is my words. Hope this clears this up for you. Bill Miller "Propagandaminister" G. Mack (maybe a nice guy, note: Goebbels was a charming man... and womanizer LOL)...gives no information...he provides what he provides: PROPAGANDA. Isn`it? KK

Look, another INSIDE THE TARGET CAR VICTIM...

Pamela, Much as it troubles me to argue with such a lovely lady, I must tell you that life would be so much easier if Gary was simply a mouthpiece for some satanic force. Unfortunately, the situation is much worse than that. Gary is a stubborn Texan, which means he is worse than a woman when he gets an idea into his head. It drives people mad, what can I tell you. you're right about them-thar Texans, look what's happening to the "Shrub" (Prez. Bush) GM is "The Wrong Man" in the wrong place. (Just like his compatriot in the Withe House, that guy, whose name I cant remember, but I know he sounds like a computer with a broken wire) The city fathers of Dallas should fire Mack. "His removal should be a prime and urgent objection." (Lets make Dealys grandson his successor...remember: We need a president who can ride a horse....hahaha)...or was it: shoe a horse...? KK

Maybe Dankbaar is wrong with Files. But Mack is wrong which each and everything. Macks Job is not to reconstruct history, his job is to create and design history according to his secret marching orders. Why do I know this: if an intelligent man- as Mack- is acting contrary to the common sense, there must be a kind of "higher duty" to do so. We are looking at a 45 year lasting battle between honest witnesses, researchers and historians (some of them paid with there lives) and the disgusting crowd of the "LHO- did- it- allone- story- tellers." (There last own- goal: "Inside the target car". Booooo!) Time to put them in the trash can. KK

Well roared, lion. Times the are A- changing. Lets call a spate a spate. Garry Goebbels. That sounds good. The question is: who is his Hitler? The 6th floor museum is no museum. It is an ulcer. And a punch in the face of common sense. KK

Let me first note that you label James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker as "complicated deceptions" . That's allright, everyone is entitled to an opinion. My opinion is that such statements do not bring a solution any closer, but they do however beg answers to the following questions: What exactly is your main reasoning regarding each of these individuals for concluding that they are "deceptions"? What is complicated about them? What is/was their motive, if not publicity and greed? Why is it that the broad public values these "deceptions" as the truth, once exposed to it? In other words, why are you right and is the average person wrong? Wim Good questions I thought you wanted to talk about Dave Perry? I'm not going to rehash the story of any of those people. I don't know what their motives are. Maybe JVB, CH and JF got no motive, like LHO got no real motive to kill JFK, they want us to believe? Motive of Files: attention seeker, money, misleading the public... Motive of JVB: adding her inside knowledge to the big conspiracy picture. The truth. Motive of C Holt: a confessions at deaths door. The truth. Motive of LHO: save JFK as part of an abort team. (Plumlee was told the same)

Crazy, its like sombody would make a WW 2 prime- time- doku in germany with the statement: there were no gas- chambers in Auschwitz... With one difference: you go to jail in europe, when you claim in public "there were no gas chambers." KK

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted