Bernice Moore
-
Posts
3,556 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bernice Moore
-
-
hi pat..i think you are somewhat cherry picking if you want to compare what the witnesses stated the where. you think or the back of the head blow out just for one check the willis family what each stated the back of the head blew out..also others imo you cannot use some and leave the others out but that is m/o..hope you have a good new year...b
Happy New Years to you as well. I used Newman and Zapruder because they are the only close-by witnesses I could find who demonstrated their impression of the wound location on 11-22. Another close-by witness, James Chaney, told a TV interviewer JFK was hit in the face. It is undoubtedly intriguing that none of these men, who saw Kennedy while he was still upright, thought the large head wound was on the back of JFK's head.
As far as the Willis family, none of them were quoted till many months later, and they were some distance away. From their perspective, it would have been incredibly hard--probably impossible--to differentiate between an explosion of blood from the top of JFK's head while he was moving away from an explosion of blood from the back of his head. Even so, the FBI report on Marilyn Willis, the most consistent of the family, reported that she saw a "red halo" erupt from the top of Kennedy's head, not the back of his head. Phil Willis, moreover, not only testified that he did not see the impact of the final shot (which he apparently believed was the head shot) he testified that "The minute the third shot was fired, I screamed, hoping a policeman would hear me, to ring that building because it had to come from there."
Pat check these out.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q
FRANK O'NEILL RIGHT REAR
Interviews - Phil Willis & Family video'sfrom gil jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2-_UhD3Qgk
witnesses The back of his head blew off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A
the large back of the head wound..
the Doctor's JFK's head wound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM
wound was in the back of his head to the right...
b..
-
www.patspeer.com - Chapter 2b: The Secret Service Secrets
We find pictures of a Secret Service re-enactment, taken from the location of Abraham Zapruder's camera. These were, apparently, taken during the 11-27 ...
www.patspeer.com/chapter2b:thesecretservicesecrets
b
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photos - WCD Photos - Secret Service Reenactment - p1 sorry link link not enable...b
9 Nov 2006 ... The Secret Service photographed a re-enactment of the assassination on December 5, 1963. A pair of cameras was used, one providing a wide ...
www.maryferrell.org/.../Photos_-_WCD_Photos_-_Secret_Service_Reenactment_-_p1 - Cached
b
-
First, let me say that I am honored to be able to discuss this subject with the likes of Josiah Thompson, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and Jack White. I also bear no animosity towards anyone here. Although I have strongly disagreed with J. Raymond Carroll on this forum, he makes his points well and we are on the same side regarding the crucial question of conspiracy. The same goes for Pat Speer; he's done great research himself and I respect his views. This has been a very interesting discussion and lots of good people have contributed to it. All that being said....
The essential question here is- if the Zapruder film is legitimate, why does it show what doesn't appear to have happened (i.e., the massive damage to the right front of JFK's head) and not show what numerous witnesses testified to (limo coming to a stop and swerving to the left, massive blowout to the back of JFK's head)? All these threads, all the debates about what is seen or not seen in which sprocket, are exercises in futility if we don't address the big picture. While there is abundant evidence of conspiracy outside of this area, I don't understand the passionate attachment that so many seem to feel to Zapruder's home movie. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. Numerous people (some almost certainly still unknown to us) were filming that day. The authorities seemed to have little interest in most of the films that were taken (which is a curious attitude for those who are supposedly investigating the assassination of a sitting U.S. President). Zapruder certainly seemed to warrant special attention from the authorities, and he profited tidily from the experience.
How do anti-alterationists account for the medical testimony in Dallas? How do you explain all the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped? Zapruder made a ton of money from his home movie- I think it's fair to ask why so much attention was immediately turned his way, while the mysterious Babushka Lady- with a closer and probably better view of what really transpired during the shooting, was never identified or mentioned by anyone until the early critics noticed her. There are other questions that should be asked; the Zapruder film- in whatever condition- was being developed, viewed and sold for a tidy sum (for the express purpose of suppressing it from the public) within hours of the assassination. I think it's fair to compare what happened to Zapruder vs. what happened to the Babushka Lady. Why did the Secret Service seek out Zapruder's film, but have no interest (or knowledge?) of the potentially even more valuable Babushka Lady's film?
The research conducted by White, Fetzer, Lifton and others have shed new light on all these matters. I think the entire critical community is better off because of their efforts.
Don, in chapter 19 at patspeer.com, I discuss in excruciating detail why I believe the Parkland doctors were wrong about the wound location, even to the extent of publishing and discussing all their earliest statements.
The key is that there are flaws in human cognition, whereby we routinely get confused by certain images and events. We are in fact terrible at perceiving relative distances on rotated objects, particularly human faces. This is demonstrated here:
So what bearing does this have on the case, you might ask? It's simple. Kennedy was not only laying flat on his back when most everyone at Parkland saw him, he was laying on his back with his feet up in the air.
So, in short, I think the rotation of Kennedy on the stretcher caused some of those viewing him to misinterpret the location of his head wound, and their recollections colored those of their colleagues.
It is significant, IMO, that none of these witnesses noted an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head, even though they were looking at his face. No, they just saw one large wound. The same large wound, one should assume, that was observed by William Newman and Abraham Zapruder in Dealey Plaza, and described on TV before the Parkland doctors had written a word.
So where did Newman and Zapruder place the wound?
Exactly where it is on the autopsy photos!
hi pat..i think you are somewhat cherry picking if you want to compare what the witnesses stated the where. you think or the back of the head blow out just for one check the willis family what each stated the back of the head blew out..also others imo you cannot use some and leave the others out but that is m/o..hope you have a good new year...b
-
don excellent post thank you..i found this today while searching for another some information on the dealey signs..i noticed the mention of perhaps the secret service may have been looking at another zapruder film.to be off by 45 frames in their re-enactment...i found it interesting ..fwiw...b..
"First Day Evidence and Dealey Plaza"
Michael Parks..
"The SecretService performed a reenactment on 12/5/63 of the shooting of President Kennedy at Dealey Plaza. A survey plat was made for this event by Dallas County Surveyor Robert West and his assistant, Chester Breneman. This survey plat later became Commission Exhibit 585..
This was not the first reenactment performed by the Secret Service in Dealey Plaza. On 11/27/63, they hired the local CBS affiliate KRLD-TV...to film a pre-reenactment, the television crew filmed from Zapruder's pedestal. Within this automobile were two other camera-men ,one filming back toward the Texas School Book Depository while the other films ahead toward the Triple Underpass.
We do not know why the Secret Service needed a pre-reenactment. At the time of this event, they had the Zapruder film and may even had a survey plat made on 11/25/63 for Time/Life by the same survey team of West and Breneman..The Official story during both the Secret Service reenactments was three shots, three hits.This story did not change until the following year with the advent of the Magic Bullet...
Breneman stated that they had a full set of Zaprduer frames from which to work with during the December reenactment. The was furnished by Life Magazine to the Secret Service .These slide were uses to place the shots on
CE 585.....As was pointed out by Chuck Marler in his several informative articles on the topic, shots were placed at Zapruder frames 208, 276, and 358..
These locations were marked on the county survey plat and it became an official document..
It is quite obvious by even the casual observer that the Zapruder film does not support this shot placement.."
The next year to back up the theory of the Magic Bullet, the FBI and the Warren Commission held a thrid reenactment in the Plaza..on 5/24/64.the actors used the Zapruder film, and West and Breneman made another survey plat..CE 882...they move the Head shot to Z 313 from Z 358...It makes you wonder if they had the same film....???
The three yellow curb painted sections within the area where JFK was killed, the last yellow curb marker, is seen after Z 313 but before Z 358.....
" There is no way the Secret Service could have been off 45 frames in their head shot placement unless they viewed a different Zapruder film.."
'' Is there more proof the Stemmons sign was moved? Yes !
Surveyor ( Joe) West stated he later measured his plats and found the sign had been moved by more than ten feet..
Even assassination witness and Dealey Plaza groundskeeper ,Emmett Hudson testified the signs in the Plaza had been moved ( shortly ?) after 11/22/63...He also said the head shot was almost in front of where he stood.
This would more agree with the Secret Service's Z 358 shot than the FBI's Z 313...It appears the sign was moved to the FBI's position to match the altered sign in the Zapruder film...
All the Zapruder frames seen were chosen because of the closeness to the reenactment .."...
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=34
b..
-
Bill Kelly i think you were wanting these unless you have by now found them best b..the npic board studies what's available at m/fs they are in the Rockefeller studies...NARA Record Number: 178-10002-10376
NPIC ANALYSIS OF ZAPRUDER FILMING OF JFK ASSASSINATION
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1
b..
And I just received another present in the mail. A CD audio of Homer McMahon's recorded interview with ARRB (Horne, Gunn, et al).
Can anybody tell me if there is a transcript of this available?
Thanks,
BILL NOT IN THE ARRB FILES..THOUGH I FOUND SO MANY OTHERS NOT HIS...PERHAPS NOW THAT YOU HAVE IT YOU COULD PICK --sorry caps--away at it..till someday it is completed..and then you could post such....best b..
BK
-
But let me try and let me get this one thing straight. The guy from Kodak - Zavada - in trying to determine the Z-film's authenticity, doesn't use Zapruder's camera but uses a similar make and model?
If the original Z-film was in fact placed through a optical printer then it was copied, then the camera in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original,
I assume you meant "the FILM in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original," the answer is no it would become a 1st generation copy easily distinguishable from an "in-camera original"
"a film that could not be duplicated by Zapruder's camera, which like all manual cameras, typewriters and gun barrels, each has its own unique attributes and anamolies.Excellent point Bill, I told Tink the same thing in an e-mail, and it pretty much destroys Horne's argument (latter channeled by others) about the supposed discrepancy. It would be unreasonable to expect two different camera to function exactly the same even if they are the same make and model especially 3 decades apart. But that is moot since as Tink demonstrated the frames did go "full flush left".Once again Horne is revealed to be out of his depth.
So it would be impossible to demonstrate proof without using the original camera.Horne writes:
<quote on>
In the Spring of 1999 I discovered an apparently serious inconsistency between the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film in the Archives (which was shot at full zoom setting), and the degree of intersprocket penetration in the test film shot at full zoom by Rollie Zavada in identical-model cameras. To make a long story short, I discovered that the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film was consistently 'full flush left,' or all the way from the projected image frame out to the full left-hand margin of each sprocket hole -- whereas the degree of intersprocket penetration on the test film shot by Zavada in the same make and model of Bell and Howell movie camera either did not go fully to the left of the intersprocket area at all - OR IN SOME CASES WHERE IT DID, it only occurred intermittently, and did not occur in every single frame as it does in the extant film in the Archives.
<quote off>
INSIDE THE ARRB, p. 1282
Why wasn't Zavada permitted to use the original Zapruder camera?
I agree it would have been best to use the original camera but contrary to what Horne claims the test shots using an identical camera were consistent with the z-film, while it isn't proof it is further evidence the alterationists are wrong.
-
I find it interesting that this important thread has many readings
but NO comments.
Jack
agreed jack i posted the link to this article at the mary ferrell site in i think the doug horne thread the only one who showed any interest was bill kelly thanks for posting the print out....b
-
Evan a couple of questions for a moderator why is Craig Lamson allowed to call Jack a moron in his latest post 451 i believe it is..or is his nasty bad habit of callling derogatory names to be allowed all through this thread as they have been allowed through many others..also if and for fos it is fair the mods are allowed their opinions also, are they not to be none biased seeing they are moderators..thanks..b
Bernice,
If there is a clear violation of Forum rules (calling a Forum member a xxxx, saying what they have said is a lie, saying someone lacks research ability, etc) then it is clear and Moderators can act. Insulting someone is not quite so clear. As you might recall, there was discussion about being treated like children or similar when Mods told people to be more civil. What I might think as being insulting, others might consider to be a lively debate. It is especially difficult if more than one party is engaging in what might be considered to be insulting behaviour. It is difficult at best.
With respect to bias and Mods, I think Kathy Beckett's tagline sums it up nicely.
thanks Evan for your comments i understand what you have said to a point..and i also realize the difficulties that mods have like a narrow wire they walk many times..it simply appears to me when the let's call them smaller insults re name calling are allowed they then if allowed to continue.. appears to encourage worse and they only get more direct and ruder, and then of course they begin to cause similar replies that only makes to harbor ill feelings to the point where all soon become unmanageable and a broo haw suddenly erupts having seen this occur many times,i know it does happen...and soon becomes out of control and no one i believe wants such to happen..thinking of an ounce of prevention..b..
-
I think what Craig has exposed is more than a small factoid, it's more like a major unrepairable rupture.
Hi Duncan and a very merry season to you and yours...now i realize you have not released your findings in a book up till the present time.that others can pick apart looking for errors instead of information that is of value....but are you not being somewhat too harsh here i take it after what john posted and you replied your meaning may be that a possible error by Doug warrants not reading his valued information set out in 5 books after 12 years of deep study and over 3 years of being involved with the arrb...huh...i hope i have this wrong on your mind set here..i recall some terribly harsh times that you went through particularly for months on end at lancer re your pergolaman studies..as well as others..you set forth..even through all some still stood by you..when the errors were shown their attitude was not yours..to simply throw you and your work aside...i am surprised you seem to have so easily forgotten those times...and lessons learnt..that dragged on and on....as others presented harshly their found errors within..your work .in return and continually..trashing your honest efforts...is it pay back now perhaps on some one who was not involved i hate to even suggest that as that is not the man i knew...as each error was revealed within your work..there were some who felt that the basics of your work had merit in the studies of the alterations and conspiracys that you so fully believed in ..Idid KNOW YOU AND I KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE A SHORT MEMORY...sorry caps...what you suggest now is throwing the baby out with the bathwater...that as we know never pans out...there is much extremely valuable information within doug's valuable set of books...If one wants to stay up on the most recent information available so they can at least follow along on the forums..and perhaps contribute..and they will not be wearing blinders they will avail themselves of the information, if not.. then it is their sorry loss...do you not think even the .LNRS are not, have not and will not be reading such, not all but so many are and will be..do not be behind any of you peoples out there....read get up to date and join in..this all is a very fascinating study the latest do not leave yourselves in the dark...why now would anyone want to is beyond me and stay out of the latest after 46 years and wear blinders makes absolutely no sense...imo..always remember all that what goes around comes around none are infallible so watch your step your next error that is pointed out may be the harshest coming back..we all make them i have made zillions and i will continue..so do you who are reading this, if not you are not human...
all take care and thanks for your time..best b..all chin up...carry on... 
Hi Bernice, a very merry season to you and yours too.
I say this respectfully. I have long since debunked most of my own work, and those who gave me the hard time over much of it were correct to do so. I bear no grudges against them at all, nor against anyone who has a different point of view. I would be foolish to do so, as I assume that the truth is what we are all searching for, if we don't know it already, and an open mind is usually a healthy mind. I have learned that garbage in always equals garbage out, and that facts, undeniable touchable hands on true facts, are all that should count if history is to reveal the truth to later generations. Speculation is fine, without it we may not reach some as yet unknown facts. Speculation can be part of a truth seeking process, but those who flowingly spout speculation, claiming it to be undeniable touchable hands on true facts, with zero proof of such, are wrong to do so. I know who they are, you know who they are, and they know who they are. I'm long removed from those who continually accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being agents, fakes or whatever. That's the land of paranoia, and I wish to be no part of that lame brained nonsense.
Duncan
thank you duncan for the reply, but doug horne's book is not all what you call speculation, it is documented ...so it is certainly to be read and studied very seriously by those who are interested in staying up to date..imo...take care b..p.s yes i agree there is much and more today seemingly garbage in and garbage out though i really doubt we are thinking of the same people but that's imo...b
-
Body of Lies: The CIA's involvement with US film-making | Film | The Guardian
Sunday, December 27, 2009 6:10 PMTo: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/14...er-ridley-scott
thanks frog..b
-
John B, Jack W, Bill K (and possibly others):
A reminder that there is a banned word when used in relation to Forum members. You can call George Bush a xxxx, you can call Georgte Washington a xxxx, but you may not do the same to another Forum member. You can say they are misleading, wrong, uninformed or similar but do not call them a xxxx without clearing it first with John Simkin.
Thank you.
I have no idea why I am being referenced by Burton. I have not called anyone here
a xxxx. I may have called Marina Oswald a xxxx, but she is a historical figure and not
a member of this group.
I have just read a posting by Lamson in which he calls Dr. Fetzer a village idiot.
Is that permissible?
Jack
Evan a couple of questions for a moderator why is Craig Lamson allowed to call Jack a moron in his latest post 451 i believe it is..or is his nasty bad habit of callling derogatory names to be allowed all through this thread as they have been allowed through many others..also if and for fos it is fair the mods are allowed their opinions also, are they not to be none biased seeing they are moderators..thanks..b
-
Bill Kelly i think you were wanting these unless you have by now found them best b..the npic board studies what's available at m/fs they are in the Rockefeller studies...NARA Record Number: 178-10002-10376
NPIC ANALYSIS OF ZAPRUDER FILMING OF JFK ASSASSINATION
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1
b..
-
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/
Doug Horne replies to Gary Mack..b
Thank you, Ms. Moore. This was much more interesting than reading the usual back-and-forth crapping between the (alleged) two opposition parties here.
"(5) Finally, and pehaps most important, seven (7) out of seven (7) Hollywood film professionals who have examined the HD and 6K scans of the individual frames of the Zapruder film 35 mm dupe negative (obtained from the National Archives) have declared the image content to have been altered: they are of the unanimous opinion that the back of JFK's head in the images---from frame 313 through 337---has been blacked out, i.e., obscured by artwork. Their opinions trump those of anyone in the research community who has not been to film school, and who has not worked in the post-production of motion picture films. I published two illustrations of frame 317 to illustrate this point, but due to the limitations of the printing plant I employed, my book only contains black and white illustrations on non-glossy paper; therfore, the resolution of these two illustrations of frame 317 is not all that I would wish. The color HD and 6K scans of the blacked-out back of the head (particularly frames 313, 317, 321, and 323) are truly stunning, when viewed on high-definition monitors; at the appropriate time in 2010, there will be a public rollout of these images by the Hollywood research group, and the world will be stunned. Seeing is believing, and when these images are publicly released, all of those who have minds open to evidence will understand, and believe, that the extant Zapruder film's image content has been tampered with, to obscure the exit wound behind President Kennedy's right ear seen by the Dallas doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital....
"So...everyone interested in this debate should take a deep breath, relax, and await further developments."
quote The color HD and 6K scans of the blacked-out back of the head (particularly frames 313, 317, 321, and 323) are truly stunning, when viewed on high-definition monitors; at the appropriate time in 2010, there will be a public rollout of these images by the Hollywood research group, and the world will be stunned. Seeing is believing, and when these images are publicly released, all of those who have minds open to evidence will understand, and believe, that the extant Zapruder film's image content has been tampered with, to obscure the exit wound behind President Kennedy's right ear seen by the Dallas doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital....
"So...everyone interested in this debate should take a deep breath, relax, and await further developments."
your very welcome daniel..thank you for your input i have seen the blackouts in some frames myself in the past as presented by others on the web, and i fully agree just wait and see what's coming..those who stay up on all that is will be able to keep up and take part and those who wish not to then after not doing so..they spout off..well who is going to bother reading let alone listen not i .nor many others..it's like they will and are cutting their noses off to spite their faces and or forums..that's the fall back manys a time...take care best b...
-
I think what Craig has exposed is more than a small factoid, it's more like a major unrepairable rupture.
Hi Duncan and a very merry season to you and yours...now i realize you have not released your findings in a book up till the present time.that others can pick apart looking for errors instead of information that is of value....but are you not being somewhat too harsh here i take it after what john posted and you replied your meaning may be that a possible error by Doug warrants not reading his valued information set out in 5 books after 12 years of deep study and over 3 years of being involved with the arrb...huh...i hope i have this wrong on your mind set here..i recall some terribly harsh times that you went through particularly for months on end at lancer re your pergolaman studies..as well as others..you set forth..even through all some still stood by you..when the errors were shown their attitude was not yours..to simply throw you and your work aside...i am surprised you seem to have so easily forgotten those times...and lessons learnt..that dragged on and on....as others presented harshly their found errors within..your work .in return and continually..trashing your honest efforts...is it pay back now perhaps on some one who was not involved i hate to even suggest that as that is not the man i knew...as each error was revealed within your work..there were some who felt that the basics of your work had merit in the studies of the alterations and conspiracys that you so fully believed in ..Idid KNOW YOU AND I KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE A SHORT MEMORY...sorry caps...what you suggest now is throwing the baby out with the bathwater...that as we know never pans out...there is much extremely valuable information within doug's valuable set of books...If one wants to stay up on the most recent information available so they can at least follow along on the forums..and perhaps contribute..and they will not be wearing blinders they will avail themselves of the information, if not.. then it is their sorry loss...do you not think even the .LNRS are not, have not and will not be reading such, not all but so many are and will be..do not be behind any of you peoples out there....read get up to date and join in..this all is a very fascinating study the latest do not leave yourselves in the dark...why now would anyone want to is beyond me and stay out of the latest after 46 years and wear blinders makes absolutely no sense...imo..always remember all that what goes around comes around none are infallible so watch your step your next error that is pointed out may be the harshest coming back..we all make them i have made zillions and i will continue..so do you who are reading this, if not you are not human...
all take care and thanks for your time..best b..all chin up...carry on... -
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/
Doug Horne replies to Gary Mack..b
-
merry christmas
Especially for Bill Kelly, sent and with permission to post as well on Bill's site from David Lifton... his ''PIG ON A LEASH'' from TGZFH....His experiences with the Zapruder film...
he wished a merry christmas to all...P.S.Bernice,
Attached find the latest version of PIG ON A LEASH, which was published in the Fetzer anthology (2nd edition, I believe); 2003
b..
p.s he did not have any further time to spend on it..so he said there may be some spelling editing errors within..fine by moi...nothing serious have i found...so keepthat in mind we can live with them.....thanks again David...much appreciated...
b.. -
Sorry Bill the original copy i was sent run off on a copy machine appears no better if not worse...B
-
I was trying to find the photo of Col. Jose Rivera at Fort Detrick demonstrating something to some high ranking officers with a special patch on their arms.
Does anyone know of a link to this photo?
Thanks,
BK
I KNOW OF NO LINK BILL...IS THIS THE ONE YOU NEED.
.BHey,
That's It!
Tree Frog sent around an old article from a decade ago and I told him I'd update it but I want to post a photo to go with the update, and that's the pix, but can I get a more clear copy?
You are the Busy Beaver B,
Thanks for all your help,
You don't have time to stop to argue,
BK
I think that's it Bill it is the upper half of two together if i recall neither very good more than likely from the newspaper which you do not have too much luck with not like the printed word but i will have another look...busy time of year and if you stay busy enough i figure you might stay out of trouble, well sometimes...ha..
best b.. -
I was trying to find the photo of Col. Jose Rivera at Fort Detrick demonstrating something to some high ranking officers with a special patch on their arms.
Does anyone know of a link to this photo?
Thanks,
BK
I KNOW OF NO LINK BILL...IS THIS THE ONE YOU NEED.
.B -
Bill number 6 part 6 736 mins hawkeye works...rochester... B
ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 6
-
Bill in Melanson's information there are many questions regarding whether they had the original.or what copy.....in the book ''THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX '' I recall in David Lifton's Pig On A Leash in his article there are several pages on Lilian Zapruder.information and his contacting her .I do not have the book handy so i cannot quote nor give you the page numbers, but i do recall reading that david had i think a couple of telephne conversations with her i believe and i do think he mentions he taped them, but anyway she told him that Abraham simply gave it to them the film...the authourities i think feds were mentioned.not sure from memory....have a look and see what he and she had to say..it may clarify this part..or help to...best b...
Thanks Bernice,
Only half of "Pig on a Leash" is no line, and I've asked Prof. Fetzer if he would post the entire chapter but he would rather argue about anything than actually provide the chapter that is cited by Doug Horne.
I've been told to get a copy of the second edition rather than the first, because there are significant changes.
As soon as I get a copy I will copy or retype the entire chapter and post it for research purposes.
If anyone knows David Lifton, perphaps he will send me or post a complete text of his "Pig on a Leash."
As David Healy also notes, Lifton's talk is posted at Youtube in 10 minute segements and among those eight or so segments is the references to the "Hawkeye Works."
I will transcribe that segment when I get my computer sound back, if someone will tell me which one it is.
BK
Bill see David Lifton 6 part 3 for information that Lilian Zapruder told him on the phone tape..that he zapruder gave the original
film to he believes the ss...at 9.18...when i hear back i shall be in touch best b...much of the the information found in pig is within these tapes...not all but much..
To: "Bernice" <bmoore1242@rogers.com>ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTVpsqO4ZPU
ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFm68eDU65o
ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmULHMzFs90
ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsaNQG2qHVw
ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djuvc3uPuX8
ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb8zbwwTnfA
ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS9d-vqjfKE
ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrR_yotKffg
ZAPRUDER FAKERY 6 - David Lifton Part 9
-
Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore
he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.
The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made
and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection
of the film's official provenance.
Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's
technical analysis will leave him speechless.
Jack
Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.
Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.
www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm
Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.
When I briefly interviewed Marina Oswald at the Harvard JFK Conference in perhaps 1994-1995 she was very helpful
in discussing the circumstances surrounding the Oswald backyard photo shoot with me, explaining the time that elapsed
while she went inside first to change the film which had run out and then later to check on the pot roast in the oven.
When I asked her what she thought about the critical comments made by Jack White, she said: "Jack White, who is
this Jack White anyway? I have never talked to him. I have never got a letter from him. I have never heard of him.
And he is criticizing me and what I said about taking these pictures? Who is he anyway? He was not even there."
My sentiments exactly. And I think I know who Jack White's shadow really is. But only The Shadow Knows!
<Removed - Rule violation>
I have talked to Marina many times. She used to call me frequently on the phone.
In a week long symposium in Nebraska, I spoke with her several times. We both
sat out an hour long presentation by Craig Roberts on the MC rifle, because we
both had seen it the previous day. We sat on a lobby sofa side by side for an hour
and I had the opportunity to ask her many questions. I also told her about all of
the proofs of her husband being an agent. She was a chain smoker and consumed
two full packs of cigarettes as we sat there. She was next on the program, and
commented on our conversation in the lobby, saying at one point..."LEE, OR WHOEVER
IT WAS I WAS MARRIED TO..."
So the statement about Marina not knowing Jack White is wrong. <removed - rule violation>
Make of that what you will.
Jack
Despite how the WC and some others would like to make of Marina, in my discussions and letter exchanges with her she is NO fool!...in fact, I find her both of very high intelligence, no one's fool - knowing full well how she and her husband (whoever he was) were used, abused and thrown to the wolves. When I talked to her she knew perfectly well who Jack White was and his photo studies. She WAS hesitant to TOTALLY repudiate her WC testimony and coerced statements in the 'early CIA-minded' period, but she made very clear that she did NOT any longer believe generally what she had been painted to believe at that time. She further made it totally clear she felt her husband was executed; that he was an agent - one that was turned on by his controllers; that he had no direct part in JFK's assassination. She was one hell of a chain smoker and could choke a horse at 100 meters. She too was used, abused, coerced and lied to. She has made contradictory statements under duress [in the early period], but that she had NO idea of who Jack White is and his photo studies of the BYP I'm very, VERY skeptical - or in total disbelief.
Peter Marina as you imply is much more up on all than some give her credit for..she now believes and has clearly stated she believes that Lee was innocent..I believe she is very aware of those researchers that have worked to exonorate him as Jack has done and those who have continually tried to bury him as the lone assassin...Now seeing that Jack has spent 40 odd years in this work of trying to prove his innocence and a conspiracy let's take just the one study the backyard and his findings of alteration within them... .how could she not know whom he is..that only stands to reason ...and anyone who may think differently should take another thought and perhaps use some common sense in this scenario they weave...b
www.youtube.com/GJJdude Marina
-
Bill in Melanson's information there are many questions regarding whether they had the original.or what copy.....in the book ''THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX '' I recall in David Lifton's Pig On A Leash in his article there are several pages on Lilian Zapruder.information and his contacting her .I do not have the book handy so i cannot quote nor give you the page numbers, but i do recall reading that david had i think a couple of telephne conversations with her i believe and i do think he mentions he taped them, but anyway she told him that Abraham simply gave it to them the film...the authourities i think feds were mentioned.not sure from memory....have a look and see what he and she had to say..it may clarify this part..or help to...best b...
all take care and thanks for your time..best b..all chin up...carry on... 
Fetzer & Lifton channel Doug Horne: Truly or Falsely?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
hi pat ; well we differ again but as usual not nastily...of course if anything comes up i would be delighted to see that you get a copy...meanwhile we all carry on...i certainly hope that you have never recalled any information somewhat with a difference 25 years back...as if so you would now be called not credible...crap on the witnesses time seems to come around so very often in the these threads on the forum...they are always in error and those that say so were not there...