Allen Lowe
-
Posts
306 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Allen Lowe
-
-
I think the idiot Greer slowed down to see what was happening, assuming he wasn’t a conspirator, which is questionable. And it just doesn’t matter if the limousine didn’t come to a complete stop, as many witnesses have said it just slowed down, and honestly to people in the shock of the moment slowing down to a near stop is going to feel like a stop.
-
Well nobody seems to agree with me, but I’ve watched the film 30 times, and if you look at the grass to the left of the car, you can see the slow down to the near stop. It’s pretty obvious
-
On 8/20/2022 at 7:32 AM, Michael Griffith said:
If you watch the Z film at regular speed, there is no discernible slowdown, much less a full stop. This is not even a close call. The witnesses would have seen the limo moving in real time. It strains the imagination to fathom how the 1-2-second full stop or obvious slowdown described by over 40 witnesses could be the split-second slowdown that Alvarez only identified by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis.
that's exactly my point; I will say:
1) if you view it at a slower speed, it is still correct in relative terms; when it visibly comes to a stop, slowing it down hasn't created that stop, it just made it easier to discern. It is still a stop.
2) But you can disregard #1 because even at regular speed I can see the slow, slow, slowing down of the car. I can see it, and I've had surgery around my eyes. LOOK AT THE GROUND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAR. You can tell it stops.
-
On 8/26/2022 at 7:17 PM, David Von Pein said:
I think it's you who have missed the point.
That point being (of course)....
The package that Lee Oswald carried into the TSBD on 11/22 did not contain any curtain rods, and Oswald lied to Buell Frazier when he (Oswald) said the package did contain curtain rods. And the fact that Oswald told such a blatant lie to Frazier (and then told another blatant lie to the police when he denied ever saying anything at all about "curtain rods" to Frazier) is extremely powerful circumstantial evidence of Oswald's guilt.
sorry Dave; you not only missed the original point but you missed the next point which is, as someone said earlier, Oswald wouldn't be making plans to move if he was also planning to murder the president. With friends like you, the LN'ers are in deep trouble.
-
5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
Do you think Oswald had curtain rods in the package he took to work on 11/22/63, Andrew?
David you’re kind of missing the point. If Oswald was planning to murder the president, he would think about escaping the area not moving to a new apartment.
On the other hand, if you believe that’s true, thank you for the assistance as you’ve helped prove that he was not a participant in the presidents murder.
-
On 8/19/2022 at 12:38 PM, Steve Roe said:
Delphine Roberts and another individual were the ones that discovered Banister (not Bannister) in his bed dead. Delphine was a total crackpot. She was ardent Segregationist, Anti-Commie and a member of the John Birch Society. Delphine was often protesting various causes in New Orleans at the City Council, in the streets picketing.
Delphine was a very paranoid lady and doesn't surprise me she would say Banister may have been murdered. When someone believes the communists were poisoning the drinking water with Fluoridation (Bircher belief), I would call that paranoid.
Banister had been under the care of a doctor for some time. He went downhill financially, owing $1,100 Sam Newman for back rent (almost a year). He got arrested for a fight on a bus with a couple of men fighting over a pistol a couple of months before his death.
Well we obviously don’t rule out crackpots occasionally telling the truth. Hence we allow a few LNers here.
-
On 8/21/2022 at 3:45 AM, Pat Speer said:
Oh my. Zapruder was panning along with the car as it slowed down, so the car does not slow in the film. As the car slowed as it was getting closer to him (when it would normally be speeding up in comparison to the background), moreover, it did not slow down in comparison to its background. It is only when it takes off after the head shot that you realize it has slowed.
When one watches the Nix and Muchmore films, which match up precisely to the Z-film, the slowing down is more noticeable. Now, that said, what is really noticeable is that the sudden tapping of the brakes by Greer led to a chain reaction, where Hargis, Chaney and Jackson slammed on their brakes. Naturally, those witnessing the bikes just behind the limo come to a sudden stop would be prone to thinking the limo also came to a sudden stop. But the films prove it did not.
As far as the 40 or 70 or 100 witnesses to a limo stop, that has been debunked dozens of times. Many of those witnesses were back on Houston and said the motorcade stopped--which it did. Not only did the bikes behind the limo stop, so did a number of the press cars...so that people could get out. So the "motorcade stopped" witnesses support the authenticity of the films. The same goes for the "limo slowed" witnesses. And when you deduct the "motorcade stopped" and 'limo slowed" witnesses from the list, there's only a few left, many of whom changed their story later, or were vague from the beginning. So there's no there there.
This reminds me, moreover, of a number of prominent CTs, who just can't stop stating that the medical witnesses who described or pointed out a wound on the top right rear of Kennedy's head support that there was a large blow-out wound on the middle of the back of Kennedy's head, and that Harper fragment was occipital bone. This is the worst kind of garbage. It's like using those who remember Jackie's pink outfit as white as evidence her outfit was really blue.
Pat I always worry when, on this subject, my perception is different from yours because you have so much more comprehensive knowledge of the subject. But in the Zapruder film that I have seen the car stops just before the headshot. Or comes almost to a stop. Now this wouldn’t be the first time I have hallucinated, but I don’t think I am.
-
On 8/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, David Andrews said:
...And they're going to convince Time Life, which acquired the film, to surrender it, losing newsstand sales and ad revenues? There was a budget to compensate Henry Luce for that? Seems a naive, and monolithic, view of the culture of the times. The stills were used to bolster the shot-from-behind story; the film (whatever you believe it to be) did not emerge to be argued over for another dozen years.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the CIA have the original? And even if Timelife had it, why would they have to surrender it? They were quite willing to remain silent as they did until Geraldo showed it on TV. All they had to do was keep quiet. As for me being naïve about the culture of the times, I have a pretty detailed knowledge of the history, politics, and culture of the 1960s.
-
Here; at about .43 in this; it is brief, but the car stops briefly and has clearly been slowing down prior to this: you have to follow several links;
-
9 hours ago, David Andrews said:
I'm thinking the involvement of Time Life, a major corp, propaganda outlet, and otherwise CIA cooperator, meant they had to be paid off with Zapruder frame stills. It wasn't until 1975 that the powers had to contend with a release of the altered original.
I’m sorry but that makes no sense because if they had destroyed it they never would’ve had to release it. I’ve read all the interviews with Brugoni; and there’s very little there there. And I’ve watched the film over and over and the car slows down significantly. It’s hard to see because the angle changes. But it’s there.
-
11 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
There is no visible slowing down of the limousine in the Z film. There is only the virtually invisible, split-second slowing identified by Alvarez. This virtually imperceptible slowing occurs from Z295-304, as the limo decelerates from 11/12 mph to 8 mph, per Alvarez's measurements. In the film, this event is so subtle that viewers usually do not notice it. In fact, no one appears to have noticed it until Alvarez detected it by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. It seems highly unlikely that this split-second, subtle slowing is the 1-2-second stop or drastic slowdown described by over 40 witnesses.
There is also the problem of the vanishing explosion of blood and brain. The spray of particulate matter disappears far too quickly. In the current film, it is there in one frame but gone in the next frame. Ballistics tests have proved that the spray should be visible for at least six frames. In addition, no spray is seen blowing backward. Yet, we know that two of the trailing patrolmen and the follow-up car were sprayed with blood and brain matter. Hargis said the spray hit him such force that he thought he himself had been hit.
You are absolutely wrong about the slowing of the limousine as is everyone else who seems to think it’s a sign of alteration that it’s not stopping. It’s pretty obvious. What you’re missing is that the perspective changes at that moment, we have a close-up of the car and not the rest of the road. But if you look right behind the car you can see the slowing of it. This has really gotten to be quite silly, and is much ado about literally nothing. You are too smart to be wasting your time on this part of the assassination. Instead of cutting a few frames or some other nonexistent alteration, they would simply have destroyed the film. Because this particular thing is unmissable and obvious.
-
7 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
This is interesting. Speaking of witness-described actions missing from the film, Kellerman, one of the SS agents, told the FBI that JFK tried to reach with his left hand "to a point on his right shoulder." This makes sense. When the misfire hit JFK's upper back and made a shallow wound, JFK felt it and was trying to feel what it was, trying to feel what was going on at that spot.
Kellerman's account has been dismissed because this action is not seen in the extant Z film, but one wonders why Kellerman would have invented this and what action he could have mistaken for a left-handed backward reach toward the right shoulder.
Of course, the most egregious case of witness-described actions missing from the Z film is the limo stop, described by over 40 witnesses from all over the plaza.
If you look at the Zapruder film the car comes to a near stop just before the headshot. I seem to recall Senator Yarborough saying the same thing, that it slowed down but did not stop. And every time I see it I see this and wonder why everyone claims it didn’t happen. And it’s easy to see how at this moment of shock witnesses thought the car came to a complete stop, because it was a pause in the action.
-
On 8/14/2022 at 6:18 AM, Michael Griffith said:
Coup in Dallas is an unfortunate example of the attitude that so many JFK conspiracy theorists exhibit. They act like you cannot really regret JFK's death, cannot sincerely recognize the good things he did as president, and cannot genuinely believe he was killed by a conspiracy unless you also believe that the Vietnam War was wrong, that Ronald Reagan was a bad president, that Trump was a racist and a fascist, that opposing illegal immigration is racist and xenophobic, that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are heroes, that the PATRIOT Act was tyrannical, that using drones to kill terrorists is wrong, etc., etc.
This counter-productive attitude is found in far too many pro-conspiracy books and documentaries, such as Coup in Dallas and Oliver Stone's recent four-hour documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed. (Thankfully, most of the liberal preaching is omitted in the two-hour version of the documentary.)
I wonder how many conspiracy theorists know that Jim Marrs was a huge Trump supporter. Marrs supported Trump because he recognized that Trump was very anti-Deep State. If you don't believe this, go watch the presentation that Marrs gave at the 2016 JFK conference in Dallas, which was held shortly after the 2016 election--it's on YouTube.
It’s about time someone said how good the Vietnam war was. I mean we only killed millions of Vietnamese for a war that we knew was useless, so what do they matter?
-
20 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
Maybe people did freeze but I can't conclude that it explains all the witness reports. Consider that Hargis, Chaney, Jackson and Martin said it stopped or almost stopped. Those bike cops are tasked with maintaining a certain distance from the limo through the entire motorcade. They would be keenly aware of changes to the speed of the limo and they were the closest to the limo. They were also cops who, imo, would be less likely to freak out in a shooting and more likely to jump into action.
But my point in this thread was not about debating whether the limo stopped. My point is if it stopped and they took it out of the Z film, then the film served as valuable propaganda. That is the entirety of my point.
If it was a proven fact that the limo did not slow to almost a stop then there would be no discussion about altering the film to remove the stop. But what we have is strong opinions and debates, not facts.
Actually if you look at the film you can see that the car almost comes to a stop. It’s pretty clear.
-
“”if the Secret Service had returned a Zapruder film to NPIC Sunday night that had the same image content as the film viewed Saturday night, there would have been no need for a compartmentalized operation at NPIC. “
This is one of those “authoritative” statements that’s actually the opposite, makes no sense in terms of what he is trying to say, and does not constitute any evidence whatsoever. This is the effin’ CIA we are talking about, where everyone seems to be on a need to know basis. Who Knows what they were up to? To Use this as a proof of alteration is fraudulent. It proves nothing.
and by the way the car does come to a stop in the extant Zapruder film. It’s quick and it’s brief but it happens, just before the fatal shot.
-
5 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
Success of what??? I made it very clear I was talking about success in hiding a limo stop. A shot from the front does not have to implicate the SS but the limo almost stopping at 313 would raise huge questions. If the limo stopped they were successful in hiding it regardless of whether they addressed the head shot or not.
You’ve obviously never witnessed a shooting, which I have. Things freeze up, fear takes over, snd certain kinds of actions are exaggerated. In the Z film You can clearly see that the limo slows down. The affect of that slowing down plus the altered state of panic likely produced the sense that everything had stopped.
-
19 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
One, that would have aroused too much suspicion. Two, several Senate and House races do appear to have been won via fraud. Three, there were several cases where Republicans won solid majorities in the state legislature but somehow lost the U.S. Senate race(s) and the presidential race. For example, Republicans decimated Democrats in New Hampshire in the state legislature, actually flipping the legislature and achieving a large majority in both chambers, but we're supposed to believe that hundreds of thousands of those same voters voted for Biden and enabled him to win the state. Similarly, in Georgia, Republicans won strong majorities in the state legislature, but Biden narrowly won the state and Democrats narrowly won both U.S. Senate races, requiring us to again believe that hundreds of thousands of the same voters who gave the GOP large majorities in the state legislature turned around and voted for Biden-Harris.
Other evidence: An audit ordered by the Arizona Senate found evidence that 200,000 mail-in ballots had signature mismatches--i.e., the signature on the ballot did not match the signature on file. Biden "won" Arizona by just 11K votes. In Wisconsin, which Biden "won" by just 20K votes, a special counsel investigation found that 91 nursing homes had an astounding, unprecedented voter turnout rate of 95-100%. Investigators interviewed family members of many of the seniors in those nursing homes, and they repeatedly insisted that their loved ones were in no condition to vote and had not voted in years.
Another fact to keep in mind: When Obama broke the record for number of votes received in 2008, he won 873 counties, but Biden won only 537 counties. So, we are supposed to believe that Biden shattered Obama's record by 12 million votes but won 336 **fewer** counties than Obama won. Never, ever in the history of U.S. elections has there been such a huge disparity between the number of counties won and the number of votes.
I take it you didn't bother to read any of the material on my election fraud website. You might start with the dissent in the Wisconsin supreme court's 4-3 decision on Trump's election fraud lawsuit in the state. The dissent was written by the chief justice of the court. She notes, among other things, that the majority simply refused to address any of the evidence of election fraud presented in the lawsuit, and then she discusses some of that evidence. The dissenting opinion is on my election fraud website.
Most of that, if any, is not evidence. Half of it is guesswork, as in “Gee if that happened here it shoulda happened elsewhere.” People split tickets and have for years and years. You know that’s nonsense to cite as proof of fraud. As for the mismatched signatures, I honestly do not believe it. The Trumpies lie about everything, reflexively. Show me the money, show me one signature that doesn’t match.
-
When people say to me that no one could’ve kept a secret that long, first thing I ask is: OK, who killed Jimmy Hoffa? And the reality of course is that we have much more information on who killed JFK than who killed Hoffa.
-
18 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
Bill Simpich, who may be the conspiracy researcher in the film with whom Max Good seems perhaps most aligned in viewpoint (to the extent that is discernible), says in the film,
"I don’t know anybody who thinks that they were part of the plot to kill the president. But a lot of us, including me, think that they might have been manipulated to do certain things . . ."
If nobody among conspiracy researchers thinks Ruth or Michael Paine were part of the plot to kill the president, what plot is it in which the Paines are suspected of playing a "sinister role" by conspiracy researchers?
You are kind of missing point. I agree that they didn’t know to what end, but they were handling Oswald. And when it happened, they knew immediately that it was part of a deeper plot. So they are accessories, and all the more evil for failing to acknowledged what they know. And Mrs. Paine continued, after the assassination, to help frame Oswald. Which not only implies some deeper knowledge of the plot, but which makes her all the more despicable.
-
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
My point is a state investigation, especially one conducted in public, can become a show trial, for the reasons I cited:
1. The evidence is selected only by prosecutors.
2. The witnesses are selected only by prosecutors.
3. The narrative is controlled by prosecutors.
4. The media, which may be compliant anyway, generally can only report on the witnesses and evidence presented.
5. There is no judge.
6. Many appeals are made to emotions, or patriotism, which generally play well in the media.
-----
Sure, maybe there have been good state investigations done in the past. It is hard to tell, since we are never told what was left out of a state investigation.
But if I wanted to conduct a serious investigation into any particular event, I would not choose a show trial.
The format of the Warren Commission, the 9/11 commission, the old HUAC hearings, or the 1/6 committee are all the same: Prosecutorial and state fantasies.
Ponder this: The 1/6 committee has presented a hearsay witness (the Trump steering-wheel grab event) but not the actual witnesses to the event. Then they say, "The Secret Service is not cooperating."
However, when Bannon refused to cooperate, they arranged to have Bannon jailed (pending). Fine by me.
But why no subpoenas under penalty of jail time for the Secret Service agents?
My prediction: You will never see the Secret Service agents testify; they do not fit into the narrative.
Side note: I doubt we will ever see the Secret Service missing texts either.
That’s just all nonsense. The January 6 hearings were detailed and complicated and well planned and presented like a really fine prosecutors brief. Try watching it next time. Of course there was some hearsay. But there was tons of first person firsthand testimony. Read the transcript.
-
11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
200 pages?
There were 24 volumes in the Warren Report.
The Warren Commission, the Mueller Report, the old HUAC committee hearings---any state investigation that does not have meet court standards, and in which there is a stout defense---becomes a prosecutorial fantasy.
Who calls witnesses? What evidence is presented? Who controls the narrative? Who controls a compliant media (through leaks and other goodies). Remember, there is no judge to even begin to help set a level playing field.
State investigations played out in the media are essentially show trials.
This does not exonerate Trump, anymore than the WC exonerated LHO.
It is something to think about.
I am not sure of your point relative to my post. Many congressional hearings have been quite substantial and evidential, from the Army-McCarthy hearings to the Church Committee. Also, January 6; and even the HSCA hearings, when all was released (well, not all but a lot), were revelatory.
-
8 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:
If the conspirators had destroyed the film, the whole nation would know that there had been a conspiracy and not just those of us who question the so-called evidence implicating LHO alone.
nope. That's not the way it was back then. It would have all faded into oblivion. I know this shoots to smithereens the whole "altered Zapruder film" thing, but your position makes absolutely no sense. That kid's pictures of the RFK assassination disappeared, and no one has squeaked a word about what they probably showed.
And you seem to have forgotten that the Zapruder was suppressed for 12 years anyway. Tell me, who in that time saw this as evidence of conspiracy? Did the whole nation use this as evidence of conspiracy? Cite one source (and yes, I know that many people thought the assassination was a conspiracy, but NOT because of the withholding of the film).
As a matter of fact, with the showing of the film on Geraldo all hell broke loose. It was really the beginning of a new chapter in terms of examining the assassination. All enabled by the FILM. I guess they didn't do a good enough job of editing.
-
The thing to remember about this nonsense about election fraud is that it makes no sense, because if the Dems cooked the results in the presidential, why did they not do the same to make sure they had an impenetrable majority in the Senate? This is starting to sound like claims of Zapruder fakery, which ignore the basic logic that if they wanted to suppress the images they would have destroyed the film, not let it come out in ways which convinced the rest of the world that there was a conspiracy.
-
5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
It is these kinds of extreme, wild far-left attacks that make so many conservatives think that if you believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy you must also believe all of the far-left politics that come with most pro-conspiracy books.
Democrats had no problem claiming that the 2016 election was stolen via Russian interference, a myth that the Mueller Report debunked (and that subsequent investigation has proved came from the Hillary campaign and the DNC). Nor did Democrats have any problem claiming that the 2000 election was stolen. Gee, funny how those stolen-election claims did not "undermine democracy," "undermine the democratic process," "seek to overturn an election," etc., etc., but when many Republicans, for very good reasons, argue that the 2020 election was stolen via serious election fraud, suddenly it's undemocratic to question election results.
But the key point is that such issues have no place in a book about an event that occurred in 1963. It should be enough to say that we cannot have powerful elites assassinating presidents because they don't like their policies, and we cannot have new media who sheepishly repeat the cover-up claims generated by those who were part of the crime.
For such an astute observer, Michael, you’re surprisingly nearsighted. The Democrats never claimed the Russians stole the elections but that they tampered with the election. There is a difference. But even the fact that you’re comparing the Democrats complaints to the Republican complaints shows how myopic you are in this whole subject. I’m sorry to say this because you’ve done some very good writing on the assassination. But if you can’t even recognize Trump’s brand of very American fascism, embodied by his attempted coup, then we have very little more to discuss here. And Mueller did nothing of a kind. There was a subtlety to Russian misbehavior that has apparently alluded you; according to Time magazine:
“Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.”
Historic Truth
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Allen Lowe
I’m so glad you finally found someone who actually agrees with you on all of these, David. Oh, wait….