Tom Neal

Tom, you can't be serious. Jeremy is one of the more reasoned and polite people on this forum.

To be honest, Tom, you have a lot of nerve saying that we're sarcastic. ...but you're #### right we're sarcastic

Let me get this straight, I have a lot of nerve for saying you're sarcastic, but you PROUDLY proclaim you're #### sarcastic.

You continue to miss the point - you are STILL posting OT with complete disregard for the rules and the rights of others. This proves everything I've said. Take your topic to a new thread.

I've read you elsewhere on this forum and I thought you had a reasonably sane and nuanced voice here.

Sane and nuanced I was -- until I disagreed with you - that's all it took... BTW, as you well know, in the past I defended you several times when you ruffled feathers here. Now that I know you, I no longer do that.

Like the 'best-mannered poster' on this site, Jeremy, you continue to post OT on this thread, and do not even do me the courtesy of removing my quoted text.

Jeremy,

Chris and David are to be commended for NOT demanding a MOD delete your posts, which are definitely OT. And also for PATIENTLY continuing to answer your OT questions. *IF* they EVENTUALLY turned sarcastic or whatever you think, they CERTAINLY have every right to do so.

As far as answering your question, I have made my viewpoint on that subject PERFECTLY clear.

Unless your plan all along has been to destroy this thread with OT, thus forcing everyone to wade through your endless comments that do not belong in this thread, and anyone who happens to agree with the premise (I offer myself as an example) has to respond to your tactics. i.e. Ignore any question you can't answer, yet DEMAND that anyone who disagrees with you write a dissertation citing all references; and of course respond to the ever popular 'that was debunked years ago' - you have no reason to continue posting on this thread.

I note the following:

1. Per your MO you have not given a Yes/No response to my question re deleting my quoted posts contained within your posts, although you indirectly state that you know what I asked.

2. You posted yet another OT to ask me to do what I have stated I will not do, once again demonstrating that others are not worthy of courtesy, let alone respect for their wishes.

3. You did NOT stop the OT by simply starting a new thread asking the question you claim to be so desperate to hear answered. Why not? See my paragraph above - if the shoe fits...

4. OT is not allowed. Period. You haven't made even the LAMEST of apologies to Chris for polluting his thread.

Tom

We already knew what your belief was in relationship to the genuineness of the extant film.

The topic is about the math used to create the extant film. You don't appear to be interested in this aspect of the case.

Chris,

You are absolutely correct regarding the topic. The replies here (including my own) have become a blanket attack or defense of Z-film alteration. I apologize for my contribution to this, and will no longer post anything OT.

Any new reader of this thread will have to wade through argument after argument to follow the topic, so I'll go back and delete all my OT posts. IMO a moderator should remove all OT posts as this thread has definitely been hijacked. Chris and David should be allowed to present their work without interruption.

UPDATE: I have deleted all of my OT. I ask Michael and Jeremy to DELETE MY QUOTED STATEMENTS contained within their responses.

TN: Just to clarify, if he is voted in; those who voted for him, and those who did NOT vote at all will get what THEY deserve. The rest of us will be punished through no fault of our own.

For those who think it can't happen, remember, "W" was elected. Twice.

Not really true. W was never elected.

He stole two elections, one with his brother's help in Florida, and one with help from a dirty official in Ohio. And the media helped cover it all up.

Al Gore won the 2000 election, that was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court.

isn't it one of the functions of the press in america now to cover up; when did they last investigate anyone or anything. it seems the former watchdog of liberty has been put to sleep

In the past the press adhered to the political beliefs of the editors who in turn had to satisfy the owner. Freedom of the Press only existed in the sense that the owner could print anything he wanted. If the owner was dedicated to the truth then that's what was printed. The facts. The readers could make their decisions based on the facts.

Along came "National Security" and this allowed the USA to do what I was taught in grade school made the "communists" evil: total control of the press by the gov't.

Reagan's notion that "freedom of speech" allowed to press to lie freely gave birth to pure partisan networks. e.g. Fox News. Cronkite mourned the end of journalism as we know it. e.g. Fox News.

Remember when the opinion of the writer was listed as an editorial? Now we get editorials claiming to be facts. e.g. Fox News - An oxymoron if ever there was one. Cudos to Canada for kicking Fox News to the curb. Although some networks actually allow democratic leanings, NO Democratic equivalent of Fox News exists. Fox News is 100% Republican propaganda.

Sean Hannity: 'Who does the Pope think he is to judge whether Trump is Christian or not?'

Trump suggested that it would be great if Russia could locate, hack or otherwise obtain emails taken from Clinton's personal email server and provide them to the US media - or to try and locate those emails which might have been provided to Wikilinks by other sources and make them available to the media. In doing so he seems to have endorsed the actions of whoever had hacked the DNC server and provided those contents to the media via wikilinks. And since Russian hackers are at least suspects in the DNC hack he appears to be endorsing foreign hackers to illegally obtaining election material and feed it to the media. All of which certainly sounds a lot like encouraging foreign hacking and interference in an American election.

Perfect analysis, Larry. Just imagine his "solutions" to future foreign policy issues when he's residing in the Whitehouse...

This is how Trump is making America Great.

I can see your zeal to express your beliefs about the "facts" regarding the Z film. According to you, it appears that you and others think that the Z film alteration theory is based on facts

My zeal?

This from the guy who is 100% certain that the Z-film was not touched at all, "There was not a single frame removed." and ignores actual facts.

Show me the Z-film frames that depict the large hole in the back of JFK's head...or don't you believe the wound exists?

You still continue to ignore half a dozen questions I posed on the "Swan Song" thread.

Until you respond to those and the question above it, I cannot be bothered to respond to your nonsense.

Jeremy,

What do you think happened that day in DP, and how sure are you that you are right? I'm referring to number/location of shooters, LHO's part, type of weapons and ammo used, number/sequence of shots fired and the location of JFK and JBC's wounds.

Tom writes:

You rebuttal of Dino Brugioni was especially noteworthy!

Thank you. You must be referring to the point I made in my reply to Sandy, that human memory is fallible. Remind me, since I've forgotten, but exactly how many decades after the assassination was Brugioni interviewed? Three? Four?

No. I was referring to the lack of an answer to MY post. An answer to someone else at another time is not considered to be an answer to MY question, so you can drop the "smug" attitude. Especially true when your answer consists of your FALSE assumption that ALL people's memories are unreliable after some unstated time period.

You of course are qualified to judge the accuracy of DB's memory. Have you even watched his interviews? So ALL memory fails after X number of years, no matter HOW big an event happened to be? Do you dispute there are people with photographic memories, and also those that have total recall. His memories are quite clear and he recalls facts effortlessly. Nothing in his interviews that was witnessed by others has been disputed. Where is your proof that DB's memory is faulty regarding this specific event?

I recall quite clearly where I was, who I was with, my reaction and theirs when I learned of the assassination. I have no doubt that in DB's place I would have remembered ENOUGH detail to compare that to the extant film, and I'm convinced his memory is better than mine.

If you can't recall monumental events in your life that occurred 30 or 40 years ago with a fair amount of detail then you are the last one qualified to judge DB's memory.

DELETED BY POSTER

DELETED BY POSTER

DELETED BY POSTER

...being consistent with your "moon landing" theories about the film.

Please explain why, in your opinion, Chris's data is "moon landing" theory. Do you believe the landing was a hoax, or the theory that there were no landings is a hoax?

DELETED BY POSTER

Why is this posted here if the discussion is on JFK Facts?

DELETED BY POSTER

I recently picked up Douglas Waller's "Disciples - The World War II Missions of the CIA Directors who fought for Wild Bill Donovan". It looks at Allen Dulles, Bill Casey, Bill Colby, and Richard Helms, and their various operations and scandals. I think each of the former directors have an interesting, if a bit obfuscated(from the msm, at least) history.

If the absolute truth was told I believe it would be extremely interesting!

Thanks for posting this. How high would you rate it on a 'read/should read/ must read' level?

Tom

You could make some future political candidates there, too.

It also explains the 'thought processes' of a distinct few of the posters on this forum.

If it was NOT altered, why is blood spatter visible on only a single frame of the headshot? Why is the large hole in the back of his head not seen? Why does that 'blob' appear in front of his head that no witness described? Why does the limo driver make impossibly fast movements turning his head to see over his shoulder?

That's a nice collection of dusty old assertions, most of which were debunked long ago.

"Most of which were "debunked" long ago? Most? Because you've declared some of these debunked-inside YOUR head anyway-the world must dismiss the ones you choose to ignore.

I've got some more:

• Why doesn't the Zapruder film show Elvis Presley in the back seat? Well, then? Explain that one if you can!
• Why can't we see Connally doing a handstand immediately before the head shot? Come on! What have you got to say about that?
• Why doesn't the film show Greer launching a javelin at Kennedy? Obviously the film has been faked!

Your list of irrelevant responses has completely changed my mind. Thanks for setting me straight.

You rebuttal of Dino Brugioni was especially noteworthy!

Tom

TN: Just to clarify, if he is voted in; those who voted for him, and those who did NOT vote at all will get what THEY deserve. The rest of us will be punished through no fault of our own.

For those who think it can't happen, remember, "W" was elected. Twice.

Not really true. W was never elected.

He stole two elections, one with his brother's help in Florida, and one with help from a dirty official in Ohio. And the media helped cover it all up.

Al Gore won the 2000 election, that was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court.

Jim,

I agree with you on ALL counts. "Elected" only in the sense that he DID end up in the Whitehouse. "Legal" only in the sense that it has not been ruled by a qualified body that what he did was illegal.

A fact reported in my Orlando newspapers that disappeared immediately is that in the 2000 election, Republican volunteers removed a minimum of 2000 voters from the legal list utilizing records that were NOT allowed to be used for this process. When asked why these record were used rather than the two LEGAL sources, these patriots replied: "We weren't finding enough voters to remove from those records."

Our governor has repeated this action in both Obama elections. Except:

1. The first time he passed a list of voters to be removed, they were removed. Following an investigation by this bi-partisan group, every voter who had been removed was put back on the list.

2. The 2nd time this was done, the list of voters to be removed was checked first, and no one was removed!

3. The 3rd time and all subsequent times, the governors list was ignored completely.

Tom

Tom Neal writes:

If it was NOT altered, why is blood spatter visible on only a single frame of the headshot? Why is the large hole in the back of his head not seen? Why does that 'blob' appear in front of his head that no witness described? Why does the limo driver make impossibly fast movements turning his head to see over his shoulder?

That's a nice collection of dusty old assertions, most of which were debunked long ago.

Debunked long ago? Maybe inside your head... There are sites all over the net claiming conclusively that the Moon landings were faked. I don't believe them either.

I've got some more:

• Why doesn't the Zapruder film show Elvis Presley in the back seat? Well, then? Explain that one if you can!
• Why can't we see Connally doing a handstand immediately before the head shot? Come on! What have you got to say about that?
• Why doesn't the film show Greer launching a javelin at Kennedy? Obviously the film has been faked!

Your list of childish responses has completely changed my mind. Thanks for setting me straight.

Tom

Tom,

Excellent summary. Don't hold your breath waiting for the answer.

chris

Hi Chris,

Thanks! I MOST definitely will not...

Tom

Where is the independent runner going to come from.?

Where is Ralph Nader when you need him? (Although he is really the guy to blame for the Iraq invasion, when he split the vote and let Dubya in by the back door.)

ABSOLUTELY true, Ray. I USED to have a lot of respect for Nader. When he refused to drop out he earned my undying disgust. Most of his campaign money came from Republican sources. That was the cheapest election they ever bought!

If you folks are silly enough to vote this nutcase in as President, you deserve everything you get. God help us all.

That's true. But then we're going to deserve whichever president we get.

And so are YOU, Mr. Ecker.

"....on the cover of the National Enquirer...."

Seriously? The National Enquirer??

If you folks are silly enough to vote this nutcase in as President, you deserve everything you get. God help us all.

Just to clarify, if he is voted in; those who voted for him, and those who did NOT vote at all will get what THEY deserve. The rest of us will be punished through no fault of our own.

For those who think it can't happen, remember, "W" was elected. Twice.

If it was altered WHY didn't they show it to the public

immediately, saying, "See, here's proof one crazy Commie did it." You don't

alter something and then immediately hide it away from the general public.

You hide it because the alteration wasn't acceptable to those who ordered it. i.e. There was STILL evidence of conspiracy. That's why it was locked away PERMANENTLY.

If it was NOT altered, why is blood spatter visible on only a single frame of the headshot? Why is the large hole in the back of his head not seen? Why does that 'blob' appear in front of his head that no witness described? Why does the limo driver make impossibly fast movements turning his head to see over his shoulder?

Why did they make briefing boards on Saturday with one team of NPIC specialists, and on Sunday SECRETLY make a second set with a different team?

Why does Dino Brugioni state the extant Z-film is NOT the one he saw in 1963?

Tom