Sandy Larsen

It must be very frustrating for the non-alterationists, given the amount of evidence there is indicating alteration. Against which there is little they can do but nit pick, move the goalposts, and make a lot of noise. So they resort to ad hominem attacks.

Tom, Nearly every Parkland and Bethesda witness -- greater than 40 of them -- said they saw a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head. None of them said they saw a wound on the top of the head. It is statistically impossible for that many witnesses to be wrong on such a simple distinction. Therefore the back-of-the-head autopsy photos are forgeries, and the Zapruder film has most likely* been altered. The only viable theory we have for Zapruder alteration is Horne's. The theory makes sense and one of the participants agrees with both its premise and its outcome. It is for these reasons that I believe Horne's theory. *I say "most likely" because it is conceivable that the gaping hole on the back of the head cannot be seen in Zapruder. However, there is other evidence indicating film alteration. For example, when comparing the shaded area of Jackie's hair to the shaded area of JFK's hair, Jackie's hair is consistently darker prior to Z314, whereas JFK's hair is consistently darker after Z314. (I measured these with a computer program.) This strongly suggests that the back of JFK's head was darkened after the head shot in order to hide the wound.

Mmmm... fish and chips...

Yes, thank you so much Mr. Curme for your generous donation. Thank you everybody!

Thank you, Tom. Yes, Horne should have asked for a clarification. I believe he would have gotten a response that reinforces his theory. I think that the reason Horne didn't ask again is because he was taken by surprise and didn't know what to make of Brugioni's response. Yes, of course Horne would have released any part where Brugioni said images extended into the sprocket area. To Horne's credit, he did release the part about Brugioni saying there was no "image bleed" around the sprocket holes. I disagree with you on that. The first time Brugioni said no, his mind was on light bleeding... a bad thing. Right after that when Horne said "sprocket holes," Brugioni's mind was certainly still on light bleeding. And he said no again, because there was no light bleeding there either. He said no quickly, leaving no time to think. Brugioni's mind may have shifted toward the question of image extending to the sprocket holes afterward, given a little more time to think. But by then Horne had already moved onto the next topic.

That is what even the superficial evidence indicates. The expertly timed detonation could be done this way: Preset each detonation unit to be triggered a specified amount of time upon receiving a radio-transmitted "Go!" signal. I don't see this being be a terribly difficult thing to set up. The only difficult on-site thing to do would be to move the thermite to each destination.

Had I been the lead design engineer, I would have made the explosives detonate via radio, not wire. Each explosive would have a cheap, but reliable, radio receiver and battery. No big deal. I'd probably use redundancy radios and detonators to dramatically increase reliability... two or three radios/detonators for each explosive.

Ron, I think that what Paul said was anti-Griffith, not anti-moderator.

Tom posts this video clip in order to support his claim that Dino Brugioni believed that the images in the Zapruder film he had didn't extend into the sprocket area. Tom's claim doesn't make sense because later in the clip Brugioni says that the film he had was definitely the original, and images on an original WOULD indeed extend into the sprocket area. How can this contradiction be explained? Tom says that Brugioni is old and confused. His opponent, Keven, says that Brugioni is sharp-minded but misunderstood Horne's question about the "image bleed over." I am posting to say that Keven is right and Tom is wrong. And I will show why this is true: Here is a transcript from the end of the above video clip just to show that Brugioni did indeed say the film he had was the original: Horne: Dino, do you think you had an original home movie, or a copy? Brugioni: No doubt in my mind, we had the original. Now from the beginning of the clip, about the image bleed over: Horne: Do you recall any image bleed over ... Brugioni: No. Horne: ... between the sprocket holes? Brugioni: No. Right away you will notice that Brugioni answered Horne mid-sentence, before he had even mentioned the sprocket holes. The questioned he answered was, "Do you recall any image bleed over?" So, Brugioni's answer had nothing to do with the sprocket holes. To understand what Brugioni thought he was asked, you need to understand a couple things. First, that there is no such thing as "image bleed over" or "image bleed" in photography. The only thing there is about bleeding in photography is a phenomenon called "light bleed." This is a defect where light bleeds to somewhere it isn't supposed to be and exposes the film there. Here's an example of light bleed: There are two light bleed phenomena going on here. First, the bleeding around each of the electrical lights. I don't know what causes this, but I do know that the phenomenon is often induced intentionally for artistic effect. The second phenomenon is the white light shining in from the bottom and the lower-right. One would think that this is caused by a light leak in the camera. But that can hardly be the case given that the photo was taken in the dark. So it is very likely that Brugioni thought Horne was asking if there were light bleed defects in the images. To which he answered, "No."

Thank you for your contribution, Nick.

What? That is literally it? You didn't even mention that Brugioni said frames showing flying debris are missing, according to his recollection. And that the black patch on the back of the head is "troubling." Nevertheless, the fact that he believed the extant copies of the Z film, including the one in the National Archives, were altered means that alteration had to have taken place one way or another. (Assuming he is right.) The only plausible theory I've seen on how the film could have been altered is Horne's Hawkeye works theory.

It's refreshing to see people who base their opinions on hard evidence rather than preconceived and biased notions. There is a mountain of evidence pointing to a boy Oswald doppelganger, and so I believe in a Harvey & Lee scenario... though not necessarily as Armstrong describes it, in particular after the doppelganger returned from Russia. I haven't studied 9/11 Trutherism, so I can't say much about it. But as a knowledgeable engineer, I can say that steel frame buildings don't drop straight down the way the Twin Towers and WTC7 did. What they do is bend. And they do that only if the fire is hot enough to soften the steel beams. Usually the structure stays upright, with the fire gutting the inside. I'm pretty sure that the WTC buildings are the only steel frame buildings in history to have collapsed straight down. That's the sort of thing that happens only in controlled demolitions. So it is astonishing that that happened. What's even more astonishing is that the same happened to two different building designs... the WTC1/WTC2 design, and the WTC7 design. Suppose the odds of a steel frame building collapsing straight down is 1 in a thousand. The odds of TWO different designs collapsing that way would be 1/1000 x 1/1000 = 1/1000000, or 1 in a million! Another amazing thing is the speed in which the the buildings collapsed. It is pretty much impossible for that to happen (unaided) because it would be necessary for the vertical steel beams on all the floors to get hot enough to bend AT THE VERY SAME TIME. Well, within seconds of each other. But it's more amazing than that. The floors just happened to collapsed in order, from plane level on down! I haven't done the math to confirm this, but it is said that the towers came down at near free-fall speed. If that's the case, the vertical beams must have all melted. Which is yet another impossibility. Building fires don't get hot enough to melt steel. (Such fires typically burn at between 1000 and 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel melts at 2700 degrees. Source.) Which, of course, is the reason why steel frame buildings never fully collapse... they just sometimes bend over. Finally, consider this. Even if the vertical beams were to get hot enough to melt, they would have first become soft and would have bent. In which case the structure would have bent over before fully collapsing. Which it didn't.

Didn't Umbrella Man pump his umbrella opened and closed? Or up and down? I thought I'd read that before.

Those splotchy areas are green! I've never seen that before. What is a "Gordon" version? Do you mean Groden? Whatever it is, I'd like to see a frame from it.

Brugioni believed that the Zapruder film at the National Archives has been altered, right? Doesn't that mean, then, that his belief supports what Keven is saying here and not what Tom is saying?