Michael Walton

All one had to do was press down on that switch (til it hit bottom) and hold. Oh, Chris I'm so glad you finally unmasked what you're basing all of this garbage on - that somehow, some way - Zapruder intentionally or accidentally pressed the "increase frame rate" button on his camera as the motorcade was going by? Guess what? I can yell too and you're going to love it... Bawwwaaaa!!! What a humongous load of BS! You can't possibly be serious, can you, Chris?! Where are you seeing this?! I mean it's absolutely and completely ridiculous that whatever it is you're seeing is just utter garbage. You're seeing things. Anyone with a decent amount of sanity can you tell you're imagining things! The man was a mid-50s dressmaker, Chris. He probably didn't even know what the %%%% that button was for on the camera, never mind would he dare to press it during a presidential motorcade going by. We're talking mere seconds as the car goes by and how do we even know that the camera motor would have the ability to seamlessly ramp up the frame rate mid-shooting and do so without any jerkiness in the exposed film? Even today in Hollywood, do you not realize, Chris, that in a Hollywood movie when they want to show something in ultra slow motion, they carefully stage this. They put the high speed camera in place or take their standard camera and ramp it up. Then they yell "action" and record the scene. Then in editing they can play around with the different frame rates in their editing software, slowing it down or speeding it up on the timeline. They don't shoot this by changing the frame rate mid-shooting, Chris. And now, you're big reveal - after 16,000 views and 310 replies on this thread - is that using a 1960's consumer film camera, little old Mr. Zapruder was up there changing frame rates smoothly and like a grizzled Hollywood veteran while the President's car was going by? OMG! Un - freaking - believable! Jeremy - nice job on your #310 post. Very well said.

Here are some Jeremy highlights, ones which I concur with, and ones that neither Chris nor Dave have STILL answered. Instead they revert to the typical tropes of "you don't understand English" and "they need to start a new thread," when it was Chris, with his wonderfully apt starting thread of "coming..." that got this whole train wreck started That's what makes the whole 'Zapruder film is faked' thing so bizarre and laughable. The Bad Guys went to all this trouble to fake the film, but they forgot to replace the parts that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis. Whoops! They only faked the parts they didn't need to fake. Silly Bad Guys! And having incompetently faked the film to fool the public, they didn't force it on the public at every opportunity. Instead, they kept it out of the public's view for as long as they could. Exactly, Jeremy. But neither Chris or Dave have an answer for this. The point Michael Walton made is that the way the argument is presented, as a long series of unexplained, cryptic equations, is a terrible way to communicate a sound argument. It is, however, a good way to disguise a weak argument. This method may work with the faithful, but if you want to convince open-minded non-believers, you need to set out the case for alteration in a way that makes it as easy as possible for people to follow. Their constant reply to this is "just go away...start your own thread." What a joke. You could begin by telling us in plain English exactly which elements of the Zapruder film you consider not to be authentic. Did the Bad Guys fake the whole thing, including all those frames that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis? If not, precisely which frames have been tampered with? The less vague you can make it, the less like paranoid wishful thinking your case will seem to be. The most you'll get is "you just don't understand anything here" and "you're just too stupid to understand anything about this." Yeah, right. Here is Chris's reply to Chuck, which was probably the most concise and to the point answer he's ever given on this thread: Chuck, For now, I'll state that early on in the government investigations, they realized there was more than one shooter. Hence the manipulation of data to put one person in the 6th floor snipers nest. Manipulation of data? What on Earth could you possibly mean here, Chris? And then how could this "manipulation" then extend over to a film? Oh, boy! And here is one of Chris's more recent greatest hits: Your answer is much more appropriate: "it was done at 48fps with a simple flick of a switch" So you're thinking that a guy in his mid 50s was standing up on the pedestal, probably nervous as all heck as he waits for the motorcade to go by, and when it starts, he actually had the presence of mind to be pressing the button to change the film rate mid-recording? Haha! Absolutely laughable. He could barely hold the camera still and yet, we're expected to believe, "Oh right HERE is where I want some old 48 FPS, and then right HERE I'm putting it back to 18." OMG, Chris. DAVE (criticizing my word usage) - Mike - if you truly don't know the difference between ALTERED and CREATED or FAKED and EDITED what are you even doing here? Hey, Dave, I've not read a one post of you criticizing your buddy Chris's use of the word "manipulation" (see above when he used it). So which is it? Manipulated (his) or altered (yours)?

The film was not "FAKED" Mike, it was altered and created to show what it needed to and then evidence was created to give the film corroboration, as long as one does not look outside this closed loop presentation of evidence. Isn't this apples and oranges, Dave? Altered, faked, edited, manipulated, created. Come on, you're a smart guy - don't try to answer with a subterfuge. You know what I mean and you know better than that. I'm not sure who said what about how the limo driver's movements are faked. But I'm going to reply to that. And it's really quite easy to figure out. If you have fast movement and record it at a very high frame rate, all of those frames are going to capture the fast movement, allowing you to slow the movement down for analysis. But if you have the same fast movement and record it at only 18 frames per second, then yes, there may be a not entirely clear capture of the movement. But that's all it is. There's no fakery...oops, sorry - ALTERATION - of the film. I've watched that portion of the film numerous times and it does not look like anything was altered. Again, a simple answer for something that's been blown out of proportion. So I'm not even sure why in the world something like that in the Z film would be held up as alteration/fakery/manipulation. One other comment Jeremy made up above that I loved and wanted to point out. It's an out of park comment he made - the one where he said that people with a good case can answer something concisely where as people with a bad case go on and on and on with clips of motorcycles, endless math formulas, very long and long-winded responses, and so on. Beautifully said and oh, so true for this ridiculous thread.

Jeremy Bojczuk: I applaud you with all of your rational, well-thought replies to Chris and Dave on this thread. There are people like them and many others who see conspiracy everywhere. Just recently, when the Dallas sniper shootings took place, folks on this very forum were actually saying, "Oh, well, it happened because they want to take the attention away from HRC's email scandal." I mean, can you imagine!? Meanwhile, Chris keeps making these silly, ridiculous graphic illustrations like taking the limo and lining it up with Elm Street. I mean, jeez! The Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy. I'm currently working on a sync video of the reenactment film and the Z film. There is absolutely no way that any shots were fired before 225. None. Do you really think the planners would have taken this risky of a move, to have fired earlier when the tree would have been blocking the shot? If an impostor was really up there firing away before 225, he would have had no shot, yet he would have fired through the tree? And if there was no one up there (that's what I believe, that the so-called sniper's nest was just a ruse to blame Oswald), would the planners not have known the tree was blocking the view? Of course not. Why put this entire plan in motion only to have screwed it up by, "Oh, yeah, start firing way up on Elm Street even though we know that the 6th floor has a blocked view." And even more, why in the world would the planners have not shot Kennedy when they had a clear view of him on Houston Street? The answer is very simple - that little section of Elm Street starting at 225 or so was the killing zone. The crowd had really thinned out in that area (compared to Houston and earlier on Elm); they also knew the SS - in the backs of their mind - were saying, "Well, it's almost over..." And of course, it was an ideal place to have multiple shooters from the back and front. And guess what? The Z film recorded it for all time. Is it any wonder why the government wanted to bury away the film for 12 years? However, I don't agree with you on the shot sequence. Watch the film - shot #1 is to the throat; #2 is in the back; #3 is Connally; #4 and #5 are JFK's kill shots. Keep in mind that by 313, Connally is almost down flat so it'd be very hard to have hit him after 313. Besides, why would they? My hunch has always been they shot Connally to get him out of the way, making a clean shot for Kennedy at 313. That's why there's that little pause after the shots starting at 225. I don't know if it was a happy accident or what for the shooters, but once Connally was shot, he fell over or was grabbed by his wife, opening the door for the kill shots. Tom Neal: I'm sorry to say, Tom, but there are no "indisputable experts" in this case, not even the guy who worked at the CIA photo lab. I mean, didn't he say he saw one thing one day and something else the next? And that's an expert? Chuck Schwartz: You say that even though you don't quite understand it all with what Chris and Dave are doing here, you encourage them to carry on. Why? It's like you come up to a guy hitting himself on the head over and over with a stick, you ask him why he's doing it, he says, "Because it feels so good when I stop," and then you tell him to carry on. It defies logic when logic is sorely missing on this thread. Chris and Dave: All I can say now is this - conspiracy was not everywhere and anywhere in this case and surely not in the Z film. You're now relying on witness statements to back up your silly Math Rules thread. Witness statements and so-called expert testimony is one of the worst things to depend on to bolster a case. There ought to be a cross list of all of the people who testified in a hundred different ways about the same incident. No matter how wild-eyed you are with this crazy thread - making even more illustrations, backing up and forwarding the frames over and over and over again - it's NOT going to reveal anything. And ask yourselves this - why...WHY....would the government fake a film and then keep the faked film away from the general public for 12 years? The planners were ballsy enough to fake the back yard photos and then say, "Look what we found," and yet they fake a motion picture film and instead of declaring that the film proves for all-time that only three shots were fired, they instead bury it? If you can't figure this out then both of you have really, truly lost your way with this topic and no amount of reason is going to convince either of you.

Scott - thanks so much that's the one. I'm posting it here so others can read it inline. Thanks for the positive effect your efforts and career have had on history and the truth. On page 221 of Last Word, you wrote: Events were moving quickly as Sprague and Tanenbaum were getting close to the truth. (David) Phillips was on the verge of confessing that the entire story the CIA had told to the Warren Commission was a fabrication, that in fact Oswald had never been to Mexico City and that the story was created by the CIA to prevent Warren from conducting an honest investigation. Phillips later made those specific admissions in public. His confession demonstrated conclusively that the CIA, in September 1963, was falsely creating a fiction that could and would be used to implicate Oswald in a crime that would not be committed until November 1963; this guilty foreknowledge, known as the law of scienter, clearly demonstrated the CIA's complicity, not merely as accessories after the fact, but as accessories before the fact. That difference is most significant.

Our role here is not to convince but to make you think. Likewise, Dave, likewise. We're trying to get you to see the err of your ways. Not everything is a conspiracy and the Z film IS the evidence of conspiracy if you'd open up your mind and see it for what it is, instead of thinking it had to be altered to make it one.

I wish I kept links that I find and then save them for later. But recently I found a link and there was a quote and it said, in essence, "When all of the [government] papers on Oswald are finally released, the final proof of him not being in MC will be revealed." Does anyone have that link? In my opinion, I don't think he was down there. It was just one more way they were trying to set him up, like they did during his showy handing out of leaflets in NO, his fight, his TV "Yes, I'm a communist" interview, and the rather poorly done back yard photo fakery. One thing I've always wondered about. There's plenty of things people do and get attention for because of the insatiable beast that's the media today. But I would love to know who called the TV station that day to send a camera man down to where Oswald was handing out those leaflets. We're talking about a pretty minor event by 1963 standards. Yet, there was the camera man filming this showy event. Even Hoover told Johnson that the man they had in the Dallas jail was not the same man they had photos and voice recordings of in MC.

The whole "Z film is fake" thing is ridiculous and especially so with this thread. The whole Rosetta Stone with this film is this: If the government had been 100% certain that they took the film and eliminated all instances of conspiracy by either editing out frames showing bullets hitting the ground, or a gun barrel showing up in front of the freeway sign, or whatever else, why - WHY - did they not then turn around, show it to the public, and say, "Here is the film recorded by a citizen. See, the film proves that only three shots were fired from the 6th floor window by the lone nut Oswald?" But they did not. They would have had an extremely difficult if not impossible task of faking Kennedy's body being thrown violently backward. So what do they do? It's very simple. They hid it away for 12 years and only had mouthpieces like Dan Rather inaccurately describing it to the public. They had magazines showing only frames of the film, then writing completely inaccurate descriptions (e.g., "Kennedy turned his body 180 degrees to face the rear when he was hit in the throat by a shot"). That's the proof right there - that the film is authentic and that the film confirms conspiracy, which is why it was hidden away in the first place. I've watched numerous head shot video clips and I have yet to see one - not a one - of a shot slamming into the back of the head and then the victim's body suddenly and violently being thrown backward like Kennedy's body did in the film. But let's talk about fakery, real fakery. In my opinion, the Oswald back yard photos are proof of fakery. They were doing everything they could to set this guy up and I think they got really greedy with the set up. It wasn't enough that Oswald was trained by the government to speak Russian, go over to that country and "defect," easily slip back into the U.S. with nary a blink of the eye by the government, get him to hand out pro-communist leaflets in NO, get him on the local TV news making outlandish "Yes, I'm a communist" statements. No, it wasn't enough. So they take photos of a stand in, get him to hold not only a gun but a pistol and even communist papers (to boot), pose him in an awkwardly standing position, and then paste Oswald's head on the stand-in. Whew, talk about greedy. Oswald himself said they were fake and he was familiar with photo techniques, having worked at JCS. The man wasn't even supposed to have been captured alive that day. But fortunately, for us, something went wrong, he was captured and we were able to hear bits and pieces from a man who knew what it was all about ("I'm a patsy..." and "The photos are fake..."). Faking a photograph back then was infinitely more easier to do than faking a motion picture film so they thought they'd try to pull it off like they did with the back yard photos. But what they couldn't fake, they just kept it from the public (like the Z film and the film or photos taken by the Babushka lady).

Chris - what in the world are you showing here?! I have all of the frames of the Z film on my computer. I don't need to look at this GIF because I can see the frames for myself. I've opened them up on my computer and have just cycled through them one at a time. The running girl is fine. The guy stepping back onto the sidewalk is fine. If there was a skip or jump in the motion then, yes, there would appear to be something "missing." But there's not. And what in God's name would a single frame or two taken out prove anyway?! Nothing! You'd have to really resort to the fact that out of 400 odd frames of a motion picture film, taking one or two out is NOT going to change the dynamics of what the film recorded, Chris! It's ridiculous and I can't understand what in the world you're trying to prove here. And please don't post yet another motorcycle or running man clip, because then you're just spinning around in circles in your mind. I've said this before and will again - there was NO NEED to fake the film, Chris. None. For the simple reason that the government (through Life) bought it up and kept it away from the public until 1975. It probably would have stayed hidden even longer if Groden had not gotten it shown on broadcast TV in 1975. Look at this: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZzFCcUluMm82ZVk Here's Cronkite showing a photo of the motorcade. Why do you think he showed it? Because it was harmless and showed absolutely nothing. Now think of the Z film. Friday goes by...then Saturday...Sunday. Nothing. No public viewing. Then Rather does his poorly described and hammy "description" of it, not mentioning the body being thrown backward. It's not hard to figure out, Chris. And Dave - yes, it would have been extremely difficult to have coordinated any and all photos and films that day. If you think there was a gaggle of technicians and editors sitting around cutting, pasting, and jiggling photos and films to get them all perfectly aligned and "just so," then you deserve Chris Davidson's company.

Your lack of perception is the only flaw that's been introduced. So let me get this straight. You're posting all of these meaningless math formulas and film footage of clips of a motorcycle and of a gaggle of marathon runners that have absolutely nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination in general and the Z film in particular...and I'm the one who lacks perception? That is, indeed, a very, very rich lack of perception and self-awareness, Chris. But you keep fiddling around with your measurements, pictures, and film clips if it makes you happy. If you tried presenting this crazy stuff in a court of law, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. The evidence to work with are the frames of the Z film, Chris, not footage of a motorcycle. And if you can't prove that that film was slowed down or sped up - and I know you can't - then all of the ridiculous stuff in this thread is a utter and complete waste of time.

Yes, Josh, it was indeed surreal. It was interesting to me that the official spokesmen were incredibly open to the likelihood there was more than one sniper, and that no one from Dallas or the media appeared to be trying to fit it into a single shooter scenario. Compare and contrast... Beautifully said, Pat. Kudos.

Chris, Thank you so very much for your last post. It confirms every single thing I've posted here about the flaws of this thread. I rest my case. Please don't ask me to start a new thread. As I said way up above, you don't seem to understand that this is a forum. You can't just post something here and take in the applause when someone agrees with you, and then ask people who don't agree to go elsewhere. Don't forget - this forum has the word "Debate" in its title, with the objective of debating someone's theories or ideas. There's no doubt in my mind that if I started a thread about, say, the Carcano being the only weapon used in the assassination, I better back this up with as much evidence to prove the theory. The same with your theory here in this thread. Dave, But you, too, are interpreting the evidence as well. You are looking at pictures, taking measurements, then interpreting it as "The Z film is fake." Like Fetzer did, like Chris does, like Hume currently is when he sees a word and finds a Nagell secret code in it. And like Thompson did, and me, and others - we're interpreting the evidence as well, but with different conclusions. We're all interpreting here. And if no one had interpreted the evidence, starting with Mark Lane in December 1963, then all we'd know about it is the all-time biggest cover-up in history.

Thank you, Jim Hargrove, for pointing all of these things out.

That pic in the nightclub looks sort of like Harvey and Lee together. Maybe they got together now and then to compare notes, or just to have a good laugh. Funny, Ron :-)

I'll have to say that Armstrong's work is well documented comparing two different people (H and L). The other research I did (I wish I could tell you where I read this but I've forgotten) involving someone going around calling himself "Leon" and doing things like driving a car in a dealership wrecklessly has convinced me that they were greasing the screw for the big Lone Nut reveal on 11/22. Plus all of the NO events, including the handing out leaflets and starting a fight and being in a TV interview, was all part and parcel. I posted this photo a while back and some people saw some similarities and some did not. I personally think there are some similarities between Oswald and whoever was on the right in the picture, which supposedly was taken in Ruby's nightclub: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxVGRwcXdiTjc0Y28

Chris and Dave, You may not want to to take my word for it. But you may want to take Josiah Thompson's word for it as seen here: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/29th_Issue/jt_zfilm.html And all you have to do substitute some names in the above. I'd be honored to take the role of Thompson while you guys can be the Fetzer twins. :-) Enjoy reading, boys...if you dare.

Chris Bristow, The answer is no. When each frame was exposed, it basically took a photograph of what the lens was seeing. The gate shut, the frame advanced, the next frame moved into place, and then the shutter opened taking the next photo. It did this 18 times every second. From one frame to the next, live action did not stop. The car kept moving, so when the next frame was exposed, there's going to be some lag between frames in what the film captured. If the camera had been filming with higher frames per second, we would have seen much more detail. The best example is the TV show Time Warp: Even at the 18 fps rate that the Z film recorded at you can still see the car slowing down right before the head shots. If the film had been filmed with many more FPS like the above example, it's possible that the car slowing down may not have even been noticeable. But if you watch the Z film at the rate it was filmed in (18) it's obvious the car was gliding along from the top of Elm Street until Greer's attention was averted in the back by the first shots, he turned to look back, and put on the brakes, slowing down.

On the other hand, I also got the impression that Croy ran after Ruby... Sandy, All good points. I've always found it fascinating how witnesses describe things vs. what really happened based on photo or film evidence. There is a clip of Oswald briefly glancing over toward Ruby's direction just before he's shot. It seems to me that Ruby didn't really have to barge through anyone, that he pretty much was standing sideways up in the front row of reporters waiting to do the deed. Sorry I can't find that clip but I've seen it. And here is a good photo: Again, not saying Croy didn't try to stop him as he said in his statement. Croy makes it sound like he got to Ruby before he actually shot him but the above photo shows he pretty much went in unimpeded. And I've always LOVED the pained look on Fritz's face. I've always thought of it as the "Oh, boy, here we go!" expression.

I know this forum is about Kennedy's assassination but I think sometimes it wouldn't hurt to post things about his life as well. This can be useful to new visitors of this forum and young kids who come here and may not know that much about JFK the man. I think that doing this can help others understand his assassination better because if you know the man better, you realize more and more what he was up against. With that said, I just saw the film Free State of Jones. It shows that after Lincoln's murder, the South pretty much reverted back to its slavery ways by using the KKK to control the black population. I couldn't help but wonder that it pretty much continued to be this way until June 1963, when President Kennedy sent the civil rights bill to Congress. It took the courage of President Kennedy to propose this bill, even though he knew that it would pretty much wreck his political support in the 1964 election year. Kudos to President Kennedy for doing this. http://civilrights.jfklibrary.org/Media-Assets/The-Civil-Rights-Bill#Building-Support

I just read the Croy statement of when he witnessed the Oswald assassination. He first says he saw Ruby "run into the crowd," but this is incorrect because if you watch the pre-shooting video, Ruby was already milling about in the crowd of reporters waiting for Oswald to come out. He said he tried to grab Ruby before he shot Oswald. I find this dubious because again, in the video playback, no one attempts to grab Ruby as he approaches Oswald to gun him down. This is why I'm always a little skeptical about witness statements. And this is coming from a trained law enforcement officer. I do support the murder of Tippit by others, thus, framing Oswald. The single fact that it was virtually impossible for him to have gotten back to his rooming house and then over to the Tippit scene in time to kill him proves he was set up for the murder. I never knew about the half dollar found in Oswald's possession. This is great info and what are the odds of someone who was innocent and yet running around town after the president is murdered and then a policeman too, and then they find a half torn dollar bill in his possession? I've always admired Armstrong's research, including the part about Jack Rubenstein being associated with Nixon back in the 1940's. But I've always been a little skeptical about his theory of Harvey and Lee. I do think there was someone going around doing things to make Oswald look crazy - like the guy who shot someone else's target at a range and that kind of thing - but the whole Harvey and Lee thing has always sounded a little bit too out there for me.

To Jeremy Bojczuk: Thanks for the funny post. I had a good laugh over at that parody post. Anyone who hadn't read the first post in this thread, which contains the sentence, "Zfilm alteration equation coming up", probably wouldn't have much of an idea what this endless parade of mathematics was about. It would be nice if each formula was accompanied by some sort of explanation of its significance, although it's easy to understand why this hasn't been done. There's an amusing critique of this nonsense here That's exactly what I said in an earlier post. If you want to post something, do the research off line, put it together, and then post it complete and whole for all to see and debate. This was never done with this thread. And the title is ridiculous - Swan Song - as if "I've got all of the answers here for you, no need to go elsewhere." And then the first post says nothing. What a joke. Chris: Do you even know what the %$#@ you're talking about? Posting a clip of a motorcycle that runs in normal speed and then slows down? What does that have to do with assassination? I'll say this again clearly and on one line below: THERE IS NO SLOW DOWN OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM - THERE IS NO 18 FPS, THEN 48 FPS, THEN 24 FPS IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM. The only good thing I've seen of you on this thread was when you were in Dallas, stood up on the pedestal with a camera like Zapruder's, and filmed the truck going down Elm Street, and you posted it for us to see. I thought that was interesting for if no other reason to just show how that camera's lens has a slight warping effect. But that's all. This thread is an embarrassment to the research community. I don't know if you're a math teacher or what but you seem to like math. Good for you. But you don't even present it in a way that would help anyone with a decent sense of linear thinking understand what the %&*( you're talking about. And at this point, you're basically just carrying on an email conversation with David Josephs. You seem familiar with Google Drive - why not set up a shared Word doc with him and you and him can post to your hearts' content? But to keep posting here over and over again to keep the ranking of this thread high and your photo over in the post by area is doing nothing for serious researchers and just makes someone like me and others look like fools for even being a part of this forum.

What's your point? Here's my point. Because you completely disagree about the authenticity of the film, you used all of your experience with the current *authentic* version of the film to find an obvious and blatant fake, the one you see above. Nice going. You will now go back to this thread and continue to believe that you are finding evidence of fakery in the film. But you're not using that common sense approach you used to find the fake one above. Your mind's eye (yes, there is such a thing) will continue to cloud your judgment and the more quotes you read in the WC and the more photos you look at, that mind's eye will keep taking you further and further from the truth - that the current version of the Z film, the one in my video that has *not* been faked, is authentic. Because you've lost your ability to think critically about the film, you're now seeing conspiracy everywhere. And I have bad news for you - it's NOT everywhere. I'll be the first to admit that I used to think the man in the doorway was Oswald. But all the while, my non mind's eye would say, "Yes, it looks like him but it's *not* him. It only looks like him." I finally decided to not be too silly about this, that it's not him but Lovelady. Even though I know that there was a massive conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, it's important too to not lose your critical thinking about the case. Then, the work on PM convinced me once and for all. It convinced me that the guy leaning over is Lovelady. The "guy holding something" does look like Oswald but we'll never know with 100% certainty until we get clearer footage. So the point is this - our mind's eye does play tricks with our ability to think critically. This thread is a perfect example of it, of letting your mind's eye get the better of you. This is my Swan Song on Swan Song. No amount of reasoning with you and Chris will convince either of you otherwise that you're chasing your tails with all of this math, WC quote pasting, and photo grabbing. And the other example is the other gentleman's post where he keeps posting so-called hidden word puzzles. Excitingly for you and Chris, so many people have looked at this thread that there's no doubt you will continue to post here to keep the rankings high and the HOT next to it on the home page. But I think what you, Chris and others are doing with this post is truly shameful. I come here to learn new things about this case but this thread is a perfect example of why the outside world laughs at us and calls us kooks, crackpots, and bat-$%^& loons.

It's nice to know you have your finger on the pulse of the Zfilm research community Mike.... yet in reality quite a number of people are benefiting from this work, sorry you can't be one of them. Yes, thank you. I'm quietly confident about my beliefs in this case. I believe in science but sometimes you have to go by instinct too. Cops do this all the time - they go with their hunch. Sometimes they're wrong and sometimes they're right. So you actually think that because Greer says he didn't see anything that it's a conspiracy? Try looking ahead and very quickly turning your head around to the same position as you see him in the Z film, then look forward again. And try driving a car while doing that. Then put a head like Connally's in front of your rear view. It looks to me that Greer is telling the truth - that he didn't see anything. And remember - this was happening very quickly. How old was Greer - mid-50s? Yes it was his job to drive the limo and guard the president, but I say no one - and I mean no one - was extra alert and cautious that day, especially after seeing nothing but cheers and smiles from the airport until the plaza. I don't know what you're seeing in the Hargis segment of your post above. Here's the frames in a GIF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxVUt6X2NWR1dJc2c The little girl running and the guy stepping back onto the curb look normal to me. Yes, there are some damaged frames but watch the above - doesn't seem sinister or altered to me. Your jumble of pictures of the motorcade and the statements don't make any sense. You've got Sorrels saying something, then a cop photo with a quote, then Altgens and frames from the film looking up Elm Street. I consider myself an astute researcher but if I don't understand your photos and statements, how do you expect someone new at this case to understand? I think this is what I meant in an earlier post - you're seeing what you want to see and you're all over the place, with Greer's statement, a damaged frame from Life, the cop's statement, and so on. Here's a challenge for you. See if you can tell what's different between the two versions of the Zapruder film: https://youtu.be/SFYBgJEE9jo

This is a great book. It's not all about Rather but about how the network (all of them actually) went from reporting the news to fluff pieces...as in "Look at the puffy pink puddle walking down the street with Ms. Poodey." Though CBS really screwed the pooch on the assassination even when it was supposed to be reporting "hard news." https://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Cbs-Undoing-Americas/dp/0312915314

From his Wiki page: There is at least one glaring error in Rather's 1976 book: "Within an hour of the arrest the police disclosed that a paraffin test of Oswald's hands and face showed that he had fired a gun."[14] Lee Harvey Oswald had been arrested in Oak Cliff at 1:55 p.m. Texas time, but the paraffin test was not administered until 8:55 CST, according to expert Pat Speer, who has explained the tests done and their results.[15] [16][17] In his autobiography, he also claims to be one of the first to see the Zapruder film showing the assassination and the first to describe it on television.[18] The film was never shown on television to the general public, and Rather reported the fatal headshot as forcing Kennedy's head to be thrown violently forward, when it was thrown backwards. This report is sometimes included as part of conspiracy theories which purport that the direction in which Kennedy's head moved supports one theory or another. Yes, Dan, it *does* support solely a conspiracy which is why you didn't mention it on live TV on 11/25. I've viewed dozens and dozens of gunshot wounds to the back of the head online, sometimes at point-blank range. For what it's worth, I don't enjoy watching these clips and I do it only for JFK case research. It is a horrible sight to see. But in every single instance I have not yet seen any shot - at all - force the person's body to violently slam backward like Kennedy did as seen in the Zapruder film. And all of these shots originate from the rear of the head. So in mind, this supports only one conclusion and that is a shot from the front - and probably one that was not too distant from the limo - which violently pushed his head and body against the seat of the car. I don't think Dan's head shot description was an innocent mistake or an accident either.