Paul Bacon

Thank you Pat Speer, I understand...

So why did "they" not make this information available to everyone? --i.e. "We saw a crystal clear version and we still can't make out Oswald clearly." Not suggesting anything nefarious, but something is strange about it.

I'm not sure the idea that the Coup could have succeeded really floats. Remember how outraged many Republican leaders were for a couple of weeks? In my view, everything that has befallen us, has been brought to us by the Republican party...

Nice one Joseph!

I'll bet she's just trying to make it easy to digest for a wider, uninformed audience. One step at a time...

And, because you live in Thailand, you're equally unaware of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You really should find a way to watch these hearings.

How ironic!!

Yes David, you are correct, they're both reacting to the same external stimulus--JFK reacting to a bullet to his throat, and JBC reacting to a bullet, followed by glass, whizzing right past his left ear.

I wonder if Alito takes seriously his moral responsibility before biting into his steak.

Yes, it's quite clear those two photos show two different scopes.

Paul, What I've highlighted... Are you seriously saying that the hosts on MSNBC frequently lie and mislead? If you are, I'd sure like to hear some examples. Because I don't believe it. At least not with Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell and their substitutes. (Those are the two shows on MSNBC that I regularly watch.) No, no Sandy. I was talking about the spin -- it's way over the top, and off-putting for me, and I imagine it would be off-putting to any who are on the fence about issues. But, no, I'm not seeing lies like I see at Fox News. To be fair, I'm on the east coast and can't stay up late enough to watch RM or LO-- I'm stuck with Ari Melber and Joy Reed. Their target audience seem to be children. Chris Hayes is great--informative, no spin, and great guests. And that's as late as I can stay up :>).

I completely agree Sandy. That is why I grow weary. For me, I don't think it's just the fringe-left M$M. I mostly watch MSNBC and I cringe all the time listening to the frequent bullshit. I don't buy the obvious propaganda, but I do listen closely to information provided by smart, measured guests. Ben doesn't get that most of us on the board are smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. In most cases, he seem to think he's the only one.

Frankly, I think that all Ben is doing is just stirring the pot for the attention it gets him. I find it wearisome.

I don't know if it was recorded Ron. I have looked for info on that conference before and have come up empty handed. In fact, I've tried to find more information about any of their work, and can find nothing. I don't know what it's come to. The last word from Doug Horne, and this was a few years ago, was that they're still working on it. I've gotta believe Larry Schnapf would know, given how involved he is...

triple post

triple post

Of course. I have no reason to suppose that he was lying. There it is. This is the difference between you and most of the rest of the people weighing in in this thread. Dino Brugioni has a very vivid and detailed memory of what he saw. He was shocked. You probably should have another look at Doug's interview with Dino.

Jeremy, your last post was a long, long, diversion. I will read Zavada's rebutle to Horne's chapter 4, but it is beside the point I'm making--as was your post. How do you and Zavada explain Dino Brugioni's observations? Faulty memory?--not a chance. So there's where we disagree. You are aware of the two NPIC events, are you not?

Oh, but something does need to be explained. Doug is trying to rectify what Dino Brugioni told him versus what we see in the Zap film. And I think Doug's speculation makes perfect sense. I find Dino's testimony to be highly, highly, credible. I've put myself in his shoes. He would never have a foggy memory about his briefing board event (save for a few minor details), because it was so momentus--and he was shocked by what he saw. Leaving his recollections about what he saw in the film aside, the fact of the two briefing board events alone, require an explaination. In my opinion, Doug Horne is an impeccable researcher.

The violent forward head movement was what Rather observed when he saw the original film, I believe (not sure) on Saturday morning. I think Cartha DeLoache, when he saw the original, made the same observation--he said so at some point--I studied this stuff more than 10 years ago and can't remember a lot of the details. Doug Horne's theory is that the rest of that forward motion is excised, and that the back and to the left was an artifact of frame removal. In other words, the back and to the left, was sped up as a result of frame removal. (This may be why Rather didn't make the observation of "a violent back and to the left" as well--the movement didn't seem as egregious as the movement caused by the shot from behind.) Further, there was nothing the technicians could do about it--it was an imperfect alteration--they had little time--they needed to hide the fact of "so many shots at one split instant". And that's why the film was suppressed (among other reasons) for so long. Regarding the picture that Andrej posted, it came from Sydney Wilkenson's work on the film in California--https://www.facebook.com/groups/JFK.thecontinuinginquiry/posts/2497783120274368/

His head actually moved forward before the back and to the left. The rest of that forward movement was excised, per Doug Horne. This is what Dan Rather saw in the unaltered version.

"...there's a bathroom on the right." John Fogarty "...'scuse me while I kiss this guy." Jimi Hendrix

I've seen that Dillard photo. I can't find it right now, but it shows a dangling light and a face. It might be on Robin Unger's site.

I don't have time to say anything more, but you need to open your mind Jeremy.

Ron, there's a boat load of stuff Doug Horne has written about the two NPIC events. Some of it I've saved on my computer. Here's a link to an article I have saved: http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ What I like about Doug Horne's style of writing is that he's so detailed and clear that you can not help but get almost a visual understanding of what he's saying. All one needs to do is pay close attention to his words. In my mind, Doug is among the most honest, open-minded, even tempered, seeker of only the truth researcher alive today.