Jack White Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Click on... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7DLqjqTbIPU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Click on...http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7DLqjqTbIPU Jack ... posting nonsense on you-tube won't make it any more meaningful than just posting it anywhere else. For instance ... the narrator tells the viewer that people on the south lawn are not looking at the President as if something is suspicious about this. It takes just the slightest understanding of the geography of the Plaza to know that the limo is well west of the witness that the narrator is talking about. Being inept when it comes to perspective or ignorant of the geography of Dealey Plaza doesn't expose alteration, but rather it exposes the ignorance of the person missing these vital points when examining the film. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Click on...http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7DLqjqTbIPU Jack ... posting nonsense on you-tube won't make it any more meaningful than just posting it anywhere else. For instance ... the narrator tells the viewer that people on the south lawn are not looking at the President as if something is suspicious about this. It takes just the slightest understanding of the geography of the Plaza to know that the limo is well west of the witness that the narrator is talking about. Being inept when it comes to perspective or ignorant of the geography of Dealey Plaza doesn't expose alteration, but rather it exposes the ignorance of the person missing these vital points when examining the film. Bill .... film compositing is 1st year film student material... believe me, we do understand why YOU are not aware of same. Those blinders do come off, ya know! Talk about being inept! Keep coming back Wild Bill, we CT's need ya, as well as your, er, Lone Nutter's ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) .... film compositing is 1st year film student material... believe me, we do understand why YOU are not aware of same. Those blinders do come off, ya know! Talk about being inept! Keep coming back Wild Bill, we CT's need ya, as well as your, er, Lone Nutter's ! Wait a minute, David ... did you not read the 'Hoax' book after it had come out and before you posted that you have seen 'NO PROOF OF ALTERATION - SOMETHING YOU HAVE SAID FOR YEARS'????? Edited June 2, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Click on...http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7DLqjqTbIPU Thanks. Mr White. There's no doubt that the Z-film was altered in some fashion while it was in the hands of Life Magazine. They even printed a couple of frames backwards in one edition of their magazine. Like I've said on this forum before, the description if the head wound ( specifically the large rear exit wound ) by over 40 witnesses who saw it is not supported by the Z-film. The description of DP witnesses who saw the "back of the head come off" is not supported by the Z-film. The description of DP witnesses who saw a "red halo" over Kennedy's head ( IMO the result of a double head shot ) is not supported by the Z-film. The "Harper bone fragment" is nowhere to be seen on the Z-film. We can believe that ALL of these witnesses were simply wrong and that ALL of these things didn't actually happen---or we can believe that the Z-film was somehow altered to coverup a conspiracy. I guess it is an individual choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Wait a minute...? For instance ... the narrator tells the viewer that people on the south lawn are not looking at the President as if something is suspicious about this. It takes just the slightest understanding of the geography of the Plaza to know that the limo is well west of the witness that the narrator is talking about. -- MILLER No. Note the head sizes (motor cop & Connally) from the different frames. The man on the grass is way too big. Something's been altered. I think BM has now altered his opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 (edited) Note the head sizes (motor cop & Connally) from the different frames. The man on the grass is way too big.Something's been altered. I think BM has now altered his opinion. Miles, your post get stranger with each one. Can you tells us how you arrived at the above opinions that you just cited? I mean, surely you must be aware that 100's, if not 1000's of photo experts have studied these images over the years and not rifled off the type of claims that you just did. In those three short, somewhat clueless and simple minded responses, I can't find any data concerning the angle variances that each subject is at in relation to the camera and how that might effect the size differences that you speak of. I can't find any data in your post that deals with the optic changes that were used by MPI and if that had any effect. I cannot see any data in your response that discussed the distance each person was from the camera in you crops. I cannot find in your response any data that relates to the body postures of each person and how that relates to what you said. For instance, a human head is narrower from ear to ear than from back to front. So is Connally and Hargis facing the same direction and if not ... could you show us your figures on how you computed the differences??? The degree of angle ... if you take a coin and look at it in perfect profile ... would it not be larger around than if you slightly started rotating it ... sure it would. I mean this is incredible stuff that you post, so let us see just how much work you have put into it and see if we cannot get it validated! (smile~) Bill Miller Edited June 3, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Note the head sizes (motor cop & Connally) from the different frames. The man on the grass is way too big.Something's been altered. I think BM has now altered his opinion. I mean this is incredible stuff that you post,... Bill Miller Thanks! Aside from Duncan, I believe you have not been refuted by any other analyst as frequently. Before continuing with more photo detail, consider this. Notice in the sequence that the man does not look at any moving object, such as a car. This means that the sequence shows the man applauding WHAT? JFK has just sustained a throat wound. Is the man looking at JFK in the SS car? WHY! BM will have the same reaction to this remarkable oddity as when Arnie was shown to be an illusion; this just might be BM's reaction: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 (edited) Aside from Duncan, I believe you have not been refuted by any other analyst as frequently.Before continuing with more photo detail, consider this. Notice in the sequence that the man does not look at any moving object, such as a car. This means that the sequence shows the man applauding WHAT? JFK has just sustained a throat wound. Is the man looking at JFK in the SS car? WHY! BM will have the same reaction to this remarkable oddity as when Arnie was shown to be an illusion; this just might be BM's reaction: Get a life, Miles. Your use of Duncan the analyst is pretty funny ... maybe you can help him figure out where that alleged third person at the pedestal with Zapruder and Sitzman went to. LOL!!! The reason that the man doesn't look at the car is that the limo has long since passed his position ... and its obvious that the guy hasn't recognized that shots have been fired yet. Others who had the same problem were Charles Brehm - Senator Yarborough - and Mary Moorman. In Altgens #6 which equates to Z255/256 ... Brehm is still clapping - Yarborough (Kennedy friend) is still smiling - and Moorman didn't recognize that a shot had been fired until she had taken her famous photo. And what about Jackie ... did she not testify that her husband appeared to look like he had a slight headache .... if she knew he was being shot up with bullets, do you think she would have just sat there and done nothing??? How about that Toni Foster ... she didn't know what was happening until JFK's head exploded and it was only then that she stopped walking towards the car and turned off in another direction. Would you like to hear about more people who were not aware of shots being fired by frame Z230, which you have chosen to use ... if so, then just let me know. (smile~) Maybe if you'd spend a fraction of the time actually studying these films that you spend looking for photos of primates .... you might actually be able to post something useful once in a while. Bill Miller Edited June 3, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Aside from Duncan, I believe you have not been refuted by any other analyst as frequently.Before continuing with more photo detail, consider this. Notice in the sequence that the man does not look at any moving object, such as a car. This means that the sequence shows the man applauding WHAT? JFK has just sustained a throat wound. Is the man looking at JFK in the SS car? WHY! BM will have the same reaction to this remarkable oddity as when Arnie was shown to be an illusion; this just might be BM's reaction: Get a life, Miles. Your use of Duncan the analyst is pretty funny ... maybe you can help him figure out where that alleged third person at the pedestal with Zapruder and Sitzman went to. LOL!!! The reason that the man doesn't look at the car is that the limo has long since passed his position ... and its obvious that the guy hasn't recognized that shots have been fired yet. Others who had the same problem were Charles Brehm - Senator Yarborough - and Mary Moorman. In Altgens #6 which equates to Z255/256 ... Brehm is still clapping - Yarborough (Kennedy friend) is still smiling - and Moorman didn't recognize that a shot had been fired until she had taken her famous photo. And what about Jackie ... did she not testify that her husband appeared to look like he had a slight headache .... if she knew he was being shot up with bullets, do you think she would have just sat there and done nothing??? How about that Toni Foster ... she didn't know what was happening until JFK's head exploded and it was only then that she stopped walking towards the car and turned off in another direction. Would you like to hear about more people who were not aware of shots being fired by frame Z230, which you have chosen to use ... if so, then just let me know. (smile~) Maybe if you'd spend a fraction of the time actually studying these films that you spend looking for photos of primates .... you might actually be able to post something useful once in a while. Bill Miller evidently you're the only one who doesn't get it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 evidently you're the only one who doesn't get it...... Only nine words ??? Can you be a little more defined in your explanation. Is there anything I described that was inaccurate that you can point out or were you just being David 'I need attention' Healy again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 .... film compositing is 1st year film student material... believe me, we do understand why YOU are not aware of same. Those blinders do come off, ya know! Talk about being inept! Keep coming back Wild Bill, we CT's need ya, as well as your, er, Lone Nutter's ! Wait a minute, David ... did you not read the 'Hoax' book after it had come out and before you posted that you have seen 'NO PROOF OF ALTERATION - SOMETHING YOU HAVE SAID FOR YEARS'????? How many times have I seen you repeat this same thing now? Fifty? You always did have trouble understanding what "proof" & "evidence" meant didn't you? Is there any proof that(the plaza's very own Bigfoot) Gordon Arnold was standing in the plaza filming "the parade" as he called it? NO. There is no proof of that whatsoever but, do you still try & convince people that he was there by using the same tired circumstantial "coincidences"(that's being generous calling them that) over & over again & even go so far as twisting the truth to make it lean towards him being there? YES. So then, just because there is no proof of something does not stop an intelligent man believing in that possibility & neither does it stop him wanting to discuss it in a civil environment without fear of being trolled by some repetitive say-nothing garbage. Any Arnold fanatic with a conscience would realise this, oh wait a minute, hmm... that's another one you have trouble with, damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 .... film compositing is 1st year film student material... believe me, we do understand why YOU are not aware of same. Those blinders do come off, ya know! Talk about being inept! Keep coming back Wild Bill, we CT's need ya, as well as your, er, Lone Nutter's ! Wait a minute, David ... did you not read the 'Hoax' book after it had come out and before you posted that you have seen 'NO PROOF OF ALTERATION - SOMETHING YOU HAVE SAID FOR YEARS'????? How many times have I seen you repeat this same thing now? Fifty? You always did have trouble understanding what "proof" & "evidence" meant didn't you? Is there any proof that(the plaza's very own Bigfoot) Gordon Arnold was standing in the plaza filming "the parade" as he called it? NO. There is no proof of that whatsoever but, do you still try & convince people that he was there by using the same tired circumstantial "coincidences"(that's being generous calling them that) over & over again & even go so far as twisting the truth to make it lean towards him being there? YES. So then, just because there is no proof of something does not stop an intelligent man believing in that possibility & neither does it stop him wanting to discuss it in a civil environment without fear of being trolled by some repetitive say-nothing garbage. Any Arnold fanatic with a conscience would realise this, oh wait a minute, hmm... that's another one you have trouble with, damn. ********* Alan Agreed: Except with your first comment....."How many times have I seen you repeat this same thing now? Fifty?" I think it is more like 100 or so..at least.... B..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I think it is more like 100 or so..at least....B..... 'Bout 300 -400. Analysis Proposal: This study shows clear evidence of alteration: I wonder if BM will spot the Bogey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 It's a pity Lee Bowers is not alive, because i'm sure he could convince you by applying his Super Bowers Powers, that the third man was really there, after all, you are the brainbox who announced to the world that" Bowers could identify a man he couldn't see " Duncan You can say this a million times and it will never be a reflection of the truth. Your argument was then and still is that Bowers could have seen this alleged someone disguised as a cop when he was talking to Mr. Ball. And for the past 45 years and for 45 more years it will be the two men (one dressed in a white shirt and the other in a plaid jacket) that Bowers was responding about. Bowers said he saw the white shirted man, but not the other. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now