Jump to content
The Education Forum

Croft's sudden appearance...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Good ones, Jack! Further proof the film is a fake. Keep it up! Jim

I have been studying Croft and his photo for about an hour, and

noticed for the first time that in Z he SUDDENLY appears from

nowhere for the first time.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frames Z100-Z135 cover a time period of about two seconds. How is that "sudden", and what happens in the intervening frames?

The spectators positions in Z100 are not identical to those in Z135.

Good ones, Jack! Further proof the film is a fake. Keep it up! Jim

Yes, certainly worthy of inclusion in the next edition of Murder In Dealey Plaza!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good ones, Jack! Further proof the film is a fake. Keep it up! Jim

And what would be the purpose of fakery in moving people around in Zapruder?

Sorry Jim, but that conclusion is nonsense. Jack should point out that his two different frames are at each opposite sides of the splice in the film. Hence there is some time unaccounted for. In that time both Croft and the white sweater man have moved to other positions.

The last frame before the splice, (White sweaterman is still there) :

z132.jpg

The first frame after the splice (White sweaterman is gone, thus walked out of view) :

z133.jpg

Note the limousine having "suddenly" appeared in the frame, you might also ask: Where does the limousine come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What stupid responses! Of course it goes without saying that every researcher knows of

the "stop in filming" at frame 132. Do you take me for a fool?

So how long was the "stop in filming"? Two, five, nine seconds, or how long? How long

did it take for Croft to come from wherever he was, and for the man in the sweater to

totally disappear?

The longer the elapsed time the less likely that the curb people stood rooted to the

same spot. If the elapsed time was ten seconds, for instance, would the curb people

still be in the same locations?

If you cannot answer these questions, do not bother posting nonsense.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I don't know Paul Baker, but Josiah has been up to his old tricks.

He never tires of disputing "Mary in the Street". I think that the

book Paul Baker should be considering is not MURDER but HOAX.

Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:36:29 -0600

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Tink's Ongoing Deception: Mary Moorman in the street...

All,

Just to demonstrate the absurdity of the tactics of Barb and Tink,

suppose they were right! Suppose Mary had not been in the street,

even though we have proven that she was? Would that make the Z-

film authentic? Obviously not. Consider the full range of proof

that the film has been recreated. Don't be taken in by sharpsters

who have no respect for truth, proof, or the integrity of research.

No matter what you hear from the likes of them, you must consider

the evidence for yourselves. Try Costella's tutorial for openers.

Jim

_____________________________

All,

Like a Republican politician, Thompson tries to distract you with an

issue that has been debated ad nauseum. Mary said she was standing

"in the street"! Jack White, David Mantik, and I did extensive re-

search on this question, even going to Dealey Plaza with surveyor's

equipment to verify the line of sight to the aperture of her camera

based upon features of the concrete pergola that define it precisely.

You can read about this in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), for

example, where the evidence is presented for general consideration.

There are several, like Tink, who maintain a rear-guard action in a

futile attempt to keep evidence of Zapruder film alteration from you

and everyone else who wants to know the truth. John P. Costella has

produced the latest proof, reported in "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery",

which you can find via a google search. For an accessible intro to

evidence the film was recreated, visit http://assassinationscience.

com and scroll down to the "JFK Introductory Seminar" and watch the

analysis presented by Costella. It makes for fascinating viewing!

Beyond the relatively non-responsive spectators, Greer's head turns,

Mary on the grass, and multiple other indications--where the avail-

able film contradicts the testimony of Homer McMahon, who was given

a copy on 22 November 1963 at the NPIC and discovered six to eight

impacts from three different directions, and the residual effects

of an abrupt swerve to the left and stop, all of which is explained

in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and HOAX--observe that the wounds

JFK is shown enduring--a massive blow-out to the right front of his

head--was even contradicted by Jackie's testimony to the commission.

She said that, from the front, he looked just fine, but that she had

a hard time holding the back of his brains and skull together. If

his brains had blown out to the right-front, he would not have looked

just fine from the front and there would not have been a massive blow-

out to the back and rear of his head, which you can actually see in a

series of later frames of the film, including Z-374, as I explain in

HOAX. Those who don't study this book are missing out on the final

pieces of the puzzle of the greatest murder mystery in our history.

Even Roderick Ryan, who won an Oscar for his contributions to special

effects in Hollywood films, told Noel Twyman that the "blob" and the

blood spray were "painted in", as he explained in BLOOD TREASON (1997).

Rich DelaRosa, moreover, has actually observed the original film three

different times. But you would have to have read his appendix in HOAX

or studied Noel's book to know these things. Rich has confirmed that

many features we thought had been removed from the Z-film--including

Greer's pull to the left and stop--had been present in the original.

Charlatans like Thompson take advantage of the fact that his target

audience is unfamiliar with the evidence. He discourages you from

reading MURDER or HOAX, then makes outrageous arguments that would

be utterly implausible to anyone familiar with the studies presented

there. That is his modus operandi. As long as you are ignorant of

the results obtained by the leading experts on different aspects of

the case that are found there, you will remain vulnerable to being

mislead by smooth talkers like him, who like to play you for saps.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998)

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)

THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

http://assassinationscience.com

http://assassinationresearch.com

Quoting gumshoe882000 <josiah@direcway.com>:

[Hide Quoted Text]

> Fetzer continues to recycle nonsense from the past. The claim made by

> him and Jack White concerning Mary Moorman standing in the street at

> the time of the assassination was demolished years ago. But for old

> times sake, here's an abbreviated explanation.

>

> In studying the photo taken by Moorman at Z315, Jack White thought he

> saw an important alignment. To his eye, the left front corner of the

> Zapruder pedestal seemed to align with the bottom right corner of an

> opening in the wall behind it. This established a line of sight.

> Jack White went to Dealey Plaza and lined up the two points from

> Moorman's position on the south side of Elm Street. The line of sight

> intersected Moorman's body less than four feet above the ground.

> However, the Zapruder film shows Moorman holding her Polaroid camera

> to her face at a location that would put it nearly five feet above

> the ground. White also found a radio interview in which Moorman

> seemed to be saying that she stepped onto the pavement of Elm Street

> to shoot one of her photos of the motorcade. He put the two together

> and claimed that Moorman had been standing in the street when she

> took her famous photo. Eureka! The Zapruder film was obviously

> faked!

>

> First of all, Mary Moorman did take a photo that day while standing

> in the street. It just wasn't the photo we are talking about. Let me

> explain.

>

> Moorman and Jean Hill were watching the motorcade because one or both

> of them were friendly with motorcycle policemen. Moorman took a

> photo of a motorcycle cop in the vanguard of motorcycles that

> preceded the limousine by about half a minute. Bill Miller located a

> motorcycle from the motorcade in a museum and had the distance

> measured from the top of the windshield to the ground. It was 58

> inches. In the early photograph taken by Moorman of the motorcycle

> cop, the camera is looking up at the top of the windshield. Hence,

> she was in the street when this photo was taken. However, her famous

> photo shows with equal clarity that the camera was looking down on

> the 58 inch high top of the windshield. Hence, she was in the grass

> (right where the Zapruder shows her to be) when she took her famous

> photo.

>

> What then of the line of sight that Jack White claimed he established?

>

> This line of sight is just the result of sloppy research. Study of

> the Moorman photo shows that the two points are not in alignment,

> that there is a gap between the two points and that the correct line

> of sight as shown in the photo is higher and places the camera where

> it is shown to be in the Zapruder film.

>

> Like all the other alleged "proofs" of Zapruder film fakery this one

> collapses as soon as you look closely at it. A full discussion of

> this with photos and measurements can be found both in the URL Barb

> posted and also in a paper of mine called "Bedrock Evidence in the

> Kennedy Assassination" which can be found on the Mary Ferrell site.

>

> With the collapse of his claims concerning 9/11, Jim "Spacebeam"

> Fetzer is reduced to recycling old bankrupt arguments from the past.

> The more he bloviates the sadder it becomes. At least with the end

> of the campaign we won't have to hear the lies mounted by McCain and

> Palin over and over again. With Fetzer, it seems, the old lies never

> die!

>

> Josiah Thompson

>

Frames Z100-Z135 cover a time period of about two seconds. How is that "sudden", and what happens in the intervening frames?

The spectators positions in Z100 are not identical to those in Z135.

Good ones, Jack! Further proof the film is a fake. Keep it up! Jim

Yes, certainly worthy of inclusion in the next edition of Murder In Dealey Plaza!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What stupid responses! Of course it goes without saying that every researcher knows of

the "stop in filming" at frame 132. Do you take me for a fool?

It went indeed without saying, but to be fair you should have said so.

So how long was the "stop in filming"? Two, five, nine seconds, or how long? How long

did it take for Croft to come from wherever he was, and for the man in the sweater to

totally disappear?

How many seconds exactly cannot be determined, but obviously enough for JFK's limousine to "suddenly" appear , and thus also for people to change positions. People walk, you know. Some even ran.

The longer the elapsed time the less likely that the curb people stood rooted to the

same spot. If the elapsed time was ten seconds, for instance, would the curb people

still be in the same locations?

Most of them would stay still, as can also be concluded here. But not all of them. It's not a given that everyone would be frozen in the same spot. Look at running Rosemary Willis for example. You may also note that Willis himself appears to come out of nowhere. That is , if you don't know that some time has passed between te frames you posted.

If you cannot answer these questions, do not bother posting nonsense.

Jack

I have answered them. I leave it to others who is posting the nonsense. By the way, do you still maintain that Mrs. Franzen disappeared in Zapruder to be replaced with another woman in the Nix film?

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim did not answer how many seconds that the north curb people stood in the same location,

nor how the camera remained absolutely vertical during the "pause in filming".

And it is up to him, not me to explain about Mrs. Franzen. I have pointed out that she is missing.

someone else can explain where she went.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What stupid responses! Of course it goes without saying that every researcher knows of

the "stop in filming" at frame 132. Do you take me for a fool?

So how long was the "stop in filming"? Two, five, nine seconds, or how long? How long

did it take for Croft to come from wherever he was, and for the man in the sweater to

totally disappear?

Yes, of course. Apologies Jack, I was a bit hasty in my response.

So what is peculiar about a man in a white sweater managing to move about over the course of an interminable number of seconds? If he was made of cardboard, I suppose that would be strange.

And, Professor Fetzer, if the Zapruder alteration evidence put forward in HOAX is as weak as that in MURDER I don't think I'll bother, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim did not answer how many seconds that the north curb people stood in the same location,

nor how the camera remained absolutely vertical during the "pause in filming".

And it is up to him, not me to explain about Mrs. Franzen. I have pointed out that she is missing.

someone else can explain where she went.

Jack

I'll be glad too. She is not missing at all, In fact, Mrs Franzen IS in Nix because she is the woman that you call "Mrs gin and tonic." What happened is that after seeing JFK's headwound she back's a step away in horror. Just like Toni Foster did, as well as the man on the stairs on the knoll. A natural reaction after seeing such human devastion That is the reason she is a little further from her husband in that Nix frame. However, I expect that you will not accept that.

But maybe you could explain what goal the conspirators had by replacing Mrs Franzen for another woman in Nix?

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one makes it even more weird.

Jack

Jack ??

Whom is the half man seen in the last bottom frame in Nix of your post ,in a pink shirt....

but then perhaps those are his detached legs, below.him......??

I know rediculous, but so are these frames of the Nix....I do believe...

But then

someone will no doubt come upon us and say those are the worse copies of the Nix

frames taken from the worse copy, ever seen..yada...

And you know why, cause that can't be because that would mean, they do not jive with

the Zapruder film which as taken at the same time, in history,

oh well, tomorrow is another day.. :blink:

Chris where are you.....any thoughts....??

Thanks B.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...