We’re done. Why we came. What we learned. Thank you all.

[Jack White]

Pat,

Thanks for providing that information. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just think that a child can tell something isn't right about the backyard photos by glancing at them.

No one poses for a picture with the weapons that would later be used to convict him, with subversive literature that will almost certainly provide a convenient motive for a jury thrown in for good measure. That's so over the top it's ridiculous. Not to mention the obviously fake features of the photos, visible to all non-experts- the awkward, almost impossible stance of "Oswald," the head size not corresponding to the body size, etc. Taking into consideration all the witness encounters with a fake Oswald, these photos represent, imho, a very transparent effort to frame him.

Thanks, Don. Watch my videos FAKE and MANY FACES OF LHO.

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

Jack

Those who believe the backyard photos are genuine should look at my videos.

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html"]http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

Free.

Jack

[Don Jeffries]

Marina Oswald's testimony portrayed her husband in a terrible light, and is full of inconsistiencies and obvious lies. She is the sole source for Oswald taking a shot at General Walker, for instance. Those I call "neo-cons" now accept this as true, for no logical reason. Then there is her totally absurd story of keeping Oswald locked in the bathroom so he couldn't take a shot at Nixon. Her testimony is laughable. The fact that she claims to believe in conspiracy now, but still clings to the backyard photos cover story, and has never retracted even the most ridiculous parts of her testimony, destroys any credibility she has, imho.

Bill, I'm glad you're commenting on this thread. Would you please re-post some of the fine arguments you made in the past for the backyard photos being faked. Thanks.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Don Jeffries

[David G. Healy]

C,mon Dave, I gave you the cite....now you tell me WHY Marina STILL claims she took those photos...can you or cant you? Simple question even for you.

Denis ... you may as well be asking a rock to walk.

Yes, your right Bill. Healy doesn't seem to like answering straight forward questions does he. I think they confuse him. I notice he never replies when you ask if his sent a request to examine the Zapruder film yet. LOL

Denise, that information is none of your business, nor is it Wild Bill (our resident SPACEMAN) Millah's! (we call this post a two-fer) thanks guy's

[Bill Miller]

[name=Denis Pointing' post='165041' date='Apr 2 2009, 04:10 PM]name='Bill Miller' post='165037' date='Apr 3

Denis ... you may as well be asking a rock to walk.

Yes, your right Bill. Healy doesn't seem to like answering straight forward questions does he. I think they confuse him. I notice he never replies when you ask if his sent a request to examine the Zapruder film yet. LOL

Denise, that information is none of your business, nor is it Wild Bill (our resident SPACEMAN) Millah's! (we call this post a two-fer) thanks guy's

So David ... you thought it was our business for over a decade to hear you constantly complain about you not being able to examine the camera original Zapruder film, but think its none of our business to know whether you have written the NARA to to let them know that you wish to see the film so to authenticate it. Is it not important know that you have not been just talking smack, but were actually serious enough to do something about it. Well I for one do think that it is our business if we are being asked to take you seriously.

[Craig Lamson]

Pat,

Thanks for providing that information. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just think that a child can tell something isn't right about the backyard photos by glancing at them.

No one poses for a picture with the weapons that would later be used to convict him, with subversive literature that will almost certainly provide a convenient motive for a jury thrown in for good measure. That's so over the top it's ridiculous. Not to mention the obviously fake features of the photos, visible to all non-experts- the awkward, almost impossible stance of "Oswald," the head size not corresponding to the body size, etc. Taking into consideration all the witness encounters with a fake Oswald, these photos represent, imho, a very transparent effort to frame him.

Thanks, Don. Watch my videos FAKE and MANY FACES OF LHO.

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

Jack

Those who believe the backyard photos are genuine should look at my videos.

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html"]http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

Free.

Jack

Oh yes, please view the video, as it shows in graphic detail Jack's massive inability to do photo analysis. Very enlightening stuff. For additional information on Whites limited skillset in the subject of photography see:

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

[Craig Clark]

dear d. thompson:

i highly respect you for your work (all be it, that your 'appearance' on the recent lho program shed no new light on the assassinations) you are like mr. lane, mr. gregory, etc., an icon, a pioneer.

and we who are all respect you dearly.

i'm not so smart,

but doesn't it perhaps just make common sense that

if all the eye-witnesses claim the presidential limo stopped,

or at least slowed down to a near stop,

BUT

the z-film shows the opposite,

and that if the blood-splatter from the head-wound to the president

doesn't obey the laws of gravity,

BUT just--poof--disappears, instead of falling away

then something

must be wrong

with the z-film?

also perhaps it takes a lot of blind faith to think

mr. luce (a rabid enemy of jfk)

sat on the z-film,

did not let the ss

take it to hollywood

(as they took the limo to ford motor co.)

and reassemble it

to cover-up their tracks...

perhaps lbj's jack valenti went out there

personally to keep the lid on it...

i mean no disrespect...

we're all too sensitive here perhaps

and quick to react

with defensiveness,

vitriol or accusations.

i hope i haven't offended you

i really just wanted to ask those two

very simple-minded questions

about the z-film...

good day to you.

sincerely,

craig

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Since the Worker and the Militant were both known to be in Oswald's hands, as well as the assassination rifle and pistol said to be used to kill Tippit, has anybody bothered to actually read the two issues of the papers the accused assassin is holding?

Were the issues ever recovered? Were they entered into evidence?

Did they contain any articles regarding Castro or Cuba, or the maritime operations against Cuba that have been connected to Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff?

BK

I cant imagine they were ever entered as evidence Bill, why would they be?

I once read, but cant cite, that they express totally opposing views of communism. Only guessing but its hard to imagine that they didn't contain articles concerning Cuba, giving the time they were written.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0351a.htm

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Craig,

For your consideration (post #109):

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50316

Kathy;

The Z-film issue has several basic problems:

1. The multitudes of completely asinine claims of alteration which have been, for the most part, clearly demonstrated as being asinine, yet persist.

2. Those issues presented (to date) which are indicative of potential alteration, yet are in fact highly "subjective" calls.

Among these "subjective" calls, one will find issues such as:

A. Why does the film not indicate the Presidential Limo actually slowing considerably (or even stopping), when multiple witnesses have so stated, and in fact the brake lights of the limo can be observed to operate.

B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned)

C. Why does the film, through the assassination shot sequence, conveniently eliminate from view virtually any and/or all foreground and background objects which would aid in determination of the exact location of JFK at various stages through the assassination shooting sequence.

D. Why does the film indicate that Abraham Zapruder possessed an absolultely unheard of ability to hold his camera along an almost perfect horizontal "tracking" alignment, even when apparantly jiggling the camera as a result of reaction to the sound of a shot (Z318/319/320), while being unbalanced on a pedestal and turning to his right and the limosine and it's occupants are travelling laterally across the field of view on a downhill grade.

C. And, in event that one accepts that the Z318/319/320 "blurring" is in fact a result of a jiggle/reaction to the sound of the shot which struck at what is classified as Z313, exactly what extra-ordinary ability did Abraham Zapruder have which allowed him to recover from this reaction in approximately 1/6 th of a second.

Both items being a feat which absolutely no trained sniper (or for that matter anyone else that I am aware) can accomplish.

D. Multitudes of other anomalies which include the initial absence of frames of the film as well as their corresponding sprocket hole areas.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Much of which places Z-film alteration along the same category as a belief in Jesus Christ and his abilities.

Some believe, some do not!

[Craig Lamson]

B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned)

Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective.

When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that!

Next!

[Mark Knight]

Since the Worker and the Militant were both known to be in Oswald's hands, as well as the assassination rifle and pistol said to be used to kill Tippit, has anybody bothered to actually read the two issues of the papers the accused assassin is holding?

Were the issues ever recovered? Were they entered into evidence?

Did they contain any articles regarding Castro or Cuba, or the maritime operations against Cuba that have been connected to Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff?

BK

I cant imagine they were ever entered as evidence Bill, why would they be?

I once read, but cant cite, that they express totally opposing views of communism. Only guessing but its hard to imagine that they didn't contain articles concerning Cuba, giving the time they were written.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0351a.htm

Tom, I need you to clarify something for me.

In the testimony you cite above, was Shaneyfelt telling the truth...or was he attempting to obscure the truth ? I'm still trying to figure out what side Shaneyfelt was on.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned)

Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective.

When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that!

Next!

"When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, "

Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets????

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg

That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet.

To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field.

Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Since the Worker and the Militant were both known to be in Oswald's hands, as well as the assassination rifle and pistol said to be used to kill Tippit, has anybody bothered to actually read the two issues of the papers the accused assassin is holding?

Were the issues ever recovered? Were they entered into evidence?

Did they contain any articles regarding Castro or Cuba, or the maritime operations against Cuba that have been connected to Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff?

BK

I cant imagine they were ever entered as evidence Bill, why would they be?

I once read, but cant cite, that they express totally opposing views of communism. Only guessing but its hard to imagine that they didn't contain articles concerning Cuba, giving the time they were written.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0351a.htm

Tom, I need you to clarify something for me.

In the testimony you cite above, was Shaneyfelt telling the truth...or was he attempting to obscure the truth ? I'm still trying to figure out what side Shaneyfelt was on.

As regards the Militant; the Worker; and the examination of the photographs of LHO holding the rifle; all appear to be completely legitimate and truthful testimonies.

Nevertheless, Shaneyfelt was a prime player in obfuscatiion of the facts of the assassination as he clearly knew exactly where the third shot/aka directly in front of James Altgens impact was located, long prior to deciding that nothing past Z334 was worth looking at.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film----

Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334.

Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that a frame where President Kennedy comes into full view after the motorcade turns left off of Houston onto Elm Street?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334.

In addition to this, Shaneyfelt was a primary instrument in the WC completely phony assassination re-enactment as well as the filming of this re-enactment from the Zapruder Pedestal in initial location of the JFK position, as well as the subsequent photo's through the sniper scope as filmed from the window.

A little "musical chairs" if you will.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the very beginning, at 6 a.m., Mr. Rankin and Mr. Specter were in the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which is the southeast corner of the building, sixth floor window, which was referred to as our control point, and where we had the master radio control for the other units.

Mr. Redlich was on the street with the car. At the car on the street were the occupants of the car, the Secret Service driver, Mr. Hickey, an agent from the FBI, who handled radio contact with control, Agents Anderton and Williams in the President's and Connally's seats, Mr. Gauthier and his aids, a surveyor, and I, were all on the ground in the vicinity of the car.

Agent Frazier was in the window of the Book Building at the control point with the rifle that was found at the window following the assassination.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. For the first portion of them, I was at the car in the street, and at the position of Mr. Zapruder, the position from which he took his pictures.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight.

Mr. SPECTER. How did you determine the level and angle at which to hold the rifle?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I placed the rifle in the approximate position based on prior knowledge of where the boxes were stacked and the elevation of the window and other information that was furnished to me by representatives of the Commission.

Mr. DULLES. You used the same boxes, did you, that the assassin had used?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not.

Mr. SPECTER. Were those boxes used by Mr. Frazier.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. They were used by Mr. Frazier and used in making the measurements. I had to use a tripod because of the weight of the camera and placed the elevation of the rifle at an approximate height in a position as though the boxes were there.

Mr. SPECTER. Was Mr. Frazier present at the time you positioned the rifle on the tripod?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he was.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0050b.htm

All of which provides a partial answer to Chris's question regarding the differences in photo's taken during the FBI as opposed to the SS assassination re-enactments.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm

Mr. SPECTER - What was your position during most of the time of those onsite tests?

Mr. FRAZIER - I was stationed at the window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building at the southeast corner of the building.

Mr. SPECTER - How far was that window open at the time the tests were being conducted?

Mr. FRAZIER - I estimated it as approximately one-third. It was somewhat less than halfway open.

Mr. SPECTER - Is that the distance depicted on Commission Exhibit No. 492, which has heretofore been introduced in evidence?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0117a.htm

Well now, that is about as clear as is mud!

Mr. SPECTER - Is the distance open on that window about the same as that which you had it open at the time these tests were run?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I would say that this is very close. The window was placed according to information already furnished to the Commission as to how much it had been opened at that time.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0050b.htm

"No one could have accurately fired that rifle from the way that they had it jacked up" (words to that effect)

Mr. Robert West to myself, back in the 1990's.

Mr. FRAZIER - To position the rifle, we selected boxes of the same size and contour as boxes shown in a photograph or rather in two photographs, reportedly taken by the police department at Dallas shortly after the assassination.

We placed these boxes in their relative position in front of the window spacing them from left to right, according to the photographs which were furnished to us, and also placing them up against the window, with one of them resting on the window ledge as it was shown in the photographs.

Mr. SPECTER - Were you standing, seated, or kneeling at the time when these photographs were taken and the sighting of the rifle was made by you.

Mr. FRAZIER - I was actually sitting on a carton with my left elbow resting on the boxes stacked in front of the window.

Mr. SPECTER - Did that position represent to you the most likely position which the rifleman assumed on November 22, 1963, based upon the positioning of the various boxes?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - And the eyewitness accounts as to how far the rifle protruded?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Red Flag Time: The photographs were taken by Shaneyfelt, and at the time, Frazier was back at the Zapruder position and could have absolutely ZERO knowledge of the photographic locations which Shaneyelt took from the sixth floor.

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? How did you establish the location of the rifle in making those calculations?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The location of the rifle was established on the basis of other testimony and information furnished to us by the Commission, photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department immediately after the assassination, and the known opening of the

It was an estimation of where the rifle most likely was based on the knowledge that the Commission has through testimony.

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Cooper, Mr. Frazier is present and has been sworn, and he is going to identify that. He could do it at this time, to pinpoint that issue.

Senator COOPER. I think we can just make a note of that, and go ahead with this witness.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight.

This Arriflex motion picture camera is commonly known as a reflex camera in that as you view through the viewfinder a prism allows you to view directly through the lens system as you are taking your photographs so that as I took the photographs looking into the viewfinder I was also looking through the scope and seeing the actual image that was being recorded on the film.

Mr. SPECTER. How did you then select the appropriate frame from the Zapruder film?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. After Mr. Frazier had stationed the car at this point, I then went to the position of Mr. Zapruder. Based on his motion pictures, a comparison of the photograph that we made with the photograph from the film, I was able to state that because of the relative position of the car in the street and in relation to other objects in the background, it corresponded to frame 161 of the motion picture.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have on Exhibit No. 888 a reproduction of frame 161?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the upper left-hand corner is a reproduction of the frame 161 of the Zapruder motion picture. The picture on the upper right is a photograph that I made with a speed graphic camera from Zapruder's position of the car reestablished in that location. The photograph in the lower left-hand corner, is a photograph of the view through the rifle scope that Mr. Frazier saw at the time he positioned the car there. This is the view that you would obtain from looking through the rifle scope from the sixth floor window.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile in exactly the same position at the time of the taking of the "photograph through rifle scope" and the "photograph from reenactment"?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; approximately the same. We went through all stations with Mr. Frazier in the window and I took photographs from Mr. Zapruder's position, and once establishing a frame position, we marked it clearly in the street. After we had taken all of the photographs from Zapruder's position, we then took the car back, and went to the sixth floor window and mounted the motion picture camera on the rifle. These photographs were made by rolling the car in the same position based on the marks we had in the street so it was as accurate as could be done in the same position.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Glad to see that Shaneyfelt & Company managed to pull that one off as well as the "Adjusted Position" without too many catching onto the musical chairs scenario.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Nah! Not donejust yet.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holland.htm

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.

Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?

Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.

Mr. STERN - To his right?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0505b.htm

Most likely merely some more of those mysterious light reflections. Onc can see it in the extremely poor black and white of the WC's initial photo's, yet it has disappeared in the film versions which we now are told are valid.

[David G. Healy]

[name=Denis Pointing' post='165041' date='Apr 2 2009, 04:10 PM]name='Bill Miller' post='165037' date='Apr 3

Denis ... you may as well be asking a rock to walk.

Yes, your right Bill. Healy doesn't seem to like answering straight forward questions does he. I think they confuse him. I notice he never replies when you ask if his sent a request to examine the Zapruder film yet. LOL

Denise, that information is none of your business, nor is it Wild Bill (our resident SPACEMAN) Millah's! (we call this post a two-fer) thanks guy's

So David ... you thought it was our business for over a decade to hear you constantly complain about you not being able to examine the camera original Zapruder film, but think its none of our business to know whether you have written the NARA to to let them know that you wish to see the film so to authenticate it. Is it not important know that you have not been just talking smack, but were actually serious enough to do something about it. Well I for one do think that it is our business if we are being asked to take you seriously.

pay attention to what Tom Purvis has to say there, Wild Bill..... Who knows, you just might learn something, that is of course if Denise Pointing allows you too

[Craig Lamson]

B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned)

Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective.

When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that!

Next!

"When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, "

Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets????

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg

That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet.

To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field.

Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection.

First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY!

As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte.

Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better.