Todd W. Vaughan Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Why are anti alterationists so afraid of this thread?Jack Jack, Bernice's above posting of the moving Bell film sequence shows the Hesters getting up exactly as the Weigman film does. Todd Please point out the Hesters in this frame of the Bell fillm. Surely you don't think they are that tiny pryamid and pile of rocks. Jack There is no "pryamid" or "pile of rocks". What your looking at are the blurred images of the Hesters. Watch the film in motion Jack. Motion helps disguise the sloppy animation. Here Todd...smoke this instead of whatever you're smokin' Jack Jack, Watching the film in motion makes clear sense of your interpretation of a blurred still frame. I don't appreciate your implying that I'm "smokin" anything, Jack. That is a uncalled for personal attack and I would like an apology immediately. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 20, 2010 Author Share Posted January 20, 2010 Why are anti alterationists so afraid of this thread?Jack Jack, Bernice's above posting of the moving Bell film sequence shows the Hesters getting up exactly as the Weigman film does. Todd Please point out the Hesters in this frame of the Bell fillm. Surely you don't think they are that tiny pryamid and pile of rocks. Jack There is no "pryamid" or "pile of rocks". What your looking at are the blurred images of the Hesters. Watch the film in motion Jack. Motion helps disguise the sloppy animation. Here Todd...smoke this instead of whatever you're smokin' Jack Jack, Watching the film in motion makes clear sense of your interpretation of a blurred still frame. I don't appreciate your implying that I'm "smokin" anything, Jack. That is a uncalled for personal attack and I would like an apology immediately. Todd If you are a non-smoker, I apologize. That was not a personal attack. I appreciate those who do not smoke cigarettes. I am allergic to tobacco. You are wrong about the pyramid and rocks making sense. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Why are anti alterationists so afraid of this thread?Jack Jack, Bernice's above posting of the moving Bell film sequence shows the Hesters getting up exactly as the Weigman film does. Todd Please point out the Hesters in this frame of the Bell fillm. Surely you don't think they are that tiny pryamid and pile of rocks. Jack There is no "pryamid" or "pile of rocks". What your looking at are the blurred images of the Hesters. Watch the film in motion Jack. Motion helps disguise the sloppy animation. Here Todd...smoke this instead of whatever you're smokin' Jack Jack, Watching the film in motion makes clear sense of your interpretation of a blurred still frame. I don't appreciate your implying that I'm "smokin" anything, Jack. That is a uncalled for personal attack and I would like an apology immediately. Todd If you are a non-smoker, I apologize. That was not a personal attack. I appreciate those who do not smoke cigarettes. I am allergic to tobacco. You are wrong about the pyramid and rocks making sense. Jack Jack, Of course it was a personal attack. You weren’t for one minute talking about me smoking "tobacco" - the context of the entire exchange makes it quite clear that you were talking about me smoking something that was keeping me from "seeing" and agreeing with your utterly ridiculous claim. Would tobacco even remotely do that? Of course not. To think otherwise is absurd. It was a personal attack implying that I was smoking some sort of illegal narcotic and you know full well that it was meant as such. And that you then try and minimize it and offer up a phony apology as if you were talking about me smoking "tobacco" is an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Your 80 plus years old, Jack. Start acting like it. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 20, 2010 Author Share Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) Why are anti alterationists so afraid of this thread?Jack Jack, Bernice's above posting of the moving Bell film sequence shows the Hesters getting up exactly as the Weigman film does. Todd Please point out the Hesters in this frame of the Bell fillm. Surely you don't think they are that tiny pryamid and pile of rocks. Jack There is no "pryamid" or "pile of rocks". What your looking at are the blurred images of the Hesters. Watch the film in motion Jack. Motion helps disguise the sloppy animation. Here Todd...smoke this instead of whatever you're smokin' Jack Jack, Watching the film in motion makes clear sense of your interpretation of a blurred still frame. I don't appreciate your implying that I'm "smokin" anything, Jack. That is a uncalled for personal attack and I would like an apology immediately. Todd If you are a non-smoker, I apologize. That was not a personal attack. I appreciate those who do not smoke cigarettes. I am allergic to tobacco. You are wrong about the pyramid and rocks making sense. Jack Jack, Of course it was a personal attack. You weren’t for one minute talking about me smoking "tobacco" - the context of the entire exchange makes it quite clear that you were talking about me smoking something that was keeping me from "seeing" and agreeing with your utterly ridiculous claim. Would tobacco even remotely do that? Of course not. To think otherwise is absurd. It was a personal attack implying that I was smoking some sort of illegal narcotic and you know full well that it was meant as such. And that you then try and minimize it and offer up a phony apology as if you were talking about me smoking "tobacco" is an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Your 80 plus years old, Jack. Start acting like it. Todd Todd...you are overly sensitive. Smoke or not as you please. Smoke anything you want. I will support your right to do as you please. I will support your lack of a sense of humor. Not everyone grasps a light touch; many grasp for straws or strawmen to criticize. I will even support your right to criticize the acoustics report, your only claim to fame. By the way, how is Steve Barber doing these days...still drumming? I will continue to expose faked evidence as I see fit, regardless of criticism from both smokers and non-smokers, drummers or non- drummers. Saying LOOK AT THE MOVIE is a non-responsive reply to a legitimate "frame from the movie" which has no resemblance to any persons, living or dead. Saying the image does not show a small pyramid and a "pile of rocks" demonstrates a powerful lack of ability to discern visual anomalies. Show me Mr. and Mrs. Hester in that frame and I will apologize for my inability to see them. Thanks for your comments. However, you have successfully taken this thread way off course. Bad. Jack PS. I forgot to ask about "Larry Peters". How is "Larry" these days? Edited January 20, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 20, 2010 Author Share Posted January 20, 2010 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 20, 2010 Author Share Posted January 20, 2010 If the HIJACKING of this thread is over...can we get back to discussing the Hesters? I think there is something peculiar about them and the photos and their relation to Zapruder. Now that someone brought it up, is there any "suspicion" surrounding his early death, soon after the assassination? Did he know "something"? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 I think it is interesting that none of the anti-alterationists want to discuss this study which shows alteration of the Bell film to insert "Sitzman", "Zapruder" and the "Hesters"...all unidentifiable, of course. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I think it is interesting that none of the anti-alterationists want to discuss this study which shows alteration of the Bell film to insert "Sitzman", "Zapruder" and the "Hesters"...all unidentifiable, of course. Jack Jack, It appears that your Bell film still frame is of extremely poor quality. When seen in motion, clear copies of the Bell film clearly show Sitzman, Zapruder and the Hesters. Further, the Weigman film clearly shows the Hesters in the same location. Weigman was one of the first films broadcast on TV that day, long before anyone could have possibly "altered" it. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 I think it is interesting that none of the anti-alterationists want to discuss this study which shows alteration of the Bell film to insert "Sitzman", "Zapruder" and the "Hesters"...all unidentifiable, of course. Jack Jack, It appears that your Bell film still frame is of extremely poor quality. When seen in motion, clear copies of the Bell film clearly show Sitzman, Zapruder and the Hesters. Further, the Weigman film clearly shows the Hesters in the same location. Weigman was one of the first films broadcast on TV that day, long before anyone could have possibly "altered" it. Todd Please address the frame shown (posted by Robin initially), not the film in MOTION. The retouchers were careless about individual frames because they never dreamed that individual frames would be scrutinized. The "Hesters" likely were added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman, which had already been shown on NBC. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I think it is interesting that none of the anti-alterationists want to discuss this study which shows alteration of the Bell film to insert "Sitzman", "Zapruder" and the "Hesters"...all unidentifiable, of course. Jack Jack, It appears that your Bell film still frame is of extremely poor quality. When seen in motion, clear copies of the Bell film clearly show Sitzman, Zapruder and the Hesters. Further, the Weigman film clearly shows the Hesters in the same location. Weigman was one of the first films broadcast on TV that day, long before anyone could have possibly "altered" it. Todd Please address the frame shown (posted by Robin initially), not the film in MOTION. The retouchers were careless about individual frames because they never dreamed that individual frames would be scrutinized. The "Hesters" likely were added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman, which had already been shown on NBC. Jack Jack, If the Hesters are genuine in Weigman, why in the world would they need to be "added" to Bell - Bell shows the same area at about the same time that Weigman does, so whatever is seen in Weigman will appear in Bell, i.e the Hesters! Your claim that the Hesters were "added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman' makes no sense. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 I think it is interesting that none of the anti-alterationists want to discuss this study which shows alteration of the Bell film to insert "Sitzman", "Zapruder" and the "Hesters"...all unidentifiable, of course. Jack Jack, It appears that your Bell film still frame is of extremely poor quality. When seen in motion, clear copies of the Bell film clearly show Sitzman, Zapruder and the Hesters. Further, the Weigman film clearly shows the Hesters in the same location. Weigman was one of the first films broadcast on TV that day, long before anyone could have possibly "altered" it. Todd Please address the frame shown (posted by Robin initially), not the film in MOTION. The retouchers were careless about individual frames because they never dreamed that individual frames would be scrutinized. The "Hesters" likely were added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman, which had already been shown on NBC. Jack Jack, If the Hesters are genuine in Weigman, why in the world would they need to be "added" to Bell - Bell shows the same area at about the same time that Weigman does, so whatever is seen in Weigman will appear in Bell, i.e the Hesters! Your claim that the Hesters were "added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman' makes no sense. Todd If the Hesters were seen in Wiegman and not in Bell, it would arouse suspicions. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I think it is interesting that none of the anti-alterationists want to discuss this study which shows alteration of the Bell film to insert "Sitzman", "Zapruder" and the "Hesters"...all unidentifiable, of course. Jack Jack, It appears that your Bell film still frame is of extremely poor quality. When seen in motion, clear copies of the Bell film clearly show Sitzman, Zapruder and the Hesters. Further, the Weigman film clearly shows the Hesters in the same location. Weigman was one of the first films broadcast on TV that day, long before anyone could have possibly "altered" it. Todd Please address the frame shown (posted by Robin initially), not the film in MOTION. The retouchers were careless about individual frames because they never dreamed that individual frames would be scrutinized. The "Hesters" likely were added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman, which had already been shown on NBC. Jack Jack, If the Hesters are genuine in Weigman, why in the world would they need to be "added" to Bell - Bell shows the same area at about the same time that Weigman does, so whatever is seen in Weigman will appear in Bell, i.e the Hesters! Your claim that the Hesters were "added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman' makes no sense. Todd If the Hesters were seen in Wiegman and not in Bell, it would arouse suspicions. Jack Yes Jack, but if Weigman is genuine (which you seem to agree with) and it shows the Hesters at a time and location that the Bell film is also covering, then it only stands to reason that the Hesters will show uop in the Bell film, as they do. Another way of looking at this is why would the Hester's NOT show up in Bell if Bell is filming the same location at the same time as Weigman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 I think it is interesting that none of the anti-alterationists want to discuss this study which shows alteration of the Bell film to insert "Sitzman", "Zapruder" and the "Hesters"...all unidentifiable, of course. Jack Jack, It appears that your Bell film still frame is of extremely poor quality. When seen in motion, clear copies of the Bell film clearly show Sitzman, Zapruder and the Hesters. Further, the Weigman film clearly shows the Hesters in the same location. Weigman was one of the first films broadcast on TV that day, long before anyone could have possibly "altered" it. Todd Please address the frame shown (posted by Robin initially), not the film in MOTION. The retouchers were careless about individual frames because they never dreamed that individual frames would be scrutinized. The "Hesters" likely were added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman, which had already been shown on NBC. Jack Jack, If the Hesters are genuine in Weigman, why in the world would they need to be "added" to Bell - Bell shows the same area at about the same time that Weigman does, so whatever is seen in Weigman will appear in Bell, i.e the Hesters! Your claim that the Hesters were "added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman' makes no sense. Todd If the Hesters were seen in Wiegman and not in Bell, it would arouse suspicions. Jack Yes Jack, but if Weigman is genuine (which you seem to agree with) and it shows the Hesters at a time and location that the Bell film is also covering, then it only stands to reason that the Hesters will show uop in the Bell film, as they do. Another way of looking at this is why would the Hester's NOT show up in Bell if Bell is filming the same location at the same time as Weigman? Wrong again. All films are suspect in some ways. I do not exclude Wiegman. For years I considered Moorman, Altgens, and Wiegman had to be authentic. Now I consider all suspect. Bell was tampered with to harmonize with Wiegman...but study shows Bell is retouched, so that may impeach Wiegman. Some people just cannot grasp the concept that IF ONE IMAGE IS SUSPECT, ALL ARE SUSPECT. But that's the way it is. Jack T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I think it is interesting that none of the anti-alterationists want to discuss this study which shows alteration of the Bell film to insert "Sitzman", "Zapruder" and the "Hesters"...all unidentifiable, of course. Jack Jack, It appears that your Bell film still frame is of extremely poor quality. When seen in motion, clear copies of the Bell film clearly show Sitzman, Zapruder and the Hesters. Further, the Weigman film clearly shows the Hesters in the same location. Weigman was one of the first films broadcast on TV that day, long before anyone could have possibly "altered" it. Todd Please address the frame shown (posted by Robin initially), not the film in MOTION. The retouchers were careless about individual frames because they never dreamed that individual frames would be scrutinized. The "Hesters" likely were added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman, which had already been shown on NBC. Jack Jack, If the Hesters are genuine in Weigman, why in the world would they need to be "added" to Bell - Bell shows the same area at about the same time that Weigman does, so whatever is seen in Weigman will appear in Bell, i.e the Hesters! Your claim that the Hesters were "added to Bell precisely BECAUSE they are seen in Wiegman' makes no sense. Todd If the Hesters were seen in Wiegman and not in Bell, it would arouse suspicions. Jack Yes Jack, but if Weigman is genuine (which you seem to agree with) and it shows the Hesters at a time and location that the Bell film is also covering, then it only stands to reason that the Hesters will show uop in the Bell film, as they do. Another way of looking at this is why would the Hester's NOT show up in Bell if Bell is filming the same location at the same time as Weigman? Wrong again. All films are suspect in some ways. I do not exclude Wiegman. For years I considered Moorman, Altgens, and Wiegman had to be authentic. Now I consider all suspect. Bell was tampered with to harmonize with Wiegman...but study shows Bell is retouched, so that may impeach Wiegman. Some people just cannot grasp the concept that IF ONE IMAGE IS SUSPECT, ALL ARE SUSPECT. But that's the way it is. Jack T Let me get this straight - you think it's possible that the Weigman film, a film that was broadcast on NBC within a mere few hours or so of the assassination, might be altered, so significantly so that something like the Hester sequence might be fake? Is that correct? 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