Jump to content

OK Then...What Evidence is NOT Tainted?


Mark Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

professor thompson....quote ''It would be stupid to fake them up because you could never know if yet another film or photo would show up to expose your fakery.''.....But please no one forget that a few years back the tsbd museum put notices in the newspapers and let it be known to anyone who had films or photographs taken of the assassination to be handed into the Museum for posterity's sake and to be cared for...and they have been how many i have no idea...so imo yes whatever has been handed in can be controlled...by the tsbdm..b

I am very reluctant to disagree with Bernice Moore, because along with EVERYONE here I greatly value Bernice's contributions.

But even though I disagree with Gary Mack's REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS on fundamental issues in the case, I do not see any valid grounds to question Gary's bona fides as a researcher or as Curator of the Sixth Foor Museum. In fact I think it is great that Gary has dedicated himself to collecting and preserving the film/video/photo evidence from Dealey Plaza.

I received this email from Gary, in response to Bernice's post:

[bernice] is against The Sixth Floor Museum's quest to find, preserve, and make available previously unknown films and photographs related to the assassination. All those images are freely available for viewing at the Museum and many are on its website; they have been used extensively for the past 15 years in numerous TV news and documentary programs watched by tens of millions world wide. Researchers often copy them and marvel at their clarity when studying events in Dealey Plaza. In fact, the visual quality of the Museum's original Dorman, Hughes, Bronson, Towner and Bell films far surpasses anything Robert Groden produced. Because it is so clear, the Museum's video of the Dorman film revealed two previously unknown photographers at the corner of Elm & Houston as the limo made the fateful turn.

Without the Museum's request for people to come forward, their pictures would remain completely unknown and would never be preserved. The previously unknown Skaggs photos were days away from being dumped in the trash and the spectacular Jefferies film of Jackie in the motorcade would never have been seen outside of his son's family. Several hundred hours of local news coverage from all four local TV stations and three radio stations have also been preserved, without which such programs as The Lost JFK Tapes and JFK: Breaking The News would not, and could not, have been produced. Those programs have provided researchers with hours of footage for personal study at no charge.

Tomorrow, the Museum will receive two original 8mm films of the Kennedy arrival at Love Field, and we an 8mm home movie of the Kennedy breakfast in Fort Worth has also been promised.

As I see it, by taking such an absurd position, Bernice is advocating cover-up and the potential loss of many more potentially important images.

Gary Mack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You write: "Not bothering to stop to argue over the authenticy of the films and photos, what is the purpose of focusing on all the evidence that points to Oswald and ignoring all the evidence of a gunman in the front if it isn't to support the lone gunman scenario?"

But the authenticity of the films and photos are what I'm talking about. It would be stupid to try to fake them up because the fakery would stand out. As a compilation of photos and films, they are self-authenticating. They have to match each other. It would be stupid to fake them up because you could never know if yet another film or photo would show up to expose your fakery. Thus, the alterationists have to keep adding more and more films to their list of fakes since they can't show any incongruity or discrepancy between the photos and films we have. Should yet another film appear tomorrow that matched exactly with the Zapruder and came from some poor slob's attic in Dubuque, Iowa, the alterationist would start saying that it too had been altered. I'm just saying that the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza is self-authenticating as a compilation. Other evidence... perhaps CE 399, perhaps the autopsy photos and x-rays, etc.... may well have been faked up. But we have to start somewhere, so why not start with the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza? Smart people have been starting with that evidence for the last fifty years. Why trash it now? Why trash it after alterationists have been trying to impeach it for two decades and have failed miserably?

This argument has nothing to do with your reply, Bill. What do you think of what I just said?

Josiah Thompson

Okay,

I'll start with the Photo Evidence, but forget the Z-film, why not focus on the Powell and Dillard photos of the Sixth Floor Sniper's Window, both taken within minutes of the last shot and within a minute of each other, and positively proving that the Sniper's Nest boxes were moved around within the time frame of between when those two photos were taken.

No one, not even Jack White or Jim Fetzer has disputed the authenticy of these two photos, and no one claims they have been altered, yet, according to the HSCA photo panel, who rejected every accusation of alteration, they positively indicate that the boxes were moved around two minutes after the last shot.

Those photos, together with the eyewitness testimony of Ms. Mooneyham, the court clerk from across the street who eyeballed a man walking around the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest window four minutes after the last shot - not only exonerates Oswald, but introduces a new, unknown suspect we know cannot be Oswald.

So if this positive Proof of conspiracy was known to the HSCA, an official US government body, then why hasn't it been acted on?

You asked, so there you have it Tink,

Now what do you say about the photo evidence of conspiracy that isn't being questioned?

Bill Kelly

Thanks to Michael Griffith and Howard Roffman for this analysis. - BK

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscoth.htm

HSCA Photo Panel

4. CONCLUSIONS

  1. Evidence of changes in the open sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository is visible. The changes are of types:
  2. (1) There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within 2 minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy....

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:vTvL0AQTQt8J:karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Where_was_Oswald.html+Photos+of+Sixth+Floor+Window+Powell&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:rceluODzRAEJ:mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wcexhibits.htm+Lyndal+L.+Shaneyfelt&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The WC's own reenactments of Officer Baker's encounter with Oswald indicated that it occurred no more than 75 seconds after the shots were fired. There is no way Oswald could have done everything the Commission said he did and still have made it to the lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker and without being seen by Truly. Additionally, we should keep in mind that the men watching the motorcade from fifth-floor windows beneath the sniper's nest said they heard no movement above them after the shots were fired, and they were separated from the nest only by thin plywood floor boarding that had cracks between the planks. One of them said he could hear a rifle bolt operating and shells hitting the floor above them during the shooting--yet, again, these men heard no movement above them after the shots were fired. This report accords with the finding that boxes were being moved in the sniper's window within two minutes of the assassination (see below); it also agrees with the eyewitness account of a law clerk from a nearby building who said she saw a man in the sixth floor window about four to five minutes after the shots were fired. The law clerk was a woman named Lillian Mooneyham. She told the FBI that she saw a man standing a few feet back from the sniper's window four to five minutes after the shooting.

Photos taken of the sixth-floor window less than two minutes after the shooting show the boxes being REARRANGED (5:53). This fact was detected by the photographic experts retained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). I quote from the HSCA testimony of photographic expert Dr. Robert R. Hunt:

Mr. FITHIAN. I would like to ask the staff to put up JFK F-153. As I understand it, Doctor, this is a picture that was taken a few seconds after the shot; is that correct? Dr. HUNT. I am not sure until I see the picture. Which one are you referring to? Mr. FITHIAN. I believe that is the one of the---TSBD? Dr. HUNT. Oh, yes, right. Yes; in answer to your question, THAT WAS TAKEN A FEW SECONDS AFTER THE LAST SHOT WAS FIRED. AT LEAST THAT IS DILLARD'S TESTIMONY TO THE WARREN COMMISSION, I BELIEVE.

Mr. FITHIAN. Now, directing your attention to that particular exhibit, the photograph in the area of the sixth floor window, the open window, there seems to be a change in the configuration of the boxes. How did the photo panel account for this?

Dr. HUNT. The change in configuration of the boxes with respect to what, with respect to another window view?

Mr. FITHIAN. No, with respect to other photos that you analyzed.

Dr. HUNT. OK. Probably the one most pertinent to that would be exhibit which is showing next to it at the moment--I am not aware of the exhibit number for it--but that shows the same window, TAKEN APPROXIMATELY ONE TO TWO MINUTES AFTER THE FIRST PICTURE WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT, the one taken by Dillard on the right, the one by Powell on the left. You are correct in perceiving that there is something which we could ascribe to a change in the configuration of the boxes. For example, the picture on the right, we see only two boxes, one at the left of the window sill and just a corner of the one peeping up at the right of the window sill. Whereas, in the picture, the enlarged picture, for example, on the left, we see not just the two boxes; you can still see, for example, on the left there is the same small box at the left, there is the same corner peeping up at the right. But now we have two or three other boxes, apparently rising up in between them. There are two possible explanations, I guess, for that, that the panel considered. One is that we are seeing boxes which are in the room, but because of our perspective, our line of sight, is different, we are seeing different boxes than were visible in the other picture. The second explanation is that there has been physically a movement of the boxes in the room during the time which elapsed between the taking of those pictures.

Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Now there is no way that we can know which it is?

Dr. HUNT. There are ways of eliminating or narrowing down the possibilities between those two choices. For example, given the geometry at which you are viewing, and given the apparent sunlight on the boxes, you could probably guess how far into the room those boxes do lie. For example, if you look at the two boxes which appear to have been introduced in the picture on the left, they appear to be in full sunlight, which means they must not lie too far inside the room because this was high noon, in November; the sun angle is simply not that low in Dallas at high noon in November to shine sunlight very deep into the room. So they can certainly not be too far behind the plane of the window; and THAT WOULD THEREFORE TEND TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE BOX WHICH LIES IN ONE POSITION IN THE ROOM AND IS SIMPLY TENDED TO BE VIEWED IN DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM TWO DIFFERENT VIEWING POINTS.

Mr. FITHIAN. You say it rules that out?

Dr. HUNT. It tends to rule it out, yes. It does not rule it out completely, because we lack what is usually referred to as the analytical information, from the position of the two photographers to precisely plot the positions of those boxes by stereoanalysis techniques.

Mr. FITHIAN. WELL, IF IT GENERALLY TENDS TO RULE THAT OUT, THEN IT SEEMS THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE LEFT WITH ONLY ONE CONCLUSION, AND THAT IS, THAT A BOX WAS ACTUALLY MOVED.

Dr. HUNT. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY PERSONAL CONCLUSION, THAT SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING MOVED BOXES AROUND IN THAT ROOM DURING THE TIME OF TAKING OF THOSE TWO PICTURES. (4 HSCA 422-423, emphasis added)

Indeed, the Committee's photographic panel eventually came to the following conclusion: "There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within 2 minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109).

The photographic panel went into more detail in its report:

Examination of both the Dillard and Powell photographs of the sixth floor windows shows an open windows with deep shadows in the region behind it. The deep shadows indicate the film was underexposed in these regions; that is, too little light reached the film or a clear recording of any details in the room behind the window.

A number of enhancement processes were applied to the photographs in order to bring out any details obscured within the underexposed regions. They were as follows:

(1) Photographic enhancement (using photo-optical and photochemical techniques) of the underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph undertaken at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT).

(2) Autoradiographic enhancement of the underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph at Stanford Research Institute, Inc. (SRI).

(3) Computer enhancement of the underexposed regions of the window photograph at the University of Southern California and the Aerospace Corp. In addition, the Dillard photographs were scanned and digitized for possible computer enhancement. Nevertheless, no such enhancement was performed because the Panel decided that the autoradiographic technique had more potential for success.

The photographic and computer processes made visible details that had been obscured in the underexposed regions of the photographs. Both the photographic enhancement by RIT and the autoradiographic enhancement by SRI revealed a feature in the fifth floor window immediately beneath the sixth floor. Figure IV-1 (JFK exhibit F-153) shows one of the. original Dillard photographs, and figure IV-2 is an autoradiographic enhancement. The detail revealed by the processing appears to be a circular light fixture hanging from the ceiling of the fifth floor room, with a light bulb in the center of the fixture.

In the enhanced Powell photograph additional details became visible on the boxes in the windows. (See figure IV-3, JFK exhibit F157.) Nevertheless in neither photograph did the processing operations reveal any sign of a human face or form in the open sixth floor or adjoining windows.

The Panel concluded that the light fixture revealed in the fifth window served as a "benchmark" against which the sixth floor enhancement could be judged. . . .

Although human faces or forms were not visible in the enhanced photographs, inspection of figures IV-2 and IV-3 reveals a difference in the boxes visible through the sixth floor widow. in the Dillard photograph, only two boxes are immediately visible, one each to the left and right of the window frame. Nevertheless, the Powell photograph shows several additional boxes. There are two possible explanations for this difference:

(1) The Powell photograph may reflect only an apparent change in the boxes; the different angle from which Powell viewed the depository may have caused a different set of boxes within the room to be framed within the window;

(2) The boxes were moved during the time that elapsed between the Dillard and Powell photographs. Since the precise positions of Dillard and Powell at the time of the photographs were unknown, it was not possible to calculate precisely the region within the sixth floor room that would have been visible to each photographer. In the Dillard photograph, the two to the left and right of the window frame appear to be in the full light of the Sun, with no shadows cast on them by the frame of the partially opened window. In the Powell photograph, it also appears that the boxes are in full sunlight, with no shadow cast on them by the window frame.

A simple trigonometric calculation shows that the two boxes at the left and right lie approximately 6 inches from the plane of the window (see appendix A). If full sunlight is falling on the additional boxes in question in the Powell photograph, they must also lie close to the plane of the window. For this reason, THE PANEL CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDITIONAL BOXES VISIBLE IN THE POWELL PHOTOGRAPH WERE MOVED DURING THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE DILLARD AND POWELL PHOTOGRAPHS. (6 HSCA 110-115, emphasis added)

WC defenders cite the claims of Dale Myers, a private researcher who asserts that the apparent movement of boxes is in effect an optical illusion. But the photographic panel considered the argument on which Myers makes this claim--and rejected it. Oswald could not have been the one moving the boxes because he was seen on the second floor by Baker and Truly less than 90 seconds after the shots were fired (5:53). So, who was moving the boxes around less than two minutes after the shooting? Who was the man seen in the sniper's nest by the law clerk from a nearby building just a few minutes after the shots were fired? Whoever it was, it could not have been Oswald.

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:rceluODzRAEJ:mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wcexhibits.htm+Lyndal+L.+Shaneyfelt&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

professor thompson....quote ''It would be stupid to fake them up because you could never know if yet another film or photo would show up to expose your fakery.''.....But please no one forget that a few years back the tsbd museum put notices in the newspapers and let it be known to anyone who had films or photographs taken of the assassination to be handed into the Museum for posterity's sake and to be cared for...and they have been how many i have no idea...so imo yes whatever has been handed in can be controlled...by the tsbdm..b

I am very reluctant to disagree with Bernice Moore, because along with EVERYONE here I greatly value Bernice's contributions.

But even though I disagree with Gary Mack's REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS on fundamental issues in the case, I do not see any valid grounds to question Gary's bona fides as a researcher or as Curator of the Sixth Foor Museum. In fact I think it is great that Gary has dedicated himself to collecting and preserving the film/video/photo evidence from Dealey Plaza.

I received this email from Gary, in response to Bernice's post:

[bernice] is against The Sixth Floor Museum's quest to find, preserve, and make available previously unknown films and photographs related to the assassination. All those images are freely available for viewing at the Museum and many are on its website; they have been used extensively for the past 15 years in numerous TV news and documentary programs watched by tens of millions world wide. Researchers often copy them and marvel at their clarity when studying events in Dealey Plaza. In fact, the visual quality of the Museum's original Dorman, Hughes, Bronson, Towner and Bell films far surpasses anything Robert Groden produced. Because it is so clear, the Museum's video of the Dorman film revealed two previously unknown photographers at the corner of Elm & Houston as the limo made the fateful turn.

Without the Museum's request for people to come forward, their pictures would remain completely unknown and would never be preserved. The previously unknown Skaggs photos were days away from being dumped in the trash and the spectacular Jefferies film of Jackie in the motorcade would never have been seen outside of his son's family. Several hundred hours of local news coverage from all four local TV stations and three radio stations have also been preserved, without which such programs as The Lost JFK Tapes and JFK: Breaking The News would not, and could not, have been produced. Those programs have provided researchers with hours of footage for personal study at no charge.

Tomorrow, the Museum will receive two original 8mm films of the Kennedy arrival at Love Field, and we an 8mm home movie of the Kennedy breakfast in Fort Worth has also been promised.

As I see it, by taking such an absurd position, Bernice is advocating cover-up and the potential loss of many more potentially important images.

Gary Mack

YOU KNOW GARY POO YOU GET WORSE THE OLDER YOU GET...YOU ARE REALLY BEGINNING TO SHOW JUST HOW P/O YOU GET WHEN YOU SEND SOMEONE AN EMAIL AND THEY CHOOSE TO DELETE AND IGNORE YOUR INSULTS, BY THEN SENDING A FURTHER EMAIL TO A GOFER TO HAVE THEM POST SUCH ON A FORUM SO YOU CAN GET BACK AT THEM THERE THAT REALLY APPEARS TO BE PATHETIC..AND HOW SMALL A PERSON YOU REALLY ARE AND SHOWING SUCH TO ALL..YOU ARE SO FOS I AM A PART OF A COVER-UP..WHO IS IT THAT DOES NOT SELL CONSPIRACY HISTORY BOOKS SUCH AS WEISBERG'S THAT HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IN COLLEGE..., PENN JONES JIM FEZER'S ETC IN THE BOOK STORE AT THE TSBD THAT IS WHAT YOU AND I HAVE BEEN SQUABBLING ABOUT FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW..YOU SAY YOU DO NOT CHOSE SUCH TO BE SOLD YET YOU SAY YOU READ ALL THE NEW BOOKS AS AVAILABLE AND THEN RECOMMEND THEM SO WHICH IS IT WITH YOUR GOBBLEY GOOK...THIS ALSO HAS COME UP ON THIS FORUM IN THE PAST..AND OTHERS ..AND IT GOES NO WHERE YOU REPLY WITH THE SAME BROKEN RECORD EXCUSES.NOTHING CHANGES ONLY YOUR BRAVADO CRAP IN THE LATEST DOCUMENTARY B/S YOU GET INVOLVED IN AND THEN ARE TRASHED.......SO STICK IT GARY POO I HAVE NOT REPLIED TO ANY OF YOUR EMAILS FOR A LONG LONG TIME AND THAT WILL CONTINUE THEY ARE DELETED NO MATTER HOW MANY POISON PEN EMAILS YOU THEN CHOOSE TO SEND OUT TO YOUR GOFERS WHO WILL SEE TO IT THAT THEY ARE POSTED AND MANY DO THE DARN FOOLS IMO YOU USER YOU..AND WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO INVOLVE OTHERS AS YOU HAVE AGAIN HERE..YOU CONTINUALLY MAKE YOURSELF APPEAR AS SMALL AS YOU REALLY ARE AND PATHETIC ..NOT THEM....AN A/H RUNS THE TSBD AND SO MANY KNOW THAT ALREADY AND YET BY THIS BEHAVIOUR YOU CONTINUALLY LET PEOPLE KNOW YOU ARE AS WELL A DARN FOOL...STOP TRYING TO INVOLVE OTHERS IN YOUR GETTING BACK AT...CHILDISH GAMES..AND TO TOP IT OFF REPLYING FOR THE PROFESSOR..HE IS MORE THAN CAPABLE AND CAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF WHEN AND IF HE CHOOSES.....B

SORRY FOR THE CAPS THAT TIME OF NIGHT BUT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCS PERHAPS BEST THE ARE CAPITALS..TA B..

----- Forwarded Message ----

From: Bernice <bmoore1242@rogers.com>

To: Bernice <bmoore1242@rogers.com>

Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 8:24:49 PM

Subject: TSBD

http://www.prouty.org/boycott.html

The Sixth Floor Boycott

Some time ago I had submitted the Col. Prouty CD-ROM to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, for review. To make a long story short, I have been told that because it does not conform to the "Lone Assassin" theory they will not look at it. (or stock it in the bookstore).

Gary Hack who represents the Sixth Floor will not even look at the CD-ROM.! He has not replied other than his repeated, "you will be notified if we accept it"

I have since found out the Sixth Floor has an agenda to support the Warren Report. I was not aware of this myself and was very surprised. This is more evidence of the continual cover-up. I suggest and urge that anyone thinking of visiting the Sixth Floor Museum in the near future to decline. At least until they change from the official "Lone Assassin theory" that Lee Oswald shot JFK, and at least show more that one side to the story. For those of you active on internet newsgroups, I hope that the topic be can brought up and discussed especially for anyone going to Dallas.

I also understand they have refused to stock (banned) the "Assassination Science" and "Murder in Dealey Plaza" by James Fetzer. And many other good honest books

Len Osanic

If you have any comments please E-mail Len Osanic at osanic@prouty.org

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right on Bernice

Not only do I agree with you, but I stand behind you as well

Dean

thanks dean to me it is such a creepy thing to do, to impose upon and use others to post his reply emails to be able toget back at someone else like it shows such an infantile mentality and he has been at it now for so very long like growup you darn old fool..he certainly appears to be loosing it and he does not seem to be intelligent enough or on the ball that when he does such as he has to me it is not i that run such as the tsbd it is his and their reputation he splatters whenever he des so like for god's sake wake up...if he values either just shut the hell up and stop sending out his trashy emails he has such an overwhelming get back at attitude it has gotten out of hand and he just may need to talk to someone about it it really has gotten sick..imo..:tomatoes ..ta best b..

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

The fallacy at the heart of the operation of The 6th Floor Museum is know as "special pleading" (aka the method of selection and elimination), by selecting evidence that supports a predetermined point of view and eliminating the rest. No one should take seriously a "museum" dedicated to the assassination that will not carry Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), my (ed.) ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZARPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), or Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. I to V (2009). Even Vincent Bugliosi has described my three books as "the only exclusively scientific books" about the assassination--to which I would add David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980). This violates a fundamental condition of scientific inquiry which maintains that, in the search for truth, reasoning must be based upon all the available relevant evidence. That The 6th Floor Museum does not satisfy this conduction tells us that it is not interested in the truth about the assassination of JFK but in upholding THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), and even Gerald Posner, CASE CLOSED (1963), all of which are predicated upon the "magic bullet" theory. As Michael Baden, M.D., the head of the medical panel for the HSCA has observed, if the "magic bullet" theory is false, then there had to have been at least six shots from at least three directions. We have demonstrated that the "magic bullet" theory IS false and that here had to have been at least six shots from three different directions. For anyone who doubts that this is the case, see "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and which has been published in a peer-reviewed international journal. It can be found via google or by downloading from the following link, http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf . Those who pose as "custodians" while running a misinformation operation are not custodians of truth but proponents of falsehoods. These two roles must not be confused.

Right on Bernice

Not only do I agree with you, but I stand behind you as well

Dean

thanks dean to me it is such a creepy thing to do, to impose upon and use others to post his reply emails to be able toget back at someone else like it shows such an infantile mentality and he has been at it now for so very long like growup you darn old fool..he certainly appears to be loosing it :tomatoes ..ta best b..

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked, so there you have it Tink,

Now what do you say about the photo evidence of conspiracy that isn't being questioned?

Bill Kelly

I'd say that the two photos you mentioned are only part of the mosaic of photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza that form a self-authenticating whole and can be used as bedrock in any investigation of the case.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... a self-authenticating whole and can be used as bedrock in any investigation of the case.

Six Seconds in Dallas...

Throughout the entire Zapruder film, nothing indicates that frames have been added. What is clear is that frames have been removed. Time has been deleted from the film. With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the assassination,

Newcomb and Adams, Murder From Within, chapter 4, "The Filmed Assassination."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all the films of Dealey Plaza are "self-authenticating", it is because the animators made sure they conformed.

Jack

This is great, Jack. When it is established that all attempts to show discrepancies between any films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza have failed, is this your backup position? If they all agree, this is because the conspiritors... "the "animators"... made sure they conformed."

This is wonderful. You are then absolutely protected from any empirical evidence to the contrary. You have set up a completely unfalsifiable position. You are finally safe from all those folks raising nasty questions about what the evidence really shows. Even if you have no shred of proof you can continue to believe what you want to believe.

Wow, Jack. Like Shakespeard says somewhere, "That way madness lies!!"

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... You asked, so there you have it Tink,

Now what do you say about the photo evidence of conspiracy that isn't being questioned?

Bill Kelly

I'd say that the two photos you mentioned are only part of the mosaic of photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza that form a self-authenticating whole and can be used as bedrock in any investigation of the case.

Josiah Thompson

Are we waiting for the investigation to begin?

BK

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...