Paul Brancato Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Pat - I am inclined to agree with you about those that argue the z film is altered. Assuming it was not, are you saying that you believe the evidence supports only shots from behind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Some of the most obvious signs the film is altered... FRAMES are missing from both of these sequences... The movemnt of both JFK's head at 157-158 and Greer at 203-303 are physically impossible in the single frame they occur.. Studies done on 302/303 suggest the limo had not moved at all... The break at 157 is 1.5 frames. Under that is Hickey reacting to "something" as they finish the turn... except he completely ignores THIS movement to his LEFT in favor of one to his right rear... He doesn't turn right until just before Altgens 6.... wonder what he was looking at around z150-z170 George W. Hickey, Jr. Special Agent, U.S.S.S.Just prior to the shooting I was seated in the rear of SS-679-X on the left side. As IOO-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Instead of telling us that you THINK the zfilm is original... PROVE IT. What is it that appears on the extent film that convinces you it is the camera original as opposed to an altered film exposed in Zaps camera and replaced. If one of the copies remained in 16mm format while the original was sent to DC Friday night in 8mm format... it's just a thought... we of course have no idea what actually happened. But to claim what we are shown in Z is what occurred that afternoon is to disregard mountains of conflicting evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) Pat - I am inclined to agree with you about those that argue the z film is altered. Assuming it was not, are you saying that you believe the evidence supports only shots from behind? Speer presents what he believes to be a likely scenario, with 4 or more shots fired: a shot after the fatal frame-313 (or alternatively, a firecracker used a diversionary tool). As part his scenario, the other 3 or 4 shots were fired from behind (TSBD and another location, most likely the Dal-Tex building). One-paragraph excerpt from his website [discussing the shot after the fatal shot]: : "From: somewhere west of the Texas School Book Depository, possibly the railroad yards, but more probably the back of the arcade north of the grassy knoll, or the parking lot across the street. William Newman, and Abraham Zapruder, both facing the President, with the picket fence on their right and school book depository on their left, nevertheless felt the last shot came from behind them. Since a loud sound coming from behind them at this time would arrive but a split second after the sound of a third shot fired from the depository building, a sound's coming from this area would be likely to confuse Newman and Zapruder, and other witnesses nearby, and lead them to recall hearing but two shots. Sure enough, Newman, Zapruder, Mrs. Kennedy, Bobby Hargis, Clint Hill, and Paul Landis, could clearly recall but two shots, and those nearby Kennedy claiming they heard three shots mostly did so while claiming the last two shots were nearly simultaneous. A diversionary device set off in this location would, of course, draw attention from the buildings behind the President when he was shot. If this was the plan, of course...it worked. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the bulk of the Police and eyewitnesses looking for the shooter ran towards the grassy knoll and railroad yards, and ignored the buildings behind the motorcade." Edited January 6, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Andric and Pat - which shot came from in front, by your scenario? The fatal shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 David - I always have a hard time seeing what others see in looking at short closeup sections of the Z film. What I am sure of is that the, or perhaps one of, the fatal head shots clearly come from in front, as did an earlier shot to the throat. So it does seem strange that the film would be doctored in other ways while leaving clear evidence of a frontal shot intact. Somebody argued that the people that altered the film did what they could in a short amount of time. Maybe that's true, and maybe the alterations you and others point out had the affect of hiding evidence of complicity on the part of Greer or someone else. It is suspicious indeed that no provably original film exists, if that is in fact true. Even though I have read a ton over 50 years, I am not nearly an expert. If by some miracle a new Congressional or even privately funded investigation was begun, I would prefer that its initial energies were spent on the yet to be released files of intelligence agencies rather than on post assassination coverup. Sure its all important - call it who, how, and why. I want to know who. I feel I already know why, and of course I want to know how the conspirators pulled this off. I'll concede that sometimes the devil is in the details. But when I talk to non-believers and relatively disinterested friends their eyes glaze over when I start talking about fake autopsy photos or altered Z film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) Stringer disputing the brain photos but says the back of the head photos are genuine? That's a contradiction. Saundra Spencer's statements are most credible. The photos were altered. Frank Oneill disputed the photos because of the huge hole in the back of the head. Spencer's recollections of the photos fail to match the recollections of anyone in attendance at the autopsy. Horne assumed she saw photos of Kennedy taken at the end of the autopsy. The more realistic explanation is that she was trying to recall photos she'd developed over 30 years earlier. P.S. Frank O'Neil was not a CT. He thought Oswald acted alone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saundra Spencer was a dedicated professional who testified UNDER OATH, UNDER THE LAWS OF PERJURY, that photos were not what she saw. Who in attendance at the autopsy saw EXACTYLY what the photos show? And, who testified UNHDER OATH, that there was a large hole in the back of the head? do a poll. O'Neill stated that he believed that Oswald acted alone out of some kind of twisted, blind, damaging patriotism. Or, to cover his ass. He stated, testified, and wrote of a different scenario than what the photos show. Must have had the same disease Clint Hill is suffering from. Pat, do you believe Oswald acted alone? If so: 1 - did the bullet enter the occipital area? Or, 2 - did the bullet enter the cowlick area? We got 2 government versions, which one do you believe happened if you now think Oswald acted alone, in accordance with your great website. You don't need to answer if you still believe in a frontal shot. Let's see if I can give the short version. When I realized that I couldn't just swallow the myth that the Parkland witnesses were consistent, and proved the wound was on the back of the head, which in turn proved conspiracy, I decided to study the evidence from the ground up, i.e. what is a face sheet, what does it show, where does 14 cm below the mastoid place the wound, etc... Along the way, I came to realize that in their zeal to blame the autopsists and WC for everything, most CTs missed the elephant in the room. In 1968, AFTER the research community pointed out that a bullet entering low on the back of the head--where an entrance was noted at autopsy--would be unlikely to reverse direction and explode from the top of the head--where the large wound was noted at autopsy--the Clark panel was convened and, by golly, found a NEW entrance, 4 inches higher on the back of the head. This was a fabrication. While there was a red mark on the scalp, there was no hole there. So WHY did they "find" an entrance wound there? Well, because, by golly, the BRAIN photos some would have us believe are fake, failed to depict a bullet trajectory from the EOP entrance to the top of the head. In other words, the very photos many CTs want us to believe are fake, disproved the conclusions at autopsy. So, what happens when we assume the Clark Panel was correct on this point? Well, it then becomes clear that Kennedy had a large wound on top of his head (that had all the appearances of a tangential wound of both entrance and exit) AND a small wound near the EOP. TWO head wounds. And, thus, an almost certain conspiracy. As far as Oswald...I have chapter after chapter on why I doubt he shot at Kennedy, and why I suspect some of the evidence against him is bogus. So, yes, I am neither a lone-nutter, nor an Oswald fired shots but he probably had help CT, as one finds among members of the press. Edited January 6, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) I decided to study the evidence from the ground up, i.e. what is a face sheet, what does it show, where does 14 cm below the mastoid place the wound, etc... This is a sign of a mis-spent youth. The part you claim is the "ground" -- the 14 cm measurement -- was written in pen in violation of proper autopsy protocol. Pat, you're studying the WRONG part of the autopsy face sheet. The "verified" part with the dot in the location of the clothing holes -- that was prepared according to proper autopsy protocol -- in pencil -- and trumps the improper crap you insist on pitching. Edited January 6, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Stringer disputing the brain photos but says the back of the head photos are genuine? That's a contradiction. Saundra Spencer's statements are most credible. The photos were altered. Frank Oneill disputed the photos because of the huge hole in the back of the head. Spencer's recollections of the photos fail to match the recollections of anyone in attendance at the autopsy. Horne assumed she saw photos of Kennedy taken at the end of the autopsy. The more realistic explanation is that she was trying to recall photos she'd developed over 30 years earlier. P.S. Frank O'Neil was not a CT. He thought Oswald acted alone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saundra Spencer was a dedicated professional who testified UNDER OATH, UNDER THE LAWS OF PERJURY, that photos were not what she saw. Who in attendance at the autopsy saw EXACTYLY what the photos show? And, who testified UNHDER OATH, that there was a large hole in the back of the head? do a poll. O'Neill stated that he believed that Oswald acted alone out of some kind of twisted, blind, damaging patriotism. Or, to cover his ass. He stated, testified, and wrote of a different scenario than what the photos show. Must have had the same disease Clint Hill is suffering from. Pat, do you believe Oswald acted alone? If so: 1 - did the bullet enter the occipital area? Or, 2 - did the bullet enter the cowlick area? We got 2 government versions, which one do you believe happened if you now think Oswald acted alone, in accordance with your great website. You don't need to answer if you still believe in a frontal shot. Let's see if I can give the short version. When I realized that I couldn't just swallow the myth that the Parkland witnesses were consistent, and proved the wound was on the back of the head, which in turn proved conspiracy, I decided to study the evidence from the ground up, i.e. what is a face sheet, what does it show, where does 14 cm below the mastoid place the wound, etc... Along the way, I came to realize that in their zeal to blame the autopsists and WC for everything, most CTs missed the elephant in the room. In 1968, AFTER the research community pointed out that a bullet entering low on the back of the head--where an entrance was noted at autopsy--would be unlikely to reverse direction and explode from the top of the head--where the large wound was noted at autopsy--the Clark panel was convened and, by golly, found a NEW entrance, 4 inches higher on the back of the head. This was a fabrication. While there was a red mark on the scalp, there was no hole there. So WHY did they "find" an entrance wound there? Well, because, by golly, the BRAIN photos some would have us believe are fake, failed to depict a bullet trajectory from the EOP entrance to the top of the head. In other words, the very photos many CTs want us to believe are fake, disproved the conclusions at autopsy. So, what happens when we assume the Clark Panel was correct on this point? Well, it then becomes clear that Kennedy had a large wound on top of his head (that had all the appearances of a tangential wound of both entrance and exit) AND a small wound near the EOP. TWO head wounds. And, thus, an almost certain conspiracy. As far as Oswald...I have chapter after chapter on why I doubt he shot at Kennedy, and why I suspect some of the evidence against him is bogus. So, yes, I am neither a lone-nutter, nor an Oswald fired shots but he probably had help CT, as one finds among members of the press. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Pat, Did the Clark Panel mention 2 wounds to the head which is what you state is the case? So you cannot agree with them, if they didn't cause they would be lying - covering up evidence if your theory is correct. And didn't Stringer say there was an entrance wound in the occipital area? Please correct me if I'm wrong but where did he say anything about another bullet entrance in the cowlick area? The medical case is a government cover up cause nothing syncs 100% between the witnesses and the photos - ever. I will take the back of the head citizen witnesses over the federal government every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) David - I always have a hard time seeing what others see in looking at short closeup sections of the Z film. What I am sure of is that the, or perhaps one of, the fatal head shots clearly come from in front, as did an earlier shot to the throat. So it does seem strange that the film would be doctored in other ways while leaving clear evidence of a frontal shot intact. Somebody argued that the people that altered the film did what they could in a short amount of time. Maybe that's true, and maybe the alterations you and others point out had the affect of hiding evidence of complicity on the part of Greer or someone else. It is suspicious indeed that no provably original film exists, if that is in fact true. Even though I have read a ton over 50 years, I am not nearly an expert. If by some miracle a new Congressional or even privately funded investigation was begun, I would prefer that its initial energies were spent on the yet to be released files of intelligence agencies rather than on post assassination coverup. Sure its all important - call it who, how, and why. I want to know who. I feel I already know why, and of course I want to know how the conspirators pulled this off. I'll concede that sometimes the devil is in the details. But when I talk to non-believers and relatively disinterested friends their eyes glaze over when I start talking about fake autopsy photos or altered Z film. By design Paul, by design... The workings and imagination required to create and execute a plan of this nature are far beyond that which the mere mortal understands. It is literally not fair to ask that the plan make sense, be logical, or not have included within the planning the cover-up itself. Altering the dead body of the president to CREATE history... WHO would believe it? Can we believe the 75" (6'3") of film (out of 33 feet) surrounded by splices and black film with no origin... with no identifying marks... and a very dubious chain of possession... - A KNOWN copy to the Secret Service that night... and the mention of at least one extra copy either with Zapruder or the SS - Virtually NO RECORD of those who saw the film that weekend with regards to what they saw... specifically... (Dino claims the headshot and result he saw was much longer than the few frames in the existing film) but there are no good interviews where the question was asked of the KODAK personnel, the JAMIESON personnel, or anyone else who may have seen the film prior to Sat night.) I did a little research into what consitutes "knowledge" of something - in virtually all cases, the WRITTEN WORD is usually accepted as KNOWLEDGE based on Plato's principles: "it must be justified, true, and believed" We all know in 1964 the WCR was "justified" and was "believed"... and by default accepted as TRUTH and in turn constituting KNOWLEDGE of the assassination. Undoing a supported and accepted TRUTH, especially the governement's, has always been virtually impossible. We have 50 years and over 2/3 of the people STILL not believing the WCR is TRUTH... yet since there is no WRITTEN TEXT to takes its place... KNOWLEDGE does not change... the complexities of undoing the TRUTH is simply too much for the common person to understand, nor is there the desire to spend the time and energy to reach a place where it could be understood... This remains one of the biggest and boldest lies in the history of man.... Lies so big that exposing them only makes the task MORE difficult... as one lie reveals 100 that require just as much understanding to even percievce them, let alone explain and understand them. --- Regarding WHO Paul... WHO saw fit to enlist the help of Gen Cabell from the CIA in mid 1960 to determine whether a textile asset-stripping conglomerate should buy a failing helicopter company. This little conglomerate, soon to be connected with the defense industry, is backed by an interesting group of companies and people including Sun Assurance of London, Sun Life of Canada, the Bank of Boston, Prudential, Hancock Life, the law form of Cravath, Swaine and Moore among others and the financial empires of Rothschild, Astor and Morgan.... WHO ordered the admirals to play games with the arrival of the two caskets? WHO can get the Surgeon General of the Navy, the ranking rear admiral of Bethesda and the POTUS' physician to hide the fact JFK was at the morgue over an hour before they said he was? WHY does HOOVER send men to STRIPLING JHS in Ft Worth on Sat 11/23 at 7am to retrieve the 7 year old records of a boy who supposedly never attended there? This is less than 8 hours since Oswald was even CHARGED with the crime. ---- The CIA, again imo, was just as much a scap goat as Oswald, the SS and the FBI... they were/are the first line of defense and still, to this day, maintain camouflage for the WHO that benefitted most and run things in this world. IMO we know HOW... the Historical record was falsified to contain KNOWLEDGE which although not believed, has been accepted as the truth with nothing of substance yet to take its place Why? That is for each of us to reconcile... at the core - he was the greatest threat to the Status Quo that had ever come along... a Status quo extending back hundreds and hundreds of years. my .02 Once understood - there is simply no way that anything accurately reflecting what occurred that day, remains... other than the poorly refuted witness testimony. The devil is indeed in the details Paul... and the details of the Zfilm scream alteration. Edited January 7, 2014 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Thanks for that David. Fyi I am working my way through Armstrong's book. Its unwieldy but interesting. I wish I could find a detailed synopsis. As for who, I've posted on a few threads my feeling that the conspiracy was large and that the conspirators saw safety in numbers. I believe it was a coup, and that we are still living with the consequences. I don't dismiss anything as beyond them, including Z film alteration and faked autopsy photos. I only joined this now depleted forum last year, so perhaps I missed days in which posters examined the top of the pyramid. Its mostly conjecture of course, but it goes to the heart of the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hey Pat, Did the Clark Panel mention 2 wounds to the head which is what you state is the case? So you cannot agree with them, if they didn't cause they would be lying - covering up evidence if your theory is correct. And didn't Stringer say there was an entrance wound in the occipital area? Please correct me if I'm wrong but where did he say anything about another bullet entrance in the cowlick area? The medical case is a government cover up cause nothing syncs 100% between the witnesses and the photos - ever. I will take the back of the head citizen witnesses over the federal government every time. No, they did not mention 2 wounds. They pretended the wound described by the autopsy doctors was really 4 inches away, on a different bone, where NO ONE saw a bullet entrance. Now, some CTs have tried to claim that they were both right and that there were 2 entrances on the back of the head, and thus a conspiracy. But that still relies on the incredibly weird supposition that the autopsy doctors failed to note a wound in an obvious location that was far more likely to create the exit wound where the doctors claimed there was an exit wound. As far as Stringer...NONE of the autopsy participants signed off on the cowlick entrance...and YET...every TV show mentioning the medical evidence from the late '70's until this past year's NOVA presented the cowlick entrance as the one true entrance. IF CTs had screamed about this to the high hills, instead of stomping their feet and chanting that all the evidence is fake, I suspect, they'd have had a lot more success, as far as winning scientists, historians, and journalists, to their side. As far as "I will take the back of the head citizen witnesses over the federal government every time" that sounds well and good, until you realize that there are plenty of side and/or top of the head citizen witnesses, including one named Mrs. John F. Kennedy. Edited January 7, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 DR MARION JENKINS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX58vrL5ZiA FOR ANDRIC/ PAT- see the 5:50 mark ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I understand now, Pat, that your theory is that a bullet struck the right side of JFK's head, and this was a tangential strike that caused great damage on the surface of JFK's skull. In twenty-five words or less, where do you believe this bullet originated from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 DR MARION JENKINS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX58vrL5ZiA FOR ANDRIC/ PAT- see the 5:50 mark ! Good find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Pat, Did the Clark Panel mention 2 wounds to the head which is what you state is the case? So you cannot agree with them, if they didn't cause they would be lying - covering up evidence if your theory is correct. And didn't Stringer say there was an entrance wound in the occipital area? Please correct me if I'm wrong but where did he say anything about another bullet entrance in the cowlick area? The medical case is a government cover up cause nothing syncs 100% between the witnesses and the photos - ever. I will take the back of the head citizen witnesses over the federal government every time. I No, they did not mention 2 wounds. They pretended the wound described by the autopsy doctors was really 4 inches away, on a different bone, where NO ONE saw a bullet entrance. Now, some CTs have tried to claim that they were both right and that there were 2 entrances on the back of the head, and thus a conspiracy. But that still relies on the incredibly weird supposition that the autopsy doctors failed to note a wound in an obvious location that was far more likely to create the exit wound where the doctors claimed there was an exit wound. As far as Stringer...NONE of the autopsy participants signed off on the cowlick entrance...and YET...every TV show mentioning the medical evidence from the late '70's until this past year's NOVA presented the cowlick entrance as the one true entrance. IF CTs had screamed about this to the high hills, instead of stomping their feet and chanting that all the evidence is fake, I suspect, they'd have had a lot more success, as far as winning scientists, historians, and journalists, to their side. As far as "I will take the back of the head citizen witnesses over the federal government every time" that sounds well and good, until you realize that there are plenty of side and/or top of the head citizen witnesses, including one named Mrs. John F. Kennedy. I was referring to the witnesses that say there was a back of the head exit wound to the government's version that there was no exit wound in the back of the head, just a small entrance wound in one of two places - depends on who's covering up. I cannot explain enough that we have 2 opinions from the government and their lone nut followers as to the head wounds, long after the HSCA ended (see the ARRB testimony, or JAMA,1992 for example). I consider MS Kennedy a back of the head witness, and definitely not a part of the government when she testified to the WC. And her testimony does not validate the autopsy photos either . 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