Alistair Briggs Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Bill, To be fair, Sandy is correct with what he says, insulting and labeling people is not a good way to get at the truth. Earlier on Sandy felt he was being insulted and felt that he had been labeled as 'crazy'. I totally see how that could have caused offence to him. Having said that, Sandy did retort in kind and threw back an insult by saying that Michael didn't have the mental capacity to understand complicated matters, and then challenged him to a IQ comparison. In fairness to Sandy, he did delete that comment - one hopes because he realised how crazy it was. *Of course there is no way of knowing exactly what the deleted comment actually said unless someone was canny enough to take a screen shot of it. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said: *Of course there is no way of knowing exactly what the deleted comment actually said unless someone was canny enough to take a screen shot of it. lol His post was up on the board for about 20hrs before I cited one of the sentences from it. Then immediately after that was done - his post was deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Quote: 'The insult is someone claiming alteration without even knowing the processes needed to have been done such a thing to know if it was possible or not'. What is desperately needed to help folks globally interested in this topic understand & decide if the Z-film & its' brother & sister assassination visuals were collectively or individually victims of manipulation is someone on the 'inside' that performed the alleged tasks suspected of the final product. This failure to produce a living witness to the alleged falsification of the Z-film at the CIA's super secret Hawkeye Works film studio was one of the biggest hurdles to Doug Horne's spectacular claims that the government monkeyed with the Z-film the assassination weekend. Alleged by Horne: removal of the limo turn from Houston to Elm Street, removal of the limo stop near the Newman family & removal of the violent forward motion of JFK's head (reported by Dan Rather the assassination weekend on CBS TV news) & thus leaving the after-effects of a 2nd shot. Other authors & researchers have expanded on these alleged obstructions of justice to include removal of witness reported DPD motorcycle officer activity (such as driving up the slope of the grassy knoll while on their bike or bikes to chase after a suspect), darkening people or objects with visual artists paint (usually black), manipulating persons seen in the foreground or backgrounds & a lot of other sneaky stuff allegedly passed off to the global public as historically accurate. The topic itself invites interest, particularly to persons of my generation (early 1950's) that feared a giant ape climbing up a tall building, reaching in & grabbing them out (LOL). After a lifetime of seeing visual manipulations paraded in motion picture films, television (particularly TV ads), newsprint & books, trials & judgements, & other visual communication tools, it's no wonder folks suspect the Z-film, especially in light of the enslavement the film initially received at the hands of its legal owners. In short, where are the people that performed the suspected alterations? Can 1 person be found & willing to come clean for public consumption? Wouldn't that be the best route to take as opposed to heeding the advice of those people don't really know; some or all of which present themselves without acceptable credentials? One might recall the bar-b-q the O.J. Simpson prosecution team made of Robert Groden's 'expert analysis' in that famous murder trial, claiming that O.J.'s alleged murder shoes had been faked in photos. People might find the allegations of film fraud in the JFK cold case attractive to cling to, but I believe they'll let go of it once no visuals technicians personally involved in the suspected criminal modifications can be found to settle the issue, one way or another. So far, not one z-film alterationists has come forward & told his/her story concerning the z-film. Sincerely, Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 Insults are not good. I have received many and varied in replies. So, I need to retract what I said in an earlier reply. I need to retract "bizarre and delusional". I should have said something more tactful and do apologize for essentially breaking the rules of this forum.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Brad Milch said: Quote: 'The insult is someone claiming alteration without even knowing the processes needed to have been done such a thing to know if it was possible or not'. What is desperately needed to help folks globally interested in this topic understand & decide if the Z-film & its' brother & sister assassination visuals were collectively or individually victims of manipulation is someone on the 'inside' that performed the alleged tasks suspected of the final product. This failure to produce a living witness to the alleged falsification of the Z-film at the CIA's super secret Hawkeye Works film studio was one of the biggest hurdles to Doug Horne's spectacular claims that the government monkeyed with the Z-film the assassination weekend. Alleged by Horne: removal of the limo turn from Houston to Elm Street, removal of the limo stop near the Newman family & removal of the violent forward motion of JFK's head (reported by Dan Rather the assassination weekend on CBS TV news) & thus leaving the after-effects of a 2nd shot. Alteration believers forget that Zapruder kept a first generation copy of the film with him and as far as I can tell it shows everything the original and copies do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 William, I find it curious that of all the Parkland Doctors, the one you would choose to make your argument would be Pepper Jenkins, as in this clip (between 52:00-1:10)Jenkins is the only Doctor at Parkland who recants his location of JFK's head wounds from the back closer to the front when confronted in 1988 with official autopsy pictures, and 7 other Parkland doctors in this segment when shown the official autopsy pictures repudiate the official pictures.(and in some cases pretty soundly) It seems to me when one Doctor breaks with 7 others and reverses himself, it's because 1) He's obviously wasn't sure of what he first saw and when faced with the authority of the official version, just assumed he was wrong (which he says)or 2) even worse knowingly changed his account to avoid possible repercussions. I haven't read every bit of this thread, and I know we agree that the official autopsy photos are not accurate. Perhaps this could be just semantics, but your account being that the top of JFK's head came off I believe is not born out in the accounts of any of the doctors in this clip (but is with one non doctor witness), but the consensus is that the back and back corner of JFK's head was blown off. Would your depiction be the rear top? This is an excerpt from a Groden film. There's been concern in the past with Groden's photographic enhancements that for every enhancement he's made there has also been an alteration. But that doesn't apply in this segment, as are no Grodenized photos. Groden is merely first asking the Parkland Doctors their eyewitness account of the area of JFK's head wounds and then later, how they square with the official autopsy photos. JFK - Undisputed Forensic Evidence JFK - Undisputed Forensic Evidence Now you can see for yourself what really happened on November 22, 1963. This amazing documentary will take you b... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) @Bill Miller Quote: 'Alteration believers forget that Zapruder kept a first generation copy of the film with him and as far as I can tell it shows everything the original and copies do.' The problem here is what people were told about the one copy of the Z-film that Dan Rather viewed in Zapruder's office as well as statements made by Abraham Zapruder on live Dallas TV (before his film was developed & copied 3 times) and his attractive receptionist, Marilyn Sitzman, in the TV documentary, 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', Bill. Rather told a global audience that JFK's limo rounded the intersection of Houston & Elm Street & shortly afterwards, JFK was subsequently struck in his head, causing his head to move violently forward. Zapruder told a global audience on Dallas TV he began filming the JFK entourage parade car 'coming in from Houston Street, making its turn' (from Houston St. & onto Elm St.). Zapruder's receptionist (Marilyn Sitzman) said the same as her former boss in the TV documentary. What happened to the limo turn reported by Rather, Zapruder & Sitzman, Bill? That scene is not in the remaining Zapruder copies, nor the original. Are not these 3 people talking about a scene not presently in the Zapruder film original or its 3 copies? How could all 3 be wrong (particularly the two people involved in creating the Z-film, Abraham Zapruder & Marilyn Sitzman)? Sincerely, Brad Milch Edited January 26, 2017 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 The films were not faked. If you take the Z film, Muchmore, and Nix and sync them up, it's obvious that they all look the same. If frames had been removed from one or the other it would be physically impossible to make them match up. The "craziness" that I'm pointing out is that how can otherwise sane people fall for outrageous claims and when you try to explain things to them with facts and plausible reasoning, they don't want to hear it They see little green goblins under every nook and cranny. And no matter how much you try to reason with them, it's a losing effort. My own brother-in-law was just like this. He used to sit around spewing nonsense while hacking on his Salems. One time, we went out in my car and I turned on the air conditioner. I flipped the RECIRC button and he said, "Oh, you shouldn't do that! It guzzles up a lot more gas when you throw that RECIRC switch." As if the switch turns on this magical extra motor to make it colder. I tried to explain that it doesn't, that it just recirculates the air, making it colder. I knew this because I researched it previously and was curious what exactly the switch did. He replied, "Naw! It guzzles up more gas." Then he took a hack on his Salem and just looked out the window. Was he crazy? No, but he was one of those kind that just could not open his eyes and mind enough to want to learn new things or at least listen to others and take it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 11 hours ago, Brad Milch said: @Bill Miller Quote: 'Alteration believers forget that Zapruder kept a first generation copy of the film with him and as far as I can tell it shows everything the original and copies do.' The problem here is what people were told about the one copy of the Z-film that Dan Rather viewed in Zapruder's office as well as statements made by Abraham Zapruder on live Dallas TV (before his film was developed & copied 3 times) and his attractive receptionist, Marilyn Sitzman, in the TV documentary, 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', Bill. Rather told a global audience that JFK's limo rounded the intersection of Houston & Elm Street & shortly afterwards, JFK was subsequently struck in his head, causing his head to move violently forward. Rather didn't lie - shortly afterward can be interpreted to mean within 2 to 10 seconds. Zapruder told a global audience on Dallas TV he began filming the JFK entourage parade car 'coming in from Houston Street, making its turn' (from Houston St. & onto Elm St.). He was right - the lead cycles were filmed, but he obviously realized that the President's wasn't immediately behind them, so he took his finger off the button until he could actually see the President coming towards him. Zapruder's receptionist (Marilyn Sitzman) said the same as her former boss in the TV documentary. With all the noise and attention being given to the event itself ... Sitzman wouldn't really know when Abe was pressing the switch to be filming or not. All she would know is that he is tracking the parade through his view finder. What happened to the limo turn reported by Rather, Zapruder & Sitzman, Bill? That scene is not in the remaining Zapruder copies, nor the original. Are not these 3 people talking about a scene not presently in the Zapruder film original or its 3 copies? How could all 3 be wrong (particularly the two people involved in creating the Z-film, Abraham Zapruder & Marilyn Sitzman)? I stand by my response. Furthermore, when a camera is started - the first frame is the brightest as the exposure is slower for that initial start-up frame before the camera is running at optimal speed. This will occur each time Zapruder pressed the switch to start the camera filming. It happened twice on the original film - with the second being with the President coming into view. Most people see the MPI version where they adjusted the initial frames to match the others that followed. No single event was ever described being out of the ordinary until the first shot was heard. That shot came after Betzner took his photo at Z186 and before Willis took his at Z202. There would be no motive for altering a film before the shooting started. The turn onto Elm was captured by Hughes and picked up by Tina Towner. The President is smiling and waving at the ladies until the first shot hit him. Sincerely, Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) @Bill Miller: Thank you for taking the time to respond, Bill. I used my words to speak for many who cannot post in this Forum. This is where I step aside & give room for the Forum researchers & EF readers to take over with their thoughts on the matter. Within that group will be those who form the opinion that someone is attempting to aid murderer(s) hide their crime. According to the laws of our land, those that aid & abet criminals should face the proper punishment comparable to the crime the suspected culprits perpetrated (once convicted in a court of law), regardless of the time span of certain crimes (murder being one of them). As for me, I wasn't there in Dealey Plaza over 53 years ago when this crime occurred (I was an 11 year old playing marbles at recess with some classmates, far away from Dallas). Your viewpoint, and others who share it, may be right or dead wrong. There are no other choices that I know of, do you? Cutting scenes out of evidence is no different that hiding or disposing of a weapon used to murder someone. An optical printer is useful for such purposes. It can also mimic start-up frames. David Healy & other visuals experts can explain in detail. I would rather help investigators find the murder weapon than absorb the risks of hiding it for unknown criminals, but that's just me. Respectfully, Brad Milch Edited January 26, 2017 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) Bill Miller (in red) "Rather told a global audience that JFK's limo rounded the intersection of Houston & Elm Street & shortly afterwards, JFK was subsequently struck in his head, causing his head to move violently forward. Rather didn't lie - shortly afterward can be interpreted to mean within 2 to 10 seconds." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Rather said he saw the limo turn the corner in the film version he saw. The extant film doesn't show that turn. Dan Rather "The film we saw,taken by an amateur photographer, who had a particularly good vantage point just past the building from which the fatal shot was fired. The film shows President Kennedy's open black limousine making a left turn off Houston Street onto Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas, the left turn made just below the window in which the assassin was waiting..........Governor Connolly in the seat in front appeared to have heard it..at least sensed something was wrong. The Governor's coat was open. He reached back,in this fashion, exposing his white shirt front. The assassin's window,(?) reached back as if to offer aid or to ask the President something. At that moment a shot clearly hit the Governor in front and he fell back in his seat.” Bill Miller. (in red) "Zapruder told a global audience on Dallas TV he began filming the JFK entourage parade car 'coming in from Houston Street, making its turn' (from Houston St. & onto Elm St.). He was right - the lead cycles were filmed, but he obviously realized that the President's wasn't immediately behind them, so he took his finger off the button until he could actually see the President coming towards him." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nowhere did Zapruder say he stopped filming until the limo came down Elm Street. The extant film doesn't show a "Start up frame" (poor exposure) that cameras then made when they restarted filming, and should be there after the "splice". Edited January 26, 2017 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said: Dan Rather said he saw the limo turn the corner in the film version he saw. The extant film doesn't show that turn. Rather made a statement that was not possible Nowhere did Zapruder say he stopped filming until the limo came down Elm Street. The extant film doesn't show a "Start up frame" (poor exposure) that cameras then made when they restarted filming, and should be there after the "splice". Ray - when did you ever inspect the original Zapruder film? Groden did and he said the start-up frames were there. Gary Mack also confirmed this. When I asked Gary why they were not seen on the MPI version - Gary said, 'they are there, but it was decided to adjust them so all the frames color and lighting would be consistent.' One more thing ... nowhere did Zapruder say that portions of his recorded film was missing. And I have said it before and I guess it must be said again .... Zapruder kept the first generation film made from the camera original. The copies that went with the feds, along with the camera original match exactly what the copy Zapruder kept with him shows. Edited January 26, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Bill Miller, (In red) "Rather made a statement that was not possible" Really, Bill, How do you know that? Or are you just saying that because it suits you theory? Ray - when did you ever inspect the original Zapruder film? Groden did and he said the start-up frames were there. Gary Mack also confirmed this. When I asked Gary why they were not seen on the MPI version - Gary said, 'they are there, but it was decided to adjust them so all the frames color and lighting would be consistent.' I have never inspected the original film.Perhaps somebody can post it if it's available. And you believed Gary Mack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said: Bill Miller, (In red) "Rather made a statement that was not possible" Really, Bill, How do you know that? Or are you just saying that because it suits your theory? Ray - when did you ever inspect the original Zapruder film? Groden did and he said the start-up frames were there. Gary Mack also confirmed this. When I asked Gary why they were not seen on the MPI version - Gary said, 'they are there, but it was decided to adjust them so all the frames color and lighting would be consistent.' I have never inspected the original film.Perhaps somebody can post it if it's available. And you believed Gary Mack? Yes, I believed Gary Mack when one of the main conspiracy people in the field had examined the camera original Zfilm alnd told me the same thing. And I will say this again, Ray ... Zapruder would let his film out of his possession, so he went to the lab to have a first generation copy made and then two other copies made from the first generation copy. The FBI and the Secret Service got the two copies made from the first generation copy Zapruder had made. Zapruder kept his copy and the camera original. The next day, Life Magazine went to work at purchasing the camera original. The first generation copy remained with Zapruder. There is nothing on the first generation copy of Zapruder's that is not on the two copies and the original. Both Groden and Zavada have studied the said original Zapruder film and have confirmed it is the real deal. Now back to Dan Rather - he also said the President was hit in the head and driven forward. Out of all those who was along Elm Street when the President was shot in the head has any of them ever said Kennedy was driven forward. Of all those people who was there and who has since seen the Zapruder film have ever said that it depicts anything other than what they saw. Only Dan Rather made that claim. However, since that time Dan Rather had commented about his blatant error in the reporting he made of the Kennedy assassination. He said in his 1977 autobiography The Camera Never Blinks, Rather said the following in response to why he claimed JFK's head moved forward - "At the risk of sounding too defensive, I challenge anyone to watch for the first time a twenty-two second film of devastating impact ... then describe what they had seen in its entirety, without notes." So not a theory, Ray ... you tie your wagon to Dan Rather remark if you like - I stand by the evidence as I know it to be. Edited January 26, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 I have no wagon to tie to Dan Rather's report. Note that he also said that "..Governor Connolly in the seat in front appeared to have heard it..at least sensed something was wrong. The Governor's coat was open. He reached back,in this fashion, exposing his white shirt front. The assassin's window,(?) reached back as if to offer aid or to ask the President something. At that moment a shot clearly hit the Governor in front and he fell back in his seat.” You trying to say that this news reporter didn't see that? 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