Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton spots a piece of scalp in the Moorman photo.


Sandy Larsen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

No, because not only is that ridiculous on its face, there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Zapruder spent the rest of his life after the assassination haunted by what he had witnessed.

Isn’t that what you would say if you’d become vastly wealthy from the incident? Profiting from a well liked president’s brains being blown out. I think you’d need to say something other than “lucky I had my camera rolling”. 
 

Is it inconceivable that a 33rd degree mason could have been tipped off that something may happen that would be in his interests to film? You’re talking about an organisation that is effectively a hierarchical structured networking club, that trades in secrecy. I am saying that as my uncle is a very senior mason. It wouldn’t surprise me. 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please remember that it is not necessary to create an Academy Award winning suite of movies with spectacular, undetectable special effects, to create one (1) film that can be pointed to as "the clock" of the assassination, to the exclusion of all others that show the same content, as long as the critical material is removed from all of the films - the car stop sequence especially.  There were just three films to fix, and all of the others besides the Zfilm simply needed a splice to cut out the frames showing the car stop (and whatever else was happening during that time which could not find its way into the history books).  From the perspective of officials who could control access to the movie films for decades, and dodge questions about splices and missing film as if none of it mattered, the Zfilm has done it's job magnificently.  Look at how hard it is still today, with all of the modern analyses and technologies being used to study it, to convince people that the Zfilm is a work of fiction and can't be relied upon except to document the extent to which people prefer comfort over conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How much was Zapruder paid for his film right after the assassination? Wasn't it between 100 and $200 thousand dollars? Equivalent to well over $1,000,000 + in today's dollars?

Then in the last ten years, didn't the survivors of Zapruder make another killing financially from his film?  Like over 10 million dollars?

Marie Tippit was sent a small fortune at that time also. Again, over $1,000,000 in today's dollars? And Marina Oswald was sent a huge sum right after the assassination as well.

An interesting side story to the event imo.

Poor Rose Cherami got nothing.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Abe got an initial payment from Life magazine of $25,000 for the print rights and then a renegotiated payment from Life of an additional $50,000 for all rights (including motion picture rights), on Saturday 11/23/63.  Long before the payout approved by Congress relatively recently ($16,000,000.00) Abe gave a portion to the widow of JD Tippitt; I don't recall any payment from Abe to Marina.  And then the family donated the film to the 6th Floor Museum which administers the copyright and asks gets an enormous amount for permission to reproduce each of the 486 individual frames.  That's why most people use drawings or "re-enactments" to depict what the Zfilm contains in publications or films.  David Lifton's Pig on a Leash is a good source on the background of the Zfilm, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Lifton writes:

Quote

I set out ... sitting in my West L.A. apartment ... documents that I had gathered ... I noticed ... I forget these details ... I realized the implication ... if you'd been a physics (or applied math) major,. which I was ... I had zero knowledge ... being  "West L.A. based," I was very familiar ... I immediately went up there ... Within hours, I was seated at a table ... I learned that ... as I recall ... At that point, i learned ... I use that deliberately ... I believe I wrote about all of this ... as I recall ... with my new found familiarity with optical printers ... Groden never finished high school ... I just wrote ... Groden had the ethics of a kleptomaniac ... I have written about this before ... whatever I wrote, or spoke of, was based on many conversations that I had with Groden, and what he told me ... I believe it is a fact ... as I write this ... I believe ... From conversations over the years, I know ... More could be said; but I'll stop here, for now.

Condensed version: Robert Groden is a bad and socially inferior person, and David Lifton, despite being a socially superior person, is unable to explain how four home movies and two photographs were altered to conceal an event that didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven Kossor writes:

Quote

It looks like Jeremy is quoting me saying "This can't be true, because..." but those are actually his words, not mine.

That's just a product of how the forum software renders quotations when someone quotes a quote, as Chris did. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that I quoted you correctly.

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

It contracts it to those who suspect multiple shooters or, an alternative narrative to the WC. It doesn’t contradict it if you are your average dumbed down citizen

Steven agrees:

Quote

Even with all of its flaws, the Zfilm has been used to "show" what happened in Dallas, even to this day.

Chris and Steven seem to be saying that we should doubt the authenticity of the Zapruder film because it is used by propagandists who ignore the fact that it contradicts the lone-nut theory.

Of course, superficial viewers may not be aware that the film does not do what the propagandists say it does. But so what? It still contains evidence that contradicts the lone-nut theory. That alone shows that it wasn't faked to support the lone-nut theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven Kossor writes:

Quote

Look at how hard it is still today, with all of the modern analyses and technologies being used to study it, to convince people that the Zfilm is a work of fiction and can't be relied upon

"Modern analyses and technologies" have indeed been used to study the Zapruder film, and they show that it is authentic.

Have a look at the Zavada report. Roland Zavada was one of the scientists who created Kodachrome film. He knew what he was talking about. He examined the film in detail on behalf of the Assassination Records and Review Board, and gave solid technical reasons which refute any claims of fakery. You can find his report here:

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

Please read it, and the other articles linked to on that page. Please also read this article by Zavada:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

Zavada pointed out that if you take a Kodachrome film, such as the one that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination, and copy it onto a second Kodachrome film, obvious defects will inevitably be generated. Contrast will increase, grain will increase, and colours will be distorted.

Zavada, along with Professor Raymond Fielding, examined the Zapruder film that's in the National Archives. They found that the film contained none of the defects that must have been generated if the film had been copied. They concluded that the film in the Archives is the one that was in Zapruder's camera.

If any frames were removed, or if any images were inserted or removed, the final stage of the process must have involved copying the altered film onto a second Kodachrome film. Expert analysis tells us that this cannot have happened.

Unless you can find another expert who has examined the film in detail and offers a different conclusion, or unless you can demonstrate that Zavada and Fielding were bribed or blackmailed, that's the end of the matter. The Zapruder film is authentic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The Zapruder film is authentic.

Then how do you explain the Zap film not showing the blowout in the back of the head and the blob on the right front?  Did experts Zavada and Fielding just miss these "obvious artifacts"?  Hmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Paul:

As far as I can see, the Z-film shows very clearly a flap of bone hanging over the right ear. I may be wrong, however, my interpretation is that a part of this flap, the back portion of this flap, separated from the skin and fell onto the backseat. The remaining flap of bone was turned back, it could even be Jackie who did that, basically closing the enormous wound on the right side of the head. However, since the back portion of the flap was already on the backseat, the Parkland staff saw the back part of the wound;  the wound was in reality much larger than the wound that Parkland doctors and nurses saw. 

It is a speculation on my part, however, I can envisage that the portion of the flap of bone seen in Z-film that was found on the back seat was retrieved by the SS agents and brought to Bethesda. 

The flap of bone hanging over the right ear can only be the result of a tangential shot (if this flap was pushed out by a radial force, there would be an entry wound above the left ear) and such a shot most likely had an entry in the right front temple and exit in the parietal region slightly medial  relative to the large flap of bone seen in Z-film. I guess this is what Tom Wilson and I were able to reconstruct from Mary Moorman photograph.

Detail of the exit wound in Mary Moorman photogaph:

mm_tunnels.jpg?resize=438,438 

 

Location of the exit wound in Mary Moorman picture:

mm_trueloc.jpg?resize=438,438

 

Could the whole purpose of the apparent surgery to the head mentioned by agents Sibert and O'Neill be adding the missing part of the bone to cover up the tangential shot which would cast doubts on a shot from the back? 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

I think Abe got an initial payment from Life magazine of $25,000 for the print rights and then a renegotiated payment from Life of an additional $50,000 for all rights (including motion picture rights), on Saturday 11/23/63.  Long before the payout approved by Congress relatively recently ($16,000,000.00) Abe gave a portion to the widow of JD Tippitt; I don't recall any payment from Abe to Marina.  And then the family donated the film to the 6th Floor Museum which administers the copyright and asks gets an enormous amount for permission to reproduce each of the 486 individual frames.  That's why most people use drawings or "re-enactments" to depict what the Zfilm contains in publications or films.  David Lifton's Pig on a Leash is a good source on the background of the Zfilm, I believe.

$75,000 dollars in 1963 is equivalent to probably $700,000 in today's dollar value.

And what in Sam Hill reason should we have to give Zapruder's children $16, 000,000 of our tax dollars for in any regards to that film?

When Zapruder sold the rights to it for $75,000 in 1963...how can his survivors claim they are due another 16 MILLION for a film they don't even own the rights to?

Wow, what a massive shady windfall with our tax dollars that payout was. It doesn't make legal and/or financial sense to me.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This thread has really sparked a debate among experts, hasn't it.  Kind of like the field of psychology - for every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert....

The problem is that experts choose their "underlying undeniable facts" and proceed with their analyses.  In the case of the film creation experts, it was the nature of the film itself (Zavada's experience and analyses are exhaustive in that realm). 

But the "laws of physics and geometry" are the "underlying undeniable facts" for other scientists, and those facts undeniably lead to the conclusion that the Zfilm is a fabrication.  For example, frame 313 is the only one with a show of bloody tissue exploding from the vicinity of the head, meaning that the material erupted and then disappeared in just 1/18 of a second -- it didn't slow down or linger in the air as it certainly must have, to be captured on frames 314, 315, etc (if it was real material and not a painted-in special effect for that one frame for the purpose of blaming Lee Oswald for shooting JFK "from above and behind").

To determine if Zavada is correct, or incorrect, about the authenticity of the Zfilm, you have to compare his findings with the real world of physics and geometry, and his conclusion as to authenticity fails on several points.  The head isn't ever turned in the direction it had to face to exhaust material onto the driver's side taillight/officer Hargis, for example.  I don't want to dispute a film expert in his realm of expertise, and he doesn't want to dispute the laws of physics/geometry so the two paths to truth never converge and you ultimately have to choose the path that requires the least amount of reality compromise, and for me, that's the path that honors physics and geometry:  the Zfilm is a composite, a fiction.

In the Moorman photo, the holes found through MRI analysis are located too far toward the top of the head to have exposed cerebellar tissue that was observed at Parkland, so there must have been another hole created farther down at the back and right side of JFK's head in order for the observations of the Parkland doctors to be based on a real body they examined.  Moorman's photo doesn't show it, so it wasn't yet created at the time her photo was taken, and that's a rock solid foundation upon which you can place Moorman's photo on a time line (thereby revealing exactly what happened before and after it was taken).  Or so it seems to me.

Edited by Steven Kossor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Paul:

As far as I can see, the Z-film shows very clearly a flap of bone hanging over the right ear. I may be wrong, however, my interpretation is that a part of this flap, the back portion of this flap, separated from the skin and fell onto the backseat. The remaining flap of bone was turned back, it could even be Jackie who did that, basically closing the enormous wound on the right side of the head. However, since the back portion of the flap was already on the backseat, the Parkland staff saw the back part of the wound;  the wound was in reality much larger than the wound that Parkland doctors and nurses saw. 

It is a speculation on my part, however, I can envisage that the portion of the flap of bone seen in Z-film that was found on the back seat was retrieved by the SS agents and brought to Bethesda. 

The flap of bone hanging over the right ear can only be the result of a tangential shot (if this flap was pushed out by a radial force, there would be an entry wound above the left ear) and such a shot most likely had an entry in the right front temple and exit in the parietal region slightly medial  relative to the large flap of bone seen in Z-film. I guess this is what Tom Wilson and I were able to reconstruct from Mary Moorman photograph.

Detail of the exit wound in Mary Moorman photogaph:

mm_tunnels.jpg?resize=438,438 

 

Location of the exit wound in Mary Moorman picture:

mm_trueloc.jpg?resize=438,438

 

Could the whole purpose of the apparent surgery to the head mentioned by agents Sibert and O'Neill be adding the missing part of the bone to cover up the tangential shot which would cast doubts on a shot from the back? 

 

 

The exploding out skull bone flap over JFK's right ear is clearly seen in several close up video pics.

JFK fell left and down into Jackie's lap immediately after. Jackie had to have seen this massive skull flap separation. Of course she would have tried to put it back in place.

Have you seen the Xrays of JFK's skull from Bethesda? My Gad! It is "obliterated" from back to front. Fractured everywhere. Splintered about.

In my viewing of the JFK head shot in slow motion and close up...I clearly see the top of JFK's skull take on a grotesque lifting expansion.

His skull was so instantly and thoroughly blown apart and out you wonder if the bullet type was an explosion on impact one.

I ask hunters here...have you seen deer head shots that obliterated their skulls as much as JFK's was with one shot, especially one of a Carcano bullet caliber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The stellate fracture pattern shown on the Bethesda X-Rays is indicative of a blow to the had that struck from the top, not a bullet of any sort, according to the medical doctors' reviews I've read, although some attribute the "exploded" appearance of the bones to an "exploding" bullet inside the head.  The separation of so many bones, and all of the missing bone could not have supported the skin/scalp of a head that looked (from the front) as if it was "intact" as Jackie Kennedy described it.  That's why I think the shot from the Knoll opened up a "pressure relief valve" in JFK's head almost instantly after the exploding bullet hit his head, so that the explosion erupted from the back of his head, rather than tearing it open completely.  If JFK's head looked, upon arrival at Parkland, like it looked at Bethesda, they would have lifted the jacket covering it and dropped the jacket back in place and called the priests.  Several doctors believed JFK was actually still alive when he arrived at Parkland - they claimed he was breathing (not likely, but that's what they said), intubated him, connected the throat tube to a respirator device, and then performed a tracheotomy incision over the wound in his throat.  None of that activity is compatible with receiving an obviously dead body looking like the horror depicted at Bethesda.  The tracheotomy incision was turned from a small incision made to admit a round one-inch tube, into a ragged gaping gash with irregular edges three times larger (that exposed the esophagus which lies behind the trachea).  The desecration of JFK's body started when the stellate fracture pattern was created and his throat was torn open, and was finished in Bethesda when Humes, et al sutured the throat wound so it could pass for a "tracheotomy incision" until it was needed as an exit wound.  There is much more to this fact set that David Lifton introduced to the world in Best Evidence and will complete as soon as possible in the sequel, Final Charade.

Edited by Steven Kossor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Steven Kossor writes:

That's just a product of how the forum software renders quotations when someone quotes a quote, as Chris did. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that I quoted you correctly.

Chris Barnard writes:

Steven agrees:

Chris and Steven seem to be saying that we should doubt the authenticity of the Zapruder film because it is used by propagandists who ignore the fact that it contradicts the lone-nut theory.

Of course, superficial viewers may not be aware that the film does not do what the propagandists say it does. But so what? It still contains evidence that contradicts the lone-nut theory. That alone shows that it wasn't faked to support the lone-nut theory.

Well, just consider this. You use the term ‘superficial viewers’, lets say ‘the masses’, providing the Z-Film has the support of so called ‘experts’ or ‘trusted figures’ in the public domain, as well as news networks, as long as the Z film exists and doesn’t look too blatant to the average member of the public when its finally released, they’ll certainly accept it. Most will actually make up their mind based on stills and articles as opposed to watching the video. Then those who do watch (a much smaller percentage, you can almost exclude women from that as they have an aversion to gory visuals, typically)  will already have a pre-conceived idea of what they are going to see and that shapes what they actually see. Who is going to watch it over and over, being analytical? Only the handful of people on these forums and societies researching and advances in tech and the internet have made that possible. That’s a tiny voice vs all of the apparatus against their views. You may or may not know this but, the US education system is based on the Prussian education system, the same one that had a whole generation of Germans sleepwalk into WW2, conforming to authority on a level never seen in the modern era, that result is firmly a product of psychology and conditioning. Essentially, your brain is like a sponge absorbing what it’s told as a child, it needs to be to learn so much, so quickly, that young brain trusts parents and teachers implicitly. The education system is teaching conformity, obedience and to trust reputable institutions such as government, banks, news networks etc. The one thing it removes is the individuals capacity to critically think, its never been more evident than today. So, it doesn’t take much to get the masses to swallow an idea propagated by the state and media sources. The Z film actually existing was enough for most people to believe the state narrative, especially supplemented by stills and articles. Once their opinions were formed it’s very hard fo break them. “It’s a lot easier to fool someone, than to convince someone they have been fooled”. In this case, the Z film didn’t need to be edited to perfection, even if that was indeed possible, it just needed to edited so that it wasn’t obvious to the masses with their IQ average of 100, who are too busy working hard and enjoying entertainment to actually give this some real thought and consider a contrary opinion. 
 

in summary:

- You had 13 years of propagating the WC narrative to a population already eating from the palm of the hand of government, swallowing ideas. 
- As long as the film wasn’t obvious to the masses that something else took place other than the WC deflection, it didn’t matter. 
- It’s unclear how long the Z film would have been withheld, had there not been public pressure.
- Upon release, all that was needed was for it not to be completely obvious that there was a 2nd shooter to the masses. When most laymen watch, it did that. 
- Editing only needed to hide or obscure very obvious stuff, like a limo stop or the exiting of brain matter through the rear of JFK’s skull. 
 

Logical? 
 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Taylor Gatto and I shared the stage a couple of times in the 1990s talking about the history and probable future of the American education system, and you're 100% correct about its pernicious influence on children and adults.  We could not have had the election results in 2016, or the wholesale abandonment of rationality and reverence for the truth, that we have seen in America since then, without a strong foundation supplied by the American education system (replacing the study of history with "social studies" and reporting on scientific discovery and the "scientific method" with the "Earth Science Curriculum Project" in the 1960s).  Gatto's An Underground History of American Education is a must-read summary of where our education system came from in the 1800s and what it intentionally and deliberately does to people (turns them into "consumers" and obedient participants in an exploitative capitalistic oligarchy that yields a tremendous and perpetually growing economy for the oligarchs).  We have entered a time of contempt for intelligence, a new "dark age" of superstition and reverence for fantasy in lieu of science, culminating in the election and persistence of a puerile reality show personality impersonating a national leader, and I'm not sure the plunge toward the bottom is something we can recover from.

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...