Focus your research on Zapruder, he is the key

[David Josephs]

4 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

So let's table the marketing message(s), Watson. Oh, and scratch access to the Zapruder in-camera original film, NARA has ceased visitations and/or access to same film...

Oh David.....   You made a funny.

In camera ... At NARA.... ?

The 6 feet of film?   

Love ya man.  DJ

 

[David G. Healy]

4 hours ago, Trygve V. Jensen said:

 

David, - I don't have the energy to edit anymore, - my most certaintly incoherent (if that is the right word) post.

I apologize in advance if I offended you, - and will admit any mistakes I have made (and appreciate them being pointed out) , ---- and at the same time,---- wish you a nice evening, and a further happy Easter.

Edit: I changed my mind; remembered something I forgot to write. Now I have to force myself to not keep nitpicking. Atleast try.

This rediscovery of my interest in the case, was very important fundamentally. So it is of secondary importance to me, - whether I really contribute to anything, with my comments, photo collection (if so, - those with skills can do the studying), or Youtube - channel (same). It is more important as of now,- just to keep this flame lit, - and , perhaps only at best, - have an illusion myself; -  of that - that I do contribute.

Trygve,

You have not offended this David, and your posts are NOT incoherent. Keep up your photo work. I know all about JFK film-photo analysis critiques/criticism... Have a well deserved rest.

p.s. you do contribute!

[Trygve V. Jensen]

I try to make an effort with myself, in order to change/minimize a few of the characteristics I have, - which in many ways work against me, - draining about all the energy -- out of me, - which in itself could be utilized into being spent on something constructive instead.  

Characteristics like the continous over-analyzing, complexifying, nitpicking, self-critisizing, high-sensitivity, and overreacting. It is just so exhausting.

Of course, - it is always difficult to anyone, - to simplify something that is inevitably complex. Or to make a short-version, of something that has no short-version.

Woke up, - (had to to a google-search now to find the correct term; (quote from an English dictionary: ""I was lying in bed" is correct unless, of course, like a chicken you were laying an egg!") ----- and was lying in bed (while not laying any eggs, - but atleast being honest) for 30 minutes, wondering if I had made a fool of myself with my post, - and if returning to this forum was a big mistake, - feeling that I should just perhaps delete my profile. But as I said, it was so fundamentally of value to me, - to find something again, - that sparked something inside.

Maybe too many of us, let anxiety control us, too much. (I do, - out there in the world). Also in here. It is a shame, if one make a decision to not express one's meaning (when really wanting to), based on fear. I.e. for retributions.

Trying now, to not spend the whole morning, writing a post (containing no contribution on the topic of the thread), - which most certaintly could be stripped down. That would save energy, - both for me and those who would care to read it.

But it is very necessary to say, that you Michael C. , - and you David G.H., -- made my morning, a good one now, with your responses. I appreciate them immensely. Thanks. I also genuinly appreciate any positive feedback in general. Even only one word, can make a difference.

Returning to this forum, is for me very challenging. Being not up-to-date on anything, whether it be if progress has been made in different aspects of research, new information has been made available, - as well as the challenge of communicating in English (especially technical English, concerning areas/fields I am not educated within), - but of course also the "temperature" here; - which "relation(s)" you guys have to eachother, - which stances/views the different members here have, - etc. etc.

If I make the step, - to dare to ask some question in whatever area, - and that question is not answered, - I automatically start (over)analyzing in my mind, why it is not. The instant thought, - is that the question is so silly, - that people do not regard it worth an answer, - if perhaps all I have to do , - is make a search, in order to answer it myself. Even if trying to search, - and to no avail. That just tells me, I'm not searching in the correct way.  Just another example.

Like for instance the questions I posed; Has there been anything new (the last three years, regarding the availability of the Darnell - film? I personally do want to believe Gary was sincere, so close to his passing, ---- about their possession of it.

Or the questions, asked after watching the Aynesworth - interview published two days ago; who was this witness he encountered ?, - and who was the FBI-agent who took him to the theater? Even if irrelevant.

-----------------

Again, I am perhaps partly reluctant to share my personal opinions/views, - partly because of said reasons; anxiety (of being flamed), but also having less opportunity to back these up with proof, evidence etc. -- being so outdated. One other factor being "new" again, combined with my characteristic(s), is being more susceptible. At the same time as trying to be open-minded, relevant, and logical, to name a few.

Making an example (at the same time hoping I don't offend the persons mentioned) -- I can sit here, and read, for instance, - a reply in some whatever thread from David Von Pein, who in my mind (view/stance irrelevant), -- write, and communicate at a very high level. (I know many of you would express disagreement on that.) So one (I)  can easily get the impression that it is laughable to think anything else, than that Lee Oswald did it. Alone.

Then, the next minute, - I sit and watch the six - and a half hours long --- video - presentation titled "JFK - The Absolute Proof of Inside Job", with Douglas Horne, - and think to myself; how can it ever not have been a conspiracy?  

The duality of all things in life, - make everything difficult. There are always atleast two sides.

------------------

Btw. - I apologize to the original poster of this thread, with my contribution to derailing the original topic title (in the name of keeping posts on-topic) (but I still do not understand what is meant by the title itself!) Probably my own fault, - not reading/comprehending the answer(s) that hopefully by now , - have been presented.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Trygve V. Jensen

[Michael Clark]

 

 

On 10/14/2004 at 2:27 PM, Jack White said:

John...

After studying this for more than 40 years, my conclusion is that

you left off your list the MAIN PROBABILITY...A COMBINATION

OF MANY ON YOUR LIST. (And you left off 

..... Lyndon may have also recruited LUCE,

BUSH, and ZAPRUDER. 

........

Your list has nearly all the SUSPECTS, but fails to connect

them.

Jack

I don't recall Jack, or anyone else, calling out Zapruder, so distinctly, as a perp. I have suspected Zapruder as, at least, having foreknowledge.

[Ron Ecker]

37 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I have suspected Zapruder as, at least, having foreknowledge.

I can hear Zapruder telling Sitzman, who was standing behind him to steady him, "Now whatever you do, don't turn loose of me when the shooting starts. Keep me steady."

She says, "What do you mean 'when the shooting starts'?"

And he says, "I mean when I start shooting this film."
 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I can hear Zapruder telling Sitzman, who was standing behind him to steady him, "Now whatever you do, don't turn loose of me when the shooting starts. Keep me steady."

She says, "What do you mean 'when the shooting starts'?"

And he says, "I mean when I start shooting this film."
 

 

 

 

So you don't think J Walton Moore called Zapruder before the assassination and told him to go back home and get his camera?

 

[Ron Ecker]

12 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

So you don't think J Walton Moore called Zapruder before the assassination and told him to go back home and get his camera?

 

I'm not familiar with Moore's call to Zapruder. Is there a post about it in the thread that you linked? (Or in this thread? Maybe I missed it.)

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

11 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I'm not familiar with Moore's call to Zapruder. Is there a post about it in the thread that you linked? (Or in this thread? Maybe I missed it.)

 

 

 

 

Sarcasm Ron.  Your familiar with Sitzman urging Z to go home and get his camera and film the President.  I'm on your side if you don't believe LHO acted alone.  No matter how it all played out.  Your one of the posters who over the years kept me reading the forum before I finally joined and dared post myself.  Sorry if I came across cross somehow.

[Ron Ecker]

23 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Sarcasm Ron.  Your familiar with Sitzman urging Z to go home and get his camera and film the President.  I'm on your side if you don't believe LHO acted alone.  No matter how it all played out.  Your one of the posters who over the years kept me reading the forum before I finally joined and dared post myself.  Sorry if I came across cross somehow.

No problem, didn't sound cross to me. Actually it was Z's secretary Lillian Rogers who urged Z to go get his camera. Of course old J.Walton could have put her up to it. More likely, it was all planned. Z would "forget" his camera, his secretary would urge him to go home and get it, and Z caught a ride there and back in Ruth Paine's station wagon.

 

 

 

 

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

On 3/21/2018 at 10:34 AM, Mike Rago said:

Focus you research on Zapruder. He is and always has been the key to solving this crime. Try to figure out exactly what Zapruder did in the seconds after he got down from the pedestal.

Zapruder is the "elephant in the room". Since words matter let me spell it out. The phrase "elephant in the room" is an idiom that we use when talking about a single instance of something that is an obvious, unavoidable truth that people still insist on not talking about. The phrase comes from the idea that having an elephant in your living room is a large obvious problem but it is easier to not talk about or confront it because its a problem that cannot be solved without some difficulty. 

idiom -  a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words.

What is most interesting to me are the actions of Marylyn Sitzman's during and after the assassination.  As you most know, I contend that two shots originated from the pergola (Shelter) behind where Mr. Zapruder was standing.

During the assassination, looking at the nix film, I see what seems to be two beige dots in what looks like Ms. Sitzman covering Mr. Zapruder's ears.  Yet, she notes that she did not hear any shots close by.  After the assassination, she stated in an interview that she went downhill met an officer, then rushed uphill again and met an FBI agent in or around the shelter;  Film evidence from the Bell film shows her stepping off the block and looking into the shelter, never going downhill.

[Trygve V. Jensen]

4 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

What is most interesting to me are the actions of Marylyn Sitzman's during and after the assassination.  As you most know, I contend that two shots originated from the pergola (Shelter) behind where Mr. Zapruder was standing.

During the assassination, looking at the nix film, I see what seems to be two beige dots in what looks like Ms. Sitzman covering Mr. Zapruder's ears.  Yet, she notes that she did not hear any shots close by.  After the assassination, she stated in an interview that she went downhill met an officer, then rushed uphill again and met an FBI agent in or around the shelter;  Film evidence from the Bell film shows her stepping off the block and looking into the shelter, never going downhill.

Hi Keyvan,

I don't know what most guys here know (about your opinion of a shooter stationed inside the shelter) - as I haven't gotten to read through much , of what has been posted the last 8 - 11 years here.

You mean inside of the shelter, - (cropped) to the very left here ? : (Just used google street maps, getting as close possible, - to the "X" (headshot) - in order to at some degree determine Bower's view.)

J. Dolva discovered the before-mentioned anomaly in the Nix - film in 2006, right about where that girl at the left is (behind/through the pergola) at the time of this google-street-view-photo. Seems like Bowers could have been able to see that one.

Wouldn't a shot from either of these locations have hit Jackie ?

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Trygve V. Jensen

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

3 hours ago, Trygve V. Jensen said:

Hi Keyvan,

I don't know what most guys here know (about your opinion of a shooter stationed inside the shelter) - as I haven't gotten to read through much , of what has been posted the last 8 - 11 years here.

You mean inside of the shelter, - (cropped) to the very left here ? : (Just used google street maps, getting as close possible, - to the "X" (headshot) - in order to at some degree determine Bower's view.)

J. Dolva discovered the before-mentioned anomaly in the Nix - film in 2006, right about where that girl at the left is (behind/through the pergola) at the time of this google-street-view-photo. Seems like Bowers could have been able to see that one.

Wouldn't a shot from either of these locations have hit Jackie ?

 

3

Trygve,

Watch this video - It will all make sense.

 

[Trygve V. Jensen]

9 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Trygve,

Watch this video - It will all make sense.

Thanks for your input; I'll just say that I respect your opinions, - and that I'm sorry I can not agree with them.

Too many things here do not make sense to me.

Like using a colorized snapshot from the Darnell - film, showing two assassins standing there ,------ (but not the person who served as a human-table-to-stand-on, who's back provided a probably not-too-stable-platform - on which the assassin with a (to me) abnormal big head, colorized into the zoomed photo,  was crouching up and down in-record-speed -- on) ------ where one of them is still standing there with his rifle pointing, - such a long time after the shots, ---- that people had started running up the knoll , - running past these transfixed shooters with rifles, - ignoring them, - while they are in plain sight just a few feet away.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Trygve V. Jensen

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

7 hours ago, Trygve V. Jensen said:

Thanks for your input; I'll just say that I respect your opinions, - and that I'm sorry I can not agree with them.

Too many things here do not make sense to me.

Like using a colorized snapshot from the Darnell - film, showing two assassins standing there ,------ (but not the person who served as a human-table-to-stand-on, who's back provided a probably not-too-stable-platform - on which the assassin with a (to me) abnormal big head, colorized into the zoomed photo,  was crouching up and down in-record-speed -- on) ------ where one of them is still standing there with his rifle pointing, - such a long time after the shots, ---- that people had started running up the knoll , - running past these transfixed shooters with rifles, - ignoring them, - while they are in plain sight just a few feet away.

Trygve,

The Darnell video was at least 30 seconds after the limo left Dealey Plaza.  It does show somebody there.  Film evidence does not lie.  The question is who are they and what are they doing there. There is no good explanation why people did not see those people in the shelter as assassins.  People must have been confused and did not know how to make sense of what they saw.  They could have thought that they were law enforcement.  Who knows.

It is undeniable that there where two shots from the shelter.  The Mary Moreman photograph shows a figure there even if you do not colorize it.  All versions of the Nix film shows that there was a shot from the third window from the bottom of the shelter and a shot from the pathway.

The WC testimony of Mr. Zapruder shows that he thought the shots came from right behind him. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm

You should read the WC testimony of Ms. Sitzman. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sitzman.htm

Then watch the Mark Bell film.  Something does not add up. - Look at her actions.  - She does state that she met an FBI man in the pergola!  - There was no known FBI agent at the pergola minutes after the assassination(most likely conspirators posing as FBI agents).  She goes out of her way to show that there were no shots from the pergola.  She states various times "I can't say!"

Furthermore, something smells rotten in Mr. Bowers WC testimony. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers.htm

Lee Bowers was not allowed to say on the record that he saw three men running from the triple underpass to a boxcar.  Neither was he allowed to be told that he saw flashes of lights from the area around the pergola.

"Mr. BOWERS - A large number of people came, more than one direction. One group converged from the corner of Elm and Houston, and came down the extension of Elm and came into the high ground, and another line another large group went across the triangular area between Houston and Elm and then across Elm and then up the incline. Some of them all the way up. Many of them did, as well as, of course, between 50 and a hundred policemen within a maximum of 5 minutes.
Mr. BALL - In this area around your tower?
Mr. BOWERS - That's right. Sealed off the area, and I held off the trains until they .could be examined, and there was some transients taken on at least one train.
Mr. BALL - I believe you have talked this over with me before your deposition was taken, haven't we? 
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is there anything that you told me that I haven't asked you about that you think of?"
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I can recall.

 

 

 

[Trygve V. Jensen]

9 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Trygve,

The Darnell video was at least 30 seconds after the limo left Dealey Plaza.

Hi again, pretty busy atm. Just one remark;

I just reacted on you linking to that video , saying it would make sense of what you're saying. To me it damaged the credibility of what you are saying (not that I have had too much time to read up on it).

I don't see the connection with what you are saying, - and said video. Quite the direct opposite.

According to the guy in the video, the sniper is still aiming, caught in this "quick-split-moment" after the shots (Darnell). While you yourself say it is 30 seconds later.

Two very different things . So you disagree completely with that guy on that. Unless he stood transfixed in this quick-split-moment, - aiming (for 30 seconds) after done shooting.