James DiEugenio Posted August 22, 2018 Author Posted August 22, 2018 I would like to ask, since I started this thread: What does an early back wound on something called the AMIPA film have to do with Oswald switching the ring from one had to the other between poses for the BYP?
David Von Pein Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 52 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: What does an early back wound on something called the AMIPA film have to do with Oswald switching the ring from one [hand] to the other between poses for the BYP? Moreover, what do John's posts in this thread have to do with anything real (or even remotely possible) when it comes to the topic of the JFK assassination? Even in the super-bizarre world of conspiracy theorists, John Butler's "JFK Was Shot On Main Street" theory would have to be considered "outer fringe" and worthless. Does a single other person believe in your theory, John? Just curious. Edited August 22, 2018 by David Von Pein
Michael Cross Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 Mark it. I agree with DVP on something. Check the temp in hell.
Ray Mitcham Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 I'm with you Michael. It's freezing down here.
John Butler Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) James DiEugenio, Sorry, this was simply a point to back up the fraudulence of the BYP's. The point being is that the Main Street evidence in the AMIPA film is in stark contrast to the evidence we find on Houston Street and Elm Street in how the assassination occurred. Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence. Hook your computer to a 60 inch color TV for best viewing. The main point of these posts in nearly everything we see in the visual record about the Kennedy assassination is phony, including the BYP's. The first visual evidence that convinced the public that Oswald was guilty includes the BYP's. Other early evidence is the Zapruder film (parts of it first published), Mary Moorman's Polaroids, and Altgens 5, 6, and 7 are fake. All can be demonstrated to be phony. This gives context for the importance of understanding the BYP's are part of what hung Oswald in the court of public opinion. If that is the case then what is the true story? The AMIPA film shows you the first part of the assassination. Their are other parts on Houston Street and Main Street. It is obvious that David Von Pein has not read Jackie Kennedy's testimony or watched the film in an analytic mode. His is a knee jerk reaction to something he finds totally alien to his thought processes. As far as Oswald's switched ring, I posted earlier I thought it was a photo editing mistake. A left hand holding a rifle was switched and retouched to look like a right hand holding a rifle This indicates to me that their was not enough photo material to do the job correctly. The photo editors had to go out an shoot more material later that day. This accounts for the conflicting shadows (different times in the same photo). After the reshoot they still didn't have the right images to make their cut and paste Oswald figure appear correctly. So, photo editing took care of that problem. Edited August 22, 2018 by John Butler
François Carlier Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 19 minutes ago, John Butler said: James DiEugenio, Sorry, this was simply a point to back up the fraudulence of the BYP's. The point being is that the Main Street evidence in the AMIPA film is in stark contrast to the evidence we find on Houston Street and Elm Street in how the assassination occurred. Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence. Hook your computer to a 60 inch color TV for best viewing. The main point of these posts in nearly everything we see in the visual record about the Kennedy assassination is phony, including the BYP's. The first visual evidence that convinced the public that Oswald was guilty includes the BYP's. Other early evidence is the Zapruder film (parts of it first published), Mary Moorman's Polaroids, and Altgens 5, 6, and 7 are fake. All can be demonstrated to be phony. This gives context for the importance of understanding the BYP's are part of what hung Oswald in the court of public opinion. If that is the case then what is the true story? The AMIPA film shows you the first part of the assassination. Their are other parts on Houston Street and Main Street. It is obvious that David Von Pein has not read Jackie Kennedy's testimony or watched the film in an analytic mode. His is a knee jerk reaction to something he finds totally alien to his thought processes. As far as Oswald's switched ring, I posted earlier I thought it was a photo editing mistake. A left hand holding a rifle was switched and retouched to look like a right hand holding a rifle This indicates to me that their was not enough photo material to do the job correctly. The photo editors had to go out an shoot more material later that day. This accounts for the conflicting shadows (different times in the same photo). After the reshoot they still didn't have the right images to make their cut and paste Oswald figure appear correctly. So, photo editing took care of that problem. Don't you know the difference between "there" and "their" ????
David Josephs Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 7 hours ago, David Von Pein said: Moreover, what do John's posts in this thread have to do with anything real (or even remotely possible) when it comes to the topic of the JFK assassination? Even in the super-bizarre world of conspiracy theorists, John Butler's "JFK Was Shot On Main Street" theory would have to be considered "outer fringe" and worthless. Does a single other person believe in your theory, John? Just curious. Agree David... the man in question should be taken as seriously as the WC and HSCA Reports.... Alice in Wonderland stuff...
David Andrews Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 46 minutes ago, John Butler said: James DiEugenio, Sorry, this was simply a point to back up the fraudulence of the BYP's. The point being is that the Main Street evidence in the AMIPA film is in stark contrast to the evidence we find on Houston Street and Elm Street in how the assassination occurred. Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence. Hook your computer to a 60 inch color TV for best viewing. The main point of these posts in nearly everything we see in the visual record about the Kennedy assassination is phony, including the BYP's. The first visual evidence that convinced the public that Oswald was guilty includes the BYP's. Other early evidence is the Zapruder film (parts of it first published), Mary Moorman's Polaroids, and Altgens 5, 6, and 7 are fake. All can be demonstrated to be phony. This gives context for the importance of understanding the BYP's are part of what hung Oswald in the court of public opinion. If that is the case then what is the true story? The AMIPA film shows you the first part of the assassination. Their are other parts on Houston Street and Main Street. It is obvious that David Von Pein has not read Jackie Kennedy's testimony or watched the film in an analytic mode. His is a knee jerk reaction to something he finds totally alien to his thought processes. As far as Oswald's switched ring, I posted earlier I thought it was a photo editing mistake. A left hand holding a rifle was switched and retouched to look like a right hand holding a rifle This indicates to me that their was not enough photo material to do the job correctly. The photo editors had to go out an shoot more material later that day. This accounts for the conflicting shadows (different times in the same photo). After the reshoot they still didn't have the right images to make their cut and paste Oswald figure appear correctly. So, photo editing took care of that problem. There's a slim chance that JFK is reacting to something unpleasant on Main Street in the AMIPA film, but bullet strikes in the back and head are precluded when, after the turn onto Houston, we see JFK lean forward to share a word with Nellie Connally. In the Towner film, we see him move a bit in his seat after the Elm turn, (perhaps also in reaction to something off-putting, like a near miss). All this is a lot of movement, and a lot of stoicism, for a man who took a couple in the head and back two blocks before.
John Butler Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 Francois, "Don't you know the difference between "there" and "their" ???? That's is one of my frequent typing errors. Or, it could be the software changed the word. If you look on the photo you will see I typed "longs" for lungs. Would you like to correct that also?
Michael Cross Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 58 minutes ago, David Andrews said: There's a slim chance that JFK is reacting to something unpleasant on Main Street in the AMIPA film, but bullet strikes in the back and head are precluded when, after the turn onto Houston, we see JFK lean forward to share a word with Nellie Connally. In the Towner film, we see him move a bit in his seat after the Elm turn, (perhaps also in reaction to something off-putting, like a near miss). All this is a lot of movement, and a lot of stoicism, for a man who took a couple in the head and back two blocks before. What he said.
John Butler Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. You can watch it on a big screen TV. YouTube has film. Stop it when you see the presidential limousine. And, then advance frame by frame. If you don't look at the film then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence. Read Jackie Kennedy's statements. They were ignored and hidden 54 years ago. Will you continue the tradition? Which of you have actually looked at the evidence I have presented? Have you taken the time to do that rather than present in a huff a knee jerk reaction. If I am a fantasist then what are you? Are you folks of "superior knowledge" or just closed minded? As for "Wonderland stuff", that man hates to be corrected. Edited August 22, 2018 by John Butler
David Andrews Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 Just now, John Butler said: Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence. Read Jackie Kennedy's statements. They were ignored and hidden 54 years ago. Will you continue the tradition? Which of you have actually looked at the evidence I have presented? Have you taken the time to do that rather than present in a huff a knee jerk reaction. If I am a fantasist then what are you? Are you folks of "superior knowledge" or just closed minded? As for "Wonderland stuff", that man hates to be corrected. Where's the whole AMIPA film, not just the slo-mo clips? The human face and body can be constantly in motion, and one frame or one photo can catch a momentary reaction that reveals psychological or physical distress, yet is out of context to the person's entire demeanor at that moment. Frames and stills can also capture transitional facial expressions that seem expressive of an emotion that did not exist.
John Butler Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 David Andrews, You can find the film on the internet. YouTube has it. It can be easily downloaded. A word of caution. The film at film speed does not really show in great detail what I am talking about. It goes by to fast. Watch the film in a frame by frame setting. I use a Roku device when I watched this on a big screen TV. Hit pause and let it advance frame by frame when you first see the presidential limousine. On the computer I use Corel Paintshop Pro 2018. I also use Cyberlink PowerDVD 16 which allows me to advance through any film frame by frame.
Rick McTague Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 On 8/19/2018 at 4:48 PM, David Von Pein said: Waist level (of course). She just didn't remember that detail about the camera when she was asked about it later on. We could have a drinking game of when those who support the WC say "xxxxx didn't remember" or "xxxx was mistaken" on all aspects of the JFKA. Like every doctor at Parkland didn't remember / was mistaken on the back of JFK's head being blown out, or that the throat wound was a small round wound of entrance. And those nose witnesses who smelled gunsmoke on DP after the shots were mistaken, and those who saw smoke from under the trees didn't remember those details accurately. The entire WC report is based on those mistaken / misremembered observances. Thanks
David Andrews Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) I saw it in full speed and quarter-speed, and I stand by what I wrote above. I think he saw or heard something that unsettled him, and it may not have been a gun shot. (He's looking at something in the crowd on Jackie's side of the limo when he clasps his waving hand with the other.) A few seconds later, it was on-with-the-show for our Prez. Edited August 22, 2018 by David Andrews
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now