Jump to content
The Education Forum

Proof that the coverup is ongoing


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

A Coup In Camelot argued that the right skull flap was created by the shooting along with the occipital blowout, but was quickly pushed back in by Jackie. In that case, the Dealey Plaza witnesses would recall the right skull flap in that moment, and then it could be temporarily secured back from dried blood or hair.

Re: Jackie Kennedy's actions in the car on the way to Parkland Hospital....

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1092.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
19 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Do occipital-blowout people think the right skull flap didn't exist?

Based on many of my conversations with the "occipital blowout people", I have gotten the distinct impression that, yes, they seem to think the large wound at the right-front of JFK's head just didn't exist at all. They sure don't mention it very much (if at all). It's always occipital, occipital, occipital and fake autopsy photos whenever CTers discuss where they think the exit wound was located.

Good question though, Micah.

BTW, do you think the right-frontal wound existed, Micah?

 

This thread is not about the location of the head wound. It is about the alteration and re-alteration of the z-film.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I hate to rain on anyone's parade and I will not comment any further but I will just say that this is not the way I heard this story many years ago from one of the sources named in it.

 

Do you know if the alternate story is available online for us to read, Jim?
 

I suspect this has something to do with the alterationist versus non-alterationist debate. In Horne's presentation he says that Roland Zavada, a non-alterationist, viewed the Z frames the very same day that Wilkinson had Whitehead did, the time they saw the real-looking shadows and hair. Horne points out that, of course, this just confirmed in Roland Zavada's mind what he already believed, that there are no alterations in the film. Something that naturally frustrates the alterationists.

According to Horne, Josiah Thompson actually accused Wilkinson and Whitehead of deliberately altering their copies so that they would appear to be... altered. Wow.

Below is the Wilkinson/Whitehead third generation copy, frame 317. To me it sure looks like the back of Kennedy's head is unnaturally dark, especially compared to the portion of Jackie's hair that's at the same angle relative to the sun. But I've seen other Z-film copies that aren't so glaring. On the other hand, I don't know the source of those copies.
 

317-TIFF-BLOWUP.jpg?resize=1024,576&ssl=

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This thread is not about the location of the head wound. It is about the alteration and re-alteration of the z-film.

And you don't think those two subjects can co-exist in this thread?---even though you yourself, Sandy, said this in your first post....

"At some point in time, researchers Sydney Wilkinson and Tom Whitehead had purchased third-generation copies of the film in order to look for signs of alteration. They did find anomalies, an obvious one being that the back of Kennedy's head had been blackened." -- S. Larsen

~big ol' shrug~

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

And you don't think those two subjects can co-exist in this thread?---even though you yourself, Sandy, said this in your first post....

"At some point in time, researchers Sydney Wilkinson and Tom Whitehead had purchased third-generation copies of the film in order to look for signs of alteration. They did find anomalies, an obvious one being that the back of Kennedy's head had been blackened." -- S. Larsen

~big ol' shrug~

 

This thread is about an ongoing coverup, as indicated by a report of a fairly-recent z-film alteration. The premise of this thread is that there was indeed a wound on the back of the head and that it has been altered twice.

I highlighted in red parts of my quote above that show it was on topic.

Jim has raised a doubt about Horne's story which affects the premise. So anything regarding that would also be on topic.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 7:38 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

In 2009 Wilkerson and David Mantik decided to visit the Sixth Floor Museum to verify that the first-generation frames in their collection had the same anomalies. They were surprised to discover that they not only had the same anomalies, they were WORSE than the anomalies in their own third generation copies. That is to say, the anomalies were easier to spot. Mantik was so surprised that he couldn't help but laugh. Wilkinson kicked him under the table because curator Gary Mack was with them.

I don't understand this part of the story. Why did they play footsy to hide something from Gary Mack? If he was right there, I don't understand why they wouldn't ask his opinion of what they saw. Gary Mack himself indicated to me that the strongest evidence for conspiracy was the hole in back of the head. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:
On 2/19/2019 at 5:38 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

In 2009 Wilkerson and David Mantik decided to visit the Sixth Floor Museum to verify that the first-generation frames in their collection had the same anomalies. They were surprised to discover that they not only had the same anomalies, they were WORSE than the anomalies in their own third generation copies. That is to say, the anomalies were easier to spot. Mantik was so surprised that he couldn't help but laugh. Wilkinson kicked him under the table because curator Gary Mack was with them.

I don't understand this part of the story. Why did they play footsy to hide something from Gary Mack? If he was right there, I don't understand why they wouldn't ask his opinion of what they saw. Gary Mack himself indicated to me that the strongest evidence for conspiracy was the hole in back of the head. 


Evidently a lot of CTers believe Gary Mack switched sides. And some have strong feelings about it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, I want to keep the main thread point pure but hard not to discuss a couple of other related areas in so doing.

I am not a student of the Z-film and it's reported alteration.

So I can't add anything deep research worthy in this specific debate. Just some novice observations.

But what we all see in the scores of Z-film footage shown on the internet ( altered or not ) does show some indisputable facts imo.

JFK's head explodes violently and massively from the inside out, obviously indicating being hit by a high velocity missile.

JFK's skull was blown out in the parietal/ occipital area according to the public video.  We see skull bone exploding outward in that area and a huge pink blood and brain matter cloud spraying up and all around from what seems like that specific area at the same time.

Wouldn't the brain blood and matter cloud spray frames ( showing it's direction, extension and scope ) have to be altered as well to hide a farther back skull blowout? 

The spray cloud we see "seems to fit"  in point of origin with the frames showing the above ear flap blowout.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Sandy, I want to keep the main thread point pure but hard not to discuss a couple of other related areas in so doing.

I am not a student of the Z-film and it's reported alteration.

So I can't add anything deep research worthy in this specific debate. Just some novice observations.

But what we all see in the scores of Z-film footage shown on the internet ( altered or not ) does show some indisputable facts imo.

JFK's head explodes violently and massively from the inside out, obviously indicating being hit by a high velocity missile.

JFK's skull was blown out in the parietal/ occipital area according to the public video.  We see skull bone exploding outward in that area and a huge pink blood and brain matter cloud spraying up and all around from what seems like that specific area at the same time.

Wouldn't the brain blood and matter cloud spray frames ( showing it's direction, extension and scope ) have to altered as well to hide a farther back skull blowout? 

The spray cloud we see "seems to fit"  in point of origin with the frames showing the above ear flap blowout.

 

 

Joe,

I didn't mean to come across as an On-Topic Nazi. I just didn't like that fact that a conversation was going on between two guys who don't believe in a rear-blowout (and thus no alteration there) and who don't believe in Z-film alterations at all. I wasn't angry with them, I just thought it was dumb for that conversation to be taking place in a thread that presupposes things they don't believe in and weren't talking about.

As for your comment, well it really doesn't belong here either and in fact is much more significant than this thread and really deserves a thread of its own. But I will say this... the explosion we see in the Zapruder film is NOT in the parietal/occipital area of the head. Rather, it is purely parietal. The occipital part of the skull is the  part that is said to be blackened out.

And yes, from everything I have read about Z-film alteration, it seems that there are many things that would have had to be removed. It's hard for me to believe it could be done in a twelve hour period that Horne says it was done in. But his Hollywood contacts say otherwise, so it's hard for me to argue the point.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Operating one of those big photo editing machines David Healey talks about would be a nightmare for me.  However, a well skilled and veteran team could do wonders with one in a short period of time.  John Costella, long ago, speculated that the Z film is built from the ground up.  I never could get a handle on that.  If so, you would only need the briefing board photos during the first week and for some time after.  Later one would have plenty of time to construct the whole film.  The head shot fakery is just one of many, many content problems in the film. 

There was a Zapruder film out an about available.  But, is it the same one as seen in later weeks and months.  Is the original original?  And, how would one tell with the most powerful and sophisticated agency in the US government controlling what happened to it.  All of the first folks possessing the film were related to the CIA in one form or fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 4:56 AM, David Von Pein said:

Based on many of my conversations with the "occipital blowout people", I have gotten the distinct impression that, yes, they seem to think the large wound at the right-front of JFK's head just didn't exist at all. They sure don't mention it very much (if at all). It's always occipital, occipital, occipital and fake autopsy photos whenever CTers discuss where they think the exit wound was located.

Good question though, Micah.

BTW, do you think the right-frontal wound existed, Micah?

 

David,

How can we reconcile the Parkland medical professionals consistently describing the occipital blowout while none of them mentioned the large frontal flap?  If something should have been obvious, it would have been that frontal flap, and from what I know (which isn't much), no one at Parkland described seeing that.  I guess it's the OBPs vs. FFs - Occipital Blowout People vs. Frontal Flappers.  Believing Parkland professionals vs. believing the extant Z film.

Thanks

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

David,

How can we reconcile the Parkland medical professionals consistently describing the occipital blowout while none of them mentioned the large frontal flap?  If something should have been obvious, it would have been that frontal flap, and from what I know (which isn't much), no one at Parkland described seeing that.  I guess it's the OBPs vs. FFs - Occipital Blowout People vs. Frontal Flappers.  Believing Parkland professionals vs. believing the extant Z film.

It's difficult to reconcile, I'll admit that. I've struggled with the "OBP vs. FF"  [:)problem for years. See my related thoughts below....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Mystery Of The Head Wounds

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 2/21/2019 at 11:53 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

[...]

And yes, from everything I have read about Z-film alteration, it seems that there are many things that would have had to be removed. It's hard for me to believe it could be done in a twelve hour period that Horne says it was done in. But his Hollywood contacts say otherwise, so it's hard for me to argue the point.

 

What Hollywood contacts (Wilkerson & Whitehead and other Z-film researchers) in this instance state, what was added to a frame in the Z-film, not what was removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...