Anybody Have This Tom Wilson Image?

[Paul Bacon]

7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Paul,

Add a few other overlapping films to your list and you've hit paydirt.

Yours is a most appropriate response to Thompson's review by Jeremy.

 

Thank you very much Chris.  

[Ron Bulman]

9 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

There are those that actually study the assassination, look at documents, rely on facts, and then there are those that like to play with the pictures and make up stories.

Matt, you've made some astute observations and comments in prior posts on other threads.  I was really glad to see someone new that seemed somewhat well read on the subject start posting.  But it's a big wide varied subject.  Chris has been studying one particular aspect of the assassination for years, the films.  Using his mathematical expertise to analyze the data.  What he has done in conjunction with questions and comments by David Josephs in particular is sometimes over my head.  Math was not my strong suit, I got lost at logarithms.  But sometimes they get through to even me.

I don't think Chris is trying to say every photograph or film was "faked" or altered in someway, but that key elements of some were eliminated.  Some photographs have been cropped for example.  The limo slowdown or almost stop (I think Greer was just kind of idling from one curb mark to the next) is not really evident to the naked eye in the z film.  But it's pretty evident it happened, witness testimony supports it.  Chris and DJ have pretty well convinced me there is something funny going on with the turn from Houston onto Elm, it seems there was a wide turn, that is missing.  The question for me anymore is why was that portion removed, the shots didn't start until afterwards.  Did the frames show another shooter (I think unlikely) or others involved?

Such instances and more wouldn't require every film or picture to be altered, just those that included a key element.  Faking makes me think of claims of frames being partially blackened or or colored in to conceal something, which I still doubt.  Cutting out a few frames and splicing films back together at key points I understand, easily done.

Best regards, keep posting.  Ron.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Matt, you've made some astute observations and comments in prior posts on other threads.  I was really glad to see someone new that seemed somewhat well read on the subject start posting.  But it's a big wide varied subject.  Chris has been studying one particular aspect of the assassination for years, the films.  Using his mathematical expertise to analyze the data.  What he has done in conjunction with questions and comments by David Josephs in particular is sometimes over my head.  Math was not my strong suit, I got lost at logarithms.  But sometimes they get through to even me.

I don't think Chris is trying to say every photograph or film was "faked" or altered in someway, but that key elements of some were eliminated.  Some photographs have been cropped for example.  The limo slowdown or almost stop (I think Greer was just kind of idling from one curb mark to the next) is not really evident to the naked eye in the z film.  But it's pretty evident it happened, witness testimony supports it.  Chris and DJ have pretty well convinced me there is something funny going on with the turn from Houston onto Elm, it seems there was a wide turn, that is missing.  The question for me anymore is why was that portion removed, the shots didn't start until afterwards.  Did the frames show another shooter (I think unlikely) or others involved?

Such instances and more wouldn't require every film or picture to be altered, just those that included a key element.  Faking makes me think of claims of frames being partially blackened or or colored in to conceal something, which I still doubt.  Cutting out a few frames and splicing films back together at key points I understand, easily done.

Best regards, keep posting.  Ron.

I think Tink Thompson's opinion show's bias not sensible scientific analysis. Closing off the possibility of alteration of the film with a theory of non-alignment with other films is a blunt way to shut down debate and relies on non-existent chain's of evidence. What is yet to be established is what scale of alteration is being considered. I agree with Ron on the scale of alteration being limited ( Although I find a matt on the back of JFK's head very convincing.) 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Paul Bacon writes:

Quote

The conspirators were not stupid.

You are probably correct. But there's more to it than that.

Consider the fact that the Zapruder film, in its current state, includes two pieces of information that contradict the lone-gunman scenario (one of them is the famous 'back and to the left' movement of JFK's head; I'll let you work out what the other one is). Why did the conspirators allow this?

Perhaps they were indeed stupid, and didn't realise that the film seriously undermined the lone-gunman scenario.

Or perhaps they were clever enough to realise that the film contained strong evidence of conspiracy, but they were so stupid that it never occurred to them that there was a very easy way to overcome this problem: destroy the film.

Maybe the conspirators were so stupid that after stupidly failing to destroy the film, they stupidly went to a lot of effort to fake it, and then stupidly neglected to remove the bits that undermined the lone-gunman scenario.

Perhaps they were so stupid that they performed alterations to the film without being sure that their alterations wouldn't be exposed in the future, should a previously unknown home movie or photograph come to light. As we know, there was no effort to round up all the photographs and home movies taken in Dealey Plaza, or even to track down all the spectators who had cameras with them.

Alternatively, perhaps the conspirators never had access to the Zapruder film, and couldn't have faked it even if they wanted to.

Or perhaps they did have access to the film but didn't care what was in it. Perhaps, stupid or not, the conspirators weren't interested in putting forward the lone-gunman scenario, which as we know was imposed on the investigating authorities for political reasons after the assassination. Perhaps the conspirators were quite happy for the Zapruder film to provide evidence of conspiracy, which of course it does.

There are several scenarios here, each of which suggests a different type of conspiracy, a different group of conspirators, different motives, and different levels of likelihood.

Those who claim that the Zapruder film was faked don't appear to have considered the alternatives. Perhaps they get a nice tingly feeling from the idea that the world is controlled by an all-powerful group of evil conspirator masterminds. The JFK assassination these days does seem to attract the type of person who is drawn to the most elaborate and unlikely conspiracy they can think of.

The notion that the Zapruder film was faked implies the least likely option: a group of powerful yet strangely incompetent conspirators who were able to perform elaborate but unnecessary alterations to the photographic evidence, and who messed up (whoops!).

It probably isn't coincidental that other super-conspiracy theories also posit a powerful group of conspirators who went to great lengths to achieve their ends by faking the evidence but who messed up: Lifton's elaborate body-snatching scheme in which the carefully fabricated wounds were unfortunately placed in the wrong locations (whoops!), and the 'Harvey and Lee' conspirators who unfortunately buried the wrong long-term doppelganger in Oswald's grave (whoops!).

[Matt Allison]

Ron, I appreciate your comments.

There were truly a myriad of ways JFK could have been removed from the Presidency. If the killers had any concerns whatsoever about cameras, then the deed would have occurred elsewhere. But IMO, to the conspirators, being shot dead in front of spectators was a feature, not a bug. To them, the more cameras the better, as the intention was to send a very strong message.