Charles Blackmon Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: What in the world is that red smudge you have pointed to at the rear of the limo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 15 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said: They are on your timetable? Are you afraid you will miss it? Nope, because clearly there's nothing to miss. If they had real evidence of alteration, they'd be screaming it from the mountaintops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Backes Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 10 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said: What in the world is that red smudge you have pointed to at the rear of the limo? It's the tail light of the limo. Why he posted an image with an arrow pointing to it is anyone's guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 12 hours ago, Michael Crane said: Is not seen here on frame 374. Shouldn't the bone looking area be covered in blood? Did the forgers miss a frame? That is James Fetzer talking by the way ^^^ I agree that the black blob is obvious and is evidence of alteration. However, I would never cite James Fetzer on the issue. Fetzer has discredited himself with his truly nutty 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theory and with his even nuttier claim that the Moon landings were faked. Doug Horne, David Mantik, and Daryll Weatherly have done solid research on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. Of course, we now know that the Zapruder film was diverted to the CIA-contracted Hawkeyeworks photo lab in Rochester, NY, and then to the CIA's NPIC in DC. Edited July 10, 2023 by Michael Griffith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Blackmon Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 3 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said: Of course, we now know that the Zapruder film was diverted to the CIA-contracted Hawkeyeworks photo lab in Rochester, NY, and then to the CIA's NPIC in DC. I am sure that the "Oswald did it" adherents are aware of this, but I have never seen an "innocent" explanation for why the CIA would take such action with the Zapruder film. Perhaps there is something in the EF archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 11 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said: I am sure that the "Oswald did it" adherents are aware of this, but I have never seen an "innocent" explanation for why the CIA would take such action with the Zapruder film. Perhaps there is something in the EF archives. Uhhh... how about to study it and determine its evidentiary value to the crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said: Uhhh... how about to study it and determine its evidentiary value to the crime? That won't work. Hawkeyeworks had no analytical function. NPIC did, but not Hawekeyeworks. (I worked at the agency into which NPIC was later merged for several years.) And why keep it secret if the purpose were merely analysis? And why two separate sets of briefing boards? And why destroy, or "lose," such historic evidentiary items? The chief of NPIC at the time, Homer McMahon, told the ARRB that when he viewed the film, he concluded that there were six or seven shots from three directions. Edited July 10, 2023 by Michael Griffith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted July 10, 2023 Author Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) I guess that Doug Horne's Hollywood 7 must have lost interest or lost funding for the project? Should be easy to determine with frames like this. Edited July 10, 2023 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted July 10, 2023 Author Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said: I would never cite James Fetzer on the issue. There was wording on the original post that said "I" and I didn't want people to think that I was claiming it. It was not my discovery. Edited July 10, 2023 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 21 minutes ago, Michael Crane said: I guess that Doug Horne's Hollywood 7 must have lost interest or lost funding for the project? Should be easy to determine with frames like this. That is a good question. I will see if I can find out what happened with that project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said: That won't work. Hawkeyeworks had no analytical function. NPIC did, but not Hawekeyeworks. (I worked at the agency into which NPIC was later merged for several years.) And why keep it secret if the purpose were merely analysis? And why two separate sets of briefing boards? And why destroy, or "lose," such historic evidentiary items? The chief of NPIC at the time, Homer McMahon, told the ARRB that when he viewed the film, he concluded that there were six or seven shots from three directions. So? This in no way lends credence to the notion that the film was "altered" at Hawkeye Works or NPIC. In fact, I find it ludicrous to believe the evil conspirators would go to such trouble on just ONE of the assassination films when they could in no way be certain that OTHER films wouldn't surface later and completely contradict the now-altered Zapruder footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said: That is a good question. I will see if I can find out what happened with that project. Michael, this question is already being discussed on this very thread.. see James DiEugenio's earlier replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said: So? This in no way lends credence to the notion that the film was "altered" at Hawkeye Works or NPIC. In fact, I find it ludicrous to believe the evil conspirators would go to such trouble on just ONE of the assassination films when they could in no way be certain that OTHER films wouldn't surface later and completely contradict the now-altered Zapruder footage. Then why in the world did the Secret Service take the Zapruder film to a secret CIA-contracted photo lab that did not do analytic work and whose very designation was classified? Why? And why did they then take it to NPIC? Why were those historic evidentiary briefing boards destroyed? Why the cloak of secrecy that was thrown over the film's detour to NPIC? People do things and try to hide them for a reason. If you find alteration "ludicrous," then you need to explain the missing events, impossible movements, and technical anomalies in the film. I discuss some of these in my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film. You could start with the suspicious circular black blob that appears on JFK's head. The blob is obvious. I have yet to hear a rational explanation for it. If it were some freak shadow, it would not remain fixed in position as the car and head move, conveniently covering the same spot on the head where dozens of witnesses in three different locations saw a large avulsed wound. The Nix film was confiscated and the out-of-camera original was never returned. Even so, the extant Nix film glaringly contradicts the Zapruder film on how far on the limo's trunk Jackie crawled, as others have noted, and as I discuss in my article. The Muchmore film is of limited value. Theory cannot erase fact. However unlikely you think it is that the film was altered, you need to explain the visible evidence and other evidence of alteration. Edited July 10, 2023 by Michael Griffith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Blackmon Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said: However unlikely you think it is that the film was altered, you need to explain the visible evidence and other evidence of alteration. This is where WC apologists ALWAYS go silent. Other than the predictable "If I were the evil conspirators I would not do it that way." Wash Rinse Repeat Edited July 10, 2023 by Charles Blackmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 3 hours ago, Michael Crane said: I guess that Doug Horne's Hollywood 7 must have lost interest or lost funding for the project? Should be easy to determine with frames like this. 2018 CAPA conference: https://capa-us.org/the-last-witnesses-revealing-the-truth/ In the later half of part 3, there is a cool video about Zapruder film authenticity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now