Jack White Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I have long suspected something phony about the bush that Zapruder "FILMED THROUGH". What a mess! All other photos show it neatly trimmed to an oval shape. But just think HOW MANY FRAMES OF ELM ACTIVITY DID NOT HAVE TO BE SHOWN because they were "hidden by the bush". Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I have long suspected something phony about the bush thatZapruder "FILMED THROUGH". What a mess! All other photos show it neatly trimmed to an oval shape. But just think HOW MANY FRAMES OF ELM ACTIVITY DID NOT HAVE TO BE SHOWN because they were "hidden by the bush". Jack Jack, I have kept away fro the entire Z hoax v no hoax for lack of time to read anyone I could understand. The two posters here just flame each other. (Bill MIller and Mr Healy) So badly that I don't even know which side the other is on. (Some even suspect that one of them is really Gary Mack, making it even MORE confusing. Years ago I attempted to read something Richard Bartholomew wrote reviewing Fetzer's work, but it was so poorly written that it made little sense. I guess one had to read the book first and this was an eamil "review" of the book. Richard is normally a fine writer, tho he uses so many names you need a flow chart to keep up. So could you -when you have the time- summerize for me why you believe the film is a forgery. Do you think it was: 1. filmed by Abe Zapruder and then tampered with? 2. Do you believe Bob Groden- a good guy!- ever had a copy that was the real untampered- with thing? 3.What do you think the conspirators were trying to destroy? 4. Why was the back-ward head shot left intact, rendering the "single bullet theory" the lunacy/lie it was when first invented by "darlin arlin" ? Thank you .... Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 11, 2006 Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) I have long suspected something phony about the bush that Zapruder "FILMED THROUGH". What a mess! All other photos show it neatly trimmed to an oval shape. But just think HOW MANY FRAMES OF ELM ACTIVITY DID NOT HAVE TO BE SHOWN because they were "hidden by the bush". Jack Jack, I have kept away fro the entire Z hoax v no hoax for lack of time to read anyone I could understand. The two posters here just flame each other. (Bill MIller and Mr Healy) So badly that I don't even know which side the other is on. (Some even suspect that one of them is really Gary Mack, making it even MORE confusing. Years ago I attempted to read something Richard Bartholomew wrote reviewing Fetzer's work, but it was so poorly written that it made little sense. I guess one had to read the book first and this was an eamil "review" of the book. Richard is normally a fine writer, tho he uses so many names you need a flow chart to keep up. So could you -when you have the time- summerize for me why you believe the film is a forgery. Do you think it was: 1. filmed by Abe Zapruder and then tampered with? 2. Do you believe Bob Groden- a good guy!- ever had a copy that was the real untampered- with thing? 3.What do you think the conspirators were trying to destroy? 4. Why was the back-ward head shot left intact, rendering the "single bullet theory" the lunacy/lie it was when first invented by "darlin arlin" ? Thank you .... Dawn Dawn...a quick summary is impossible (Fetzer et al did a whole book on it). However, I will attempt quick answers to your four questions: 1. filmed by Abe Zapruder and then tampered with? I do not know Zapruder's role. I believe the extant film to be an animated composite based on many other images...specifically a "guide film" shot about fifteen minutes earlier. Perhaps it is also based on something Mr. Z shot, but is not his film. It is also important to know about the OTHER FILM, seen by many people WHICH IS NOT THE EXTANT FILM. See TGZFH. 2. Do you believe Bob Groden-- a good guy!-- ever had a copy that was the real untampered-with thing? Robert is a very good friend of mine (nobody who knows him calls him Bob). But he is wrong about the Zfilm, since 90 percent of his reputation is based on it. What he worked with was the EXTANT FILM, long after all alterations were completed. That is the film he says is genuine. Like the rest of us, he has never seen the "untampered- with thing". 3.What do you think the conspirators were trying to destroy? We can only speculate, based on other evidence: a. the limo stop b. the wide limo turn c. the shot sequence and directions d. any suspicious characters or activity e. dereliction of SS drivers or agents f. the timing and locations of shots 4. Why was the back-ward head shot left intact, rendering the "single bullet theory" the lunacy/lie it was when first invented by "darlin arlin" ? You make an erroneous assumption in your question, for if the film is an animation as I believe, then anything shown in it is NOT real but something the animators put there for us to see. Consider it a false trail which has occupied the research of many for 40+ years. In that event, it was successful in distracting researchers. I personally believe that evidence supports at least three shots to the head, which renders the "back and to the left" observations meaningless. I hope this answers your questions. I suggest you read TGZFH. Jack PS. pay no attention to Miller. He has some sort of vested interest in the Z film authenticity. Edited July 11, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) Jack,I have kept away fro the entire Z hoax v no hoax for lack of time to read anyone I could understand. The two posters here just flame each other. (Bill MIller and Mr Healy) So badly that I don't even know which side the other is on. (Some even suspect that one of them is really Gary Mack, making it even MORE confusing. I think we are safe from Gary Mack posting as David Healy. I would also like to say that the only side I am on (what ever that is supposed to mean) is the side of being thorough in my research so to be as accurate as possible. As far as the pyracantha bush goes ... what is so mysterious about seeing a bush or a tree from one angle and seeing that its shape may be different than when seen from another angle. Then one will see that the bush wasn't as trimmed as the distant blurry images make it appear. Once again Jack is wrong because he chose to rely on poor quality images. I would also recommend people looking at good clear photos for details of the branches on the pyracantha bush before just using distant blurred ones to draw conclusions from. Bill Miller Edited July 12, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) Jack, Here is another good photo of the pyracantha bush which supports the condition of the branches in the Zapruder film. All it takes is a little effort to research these things rather than resting ones hat on blurry images. Bill Miller Edited July 12, 2006 by Bill Miller 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