Brian Smith Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Thanks, Brian. But you can expect to be attacked unmercifully herefor supporting me. Lots of lonenutters. Welcome to the forum. Jack Yeah, those guys are all over the internet. You think this place is bad, you should check out the IMDb forum. That place is infested with them. Possibly some of the same ones on this site too. It's pretty obvious what their M.O. is as soon as they start posting. They waste no time getting started with the ad hominum attacks and trolling tactics. I really have to wonder if some of them get paid to do it. Regardless, they are relatively easy to spot. We need more here as perceptive as you. Jack It's like that Schopenhauer quote: "All truth passes through three stages - first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as being self-evident." You know you are doing something right when the disinfo trolls come out to attack you. You seem to have a lot of them. Congratulations! Edited August 31, 2006 by Brian Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Brian:""It's like that Schopenhauer quote: "All truth passes through three stages - first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as being self-evident." You know you are doing something right when the disinfo trolls come out to attack you. You seem to have a lot of them. Congratulations!"" Gee, someone just opened a window in here...wonderful.....a breath of fresh air.... imo. Welcome Brian...... B.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Thanks, Brian. But you can expect to be attacked unmercifully herefor supporting me. Lots of lonenutters. Welcome to the forum. Jack Yeah, those guys are all over the internet. You think this place is bad, you should check out the IMDb forum. That place is infested with them. Possibly some of the same ones on this site too. It's pretty obvious what their M.O. is as soon as they start posting. They waste no time getting started with the ad hominum attacks and trolling tactics. I really have to wonder if some of them get paid to do it. Regardless, they are relatively easy to spot. Welcome Brian... it does get bumpy around here ! David Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Jack has snared himself a groupie. Will wonders never cease. What impresses you the most? His incompetent grasp of photography? His reckless, defamatory charges of assassination complicity? His "paid provacateurs" rant? His misunderstanding of lunar lighting? His refusal to identify and confront real evil in the world? Just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Jack has snared himself a groupie. Will wonders never cease. What impresses you the most? His incompetent grasp of photography? His reckless, defamatory charges of assassination complicity? His "paid provacateurs" rant? His misunderstanding of lunar lighting? His refusal to identify and confront real evil in the world? Just wondering. Sit down Slattery, the GOP has its hands full and your screwing around trying to make hay with 43 year old images you haven't a clue about! Not to mention, being yanked around by a few aging photographers. All we gotta do is post something, anything and YOUR bell is wrung, champ.... Personally, I think its a riot Jack yanks so many (gotta be 5-7) chains around here..... you're as predictable as clockwork! Edited August 31, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Hello. I am new to the forum, although I have been reading it for several weeks now. I would just like to start off by saying that I am a big fan of Jack White's work, (his recent 911 pentagon photo analysis is intriguing) and completely agree with him on the subject of Zapruder film alteration. My first encounter with the Z film alteration theory was in Harrison Edward Livingstone's "High Treason 2" and the thing that clinched me was the frames that show the shoulder of Jackie's pink dress right where JFK's face should be. I mean, you can see right through where Kennedy's face should be.No such damage to the face was described by any witness, nor is it seen in the official autopsy photos. My conclusion: The film was altered to cover up the true nature of the wounds, particularly the head wound. Brain, you may wish to get a better understanding of what version of the Zfilm you are using and what processes have been used to give off its appearence. Then you need to get a better understanding of lighting and exposure and what it can do to various shades on film. Below is that same view, but with a sharper image. President Kennedy's scalp can be viewed and only when it is lightened does it start to appear to look like part of Jackie's clothing which causes an illusion of the top front of the President's head to be missing. Bill Miller Edited August 31, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Smith Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Hello. I am new to the forum, although I have been reading it for several weeks now. I would just like to start off by saying that I am a big fan of Jack White's work, (his recent 911 pentagon photo analysis is intriguing) and completely agree with him on the subject of Zapruder film alteration. My first encounter with the Z film alteration theory was in Harrison Edward Livingstone's "High Treason 2" and the thing that clinched me was the frames that show the shoulder of Jackie's pink dress right where JFK's face should be. I mean, you can see right through where Kennedy's face should be. No such damage to the face was described by any witness, nor is it seen in the official autopsy photos. My conclusion: The film was altered to cover up the true nature of the wounds, particularly the head wound. Brain, you may wish to get a better understanding of what version of the Zfilm you are using and what processes have been used to give off its appearence. Then you need to get a better understanding of lighting and exposure and what it can do to various shades on film. Below is that same view, but with a sharper image. President Kennedy's scalp can be viewed and only when it is lightened does it start to appear to look like part of Jackie's clothing which causes an illusion of the top front of the President's head to be missing. Bill Miller It looks like a huge chunk of the face/forehead is missing in that that view also. And if you look closely at the frames right after the rearward head snap, as Kennedy slumps forward, it also looks as if the face is too far down, in relation with the top of the head. Just underneath the area that appears to be Jackie's shoulder, is a faint shape that I can only take to be JFK's face. How could his face be so far below the top of the head and ear like that? Perhaps I am seeing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) It looks like a huge chunk of the face/forehead is missing in that that view also. And if you look closely at the frames right after the rearward head snap, as Kennedy slumps forward, it also looks as if the face is too far down, in relation with the top of the head. Just underneath the area that appears to be Jackie's shoulder, is a faint shape that I can only take to be JFK's face. How could his face be so far below the top of the head and ear like that? Perhaps I am seeing things. Brian, can you do overlays with film frame images? I use "Image Styler" which is pretty simple to operate. I would suggest you taking JFK's image at Z312 and overlaying it onto the film frames that interest you to see if Kennedy's face aligns properly, thus you are just seeing an illusion where you only thought the face was too far below the top of the head. Bill Miller Edited August 31, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 It looks like a huge chunk of the face/forehead is missing in that that view also. And if you look closely at the frames right after the rearward head snap, as Kennedy slumps forward, it also looks as if the face is too far down, in relation with the top of the head. Just underneath the area that appears to be Jackie's shoulder, is a faint shape that I can only take to be JFK's face. How could his face be so far below the top of the head and ear like that? Perhaps I am seeing things. Brian, can you do overlays with film frame images? I use "Image Styler" which is pretty simple to operate. I would suggest you taking JFK's image at Z312 and overlaying it onto the film frames that interest you to see if Kennedy's face aligns properly, thus you are just seeing an illusion where you only thought the face was too far below the top of the head. Bill Miller When the frames are put in motion ... I see the top of JFK's head moving separately from Jackie's upper body, thus they are not one in the same and it is only the sunlight illuminating the President's hair that caused the illusion of us thinking we were seeing through to Jackie's coat. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kennedy White Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Great work, Bill. I had never really figured out the alignment before. His nose does look a little low compared to the ear, though. It's incredible how clear the rear exit wound "cone" shape is in that image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Hello. I am new to the forum, although I have been reading it for several weeks now. I would just like to start off by saying that I am a big fan of Jack White's work, (his recent 911 pentagon photo analysis is intriguing) and completely agree with him on the subject of Zapruder film alteration. My first encounter with the Z film alteration theory was in Harrison Edward Livingstone's "High Treason 2" and the thing that clinched me was the frames that show the shoulder of Jackie's pink dress right where JFK's face should be. I mean, you can see right through where Kennedy's face should be. No such damage to the face was described by any witness, nor is it seen in the official autopsy photos. My conclusion: The film was altered to cover up the true nature of the wounds, particularly the head wound. Brain, you may wish to get a better understanding of what version of the Zfilm you are using and what processes have been used to give off its appearence. Then you need to get a better understanding of lighting and exposure and what it can do to various shades on film. Below is that same view, but with a sharper image. President Kennedy's scalp can be viewed and only when it is lightened does it start to appear to look like part of Jackie's clothing which causes an illusion of the top front of the President's head to be missing. Bill Miller I guess that huge chunk of skull hanging down has nothing to do with that "illusion" of the missing top front of the head you speak of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Smith Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) Hello. I am new to the forum, although I have been reading it for several weeks now. I would just like to start off by saying that I am a big fan of Jack White's work, (his recent 911 pentagon photo analysis is intriguing) and completely agree with him on the subject of Zapruder film alteration. My first encounter with the Z film alteration theory was in Harrison Edward Livingstone's "High Treason 2" and the thing that clinched me was the frames that show the shoulder of Jackie's pink dress right where JFK's face should be. I mean, you can see right through where Kennedy's face should be. No such damage to the face was described by any witness, nor is it seen in the official autopsy photos. My conclusion: The film was altered to cover up the true nature of the wounds, particularly the head wound. Brain, you may wish to get a better understanding of what version of the Zfilm you are using and what processes have been used to give off its appearence. Then you need to get a better understanding of lighting and exposure and what it can do to various shades on film. Below is that same view, but with a sharper image. President Kennedy's scalp can be viewed and only when it is lightened does it start to appear to look like part of Jackie's clothing which causes an illusion of the top front of the President's head to be missing. Bill Miller I guess that huge chunk of skull hanging down has nothing to do with that "illusion" of the missing top front of the head you speak of? I incorrectly identified the missing portion as the face. You are correct - it is the top front of the head. It is a very large area, and you get the impression that the entire forehead has been blasted away. No such damage was reported by any of the medical witnesses who saw the wounds up close, and it is not seen in the autopsy photos. Also, I have always wondered why there is no indication ,on the film, of the exiting shot from the back of the head. Secret Serviceman Sam Kinney, the driver of the car behind the limo, said that the windshield was splattered with bits of blood and brain matter, and Clint Hill said the trunk of the limo was likewise splattered. Why is there not the slightest indication of this in the Zapruder film? Were Kinney and Hill mistaken, or is the film wrong? I just can't believe the film would fail to show even the faintest indication of such a massive exit of blood and brain matter from the back of the head. Something just doesn't add up about the film, in my opinion. Edited September 2, 2006 by Brian Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) I guess that huge chunk of skull hanging down has nothing to do with that "illusion" of the missing top front of the head you speak of? That is correct, Chuck. Moorman's photo shows the front portion of the top of JFK's head in tact. Watch the clip below and look for the pinkish tone in the top of JFK's head when the bone plate comes off ... maybe seeing this will help. Bill Miller Also, I have always wondered why there is no indication ,on the film, of the exiting shot from the back of the head. Secret Serviceman Sam Kinney, the driver of the car behind the limo, said that the windshield was splattered with bits of blood and brain matter, and Clint Hill said the trunk of the limo was likewise splattered. Why is there not the slightest indication of this in the Zapruder film? Were Kinney and Hill mistaken, or is the film wrong? I just can't believe the film would fail to show even the faintest indication of such a massive exit of blood and brain matter from the back of the head. Something just doesn't add up about the film, in my opinion. Brian, the answer to your question is that there is evidence of the shot exiting the back of JFK's head. Look at the clip as Jackie's hand slips away from JFK - can you not see the outline of the back of JFK's head showing that the bones are sprung opened? The Zaruder film (especially the MPI version) does not show great sharpness of the images on the film, thus we cannot look with clarity down into the hair to see the individual bone fractures sticking up through the scalp, but in silohouette we can see how it effected the shape of JFK's head. The autopsy photos do not reflect this damage seen on the Zapruder film. Bill Miller Edited September 2, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Diabo Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Dear, bill. You do good work ,too. The image you present is the acme of this totally confused debate. Thanks. It always brings me to tears when viewing those 3 frames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Dear, bill. You do good work ,too.The image you present is the acme of this totally confused debate. Thanks. It always brings me to tears when viewing those 3 frames. Miller = "acme", might you define that a bit more? What's to be confused in the debate, Miller and Co. believe nothing is amiss or altered when it comes to JFK DP and other assassination related film/photos -- other's are not so sure! If you could define "acme" a bit further, though. Thanks 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