Jump to content
The Education Forum

Films and Fotos


Charles Black
 Share

Recommended Posts

This may be considered too speculative to be engaged on this forum.

I feel that the major deterrent to a legitimate depiction of what occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 has been the manipulation of film and xray.

If this had occured in 1865, and we substituted carriages for cars etc., what do you feel would have been the result of the investigation ?

We of course would be dependent on eye and ear witness testimony as had been done in the previous five millenia, and would therefore, according to the generally accepted modern theory, be not very trustworthy.

I often wonder why they even bothered to have judicial trials before the advent of photography !

I of course am inviting a very "speculative" question as the result of my long held belief, that

manipulated film and photographs have been the conspirators greatest (perhaps only) means of diverting and concealing evidence.

I realize that the question is somewhat strange, but I feel that such a discussion might change the perspective of many investigators.

I would appreciate participation....even if only for your amusement.

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be considered too speculative to be engaged on this forum.

I feel that the major deterrent to a legitimate depiction of what occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 has been the manipulation of film and xray.

If this had occured in 1865, and we substituted carriages for cars etc., what do you feel would have been the result of the investigation ?

We of course would be dependent on eye and ear witness testimony as had been done in the previous five millenia, and would therefore, according to the generally accepted modern theory, be not very trustworthy.

I often wonder why they even bothered to have judicial trials before the advent of photography !

I of course am inviting a very "speculative" question as the result of my long held belief, that

manipulated film and photographs have been the conspirators greatest (perhaps only) means of diverting and concealing evidence.

I realize that the question is somewhat strange, but I feel that such a discussion might change the perspective of many investigators.

I would appreciate participation....even if only for your amusement.

Charlie Black

Heck no it's not too speculative for this forum Charlie.

That's what we do here. It's a think tank. :huh:

People are visual creatures; seeing is believing; images stay with us. I think you make a powerful point. The manipulation of photos and film has served the regime well. The Z-film is worse than useless; it's detrimental to the truth. So many use it as reference when it is clearly manipulated and discredited.

Hey, you didn't even mention the infamous photo of Oswald's head bobbing around on someone else's body. It's a blatant fake, but how many know that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that the major deterrent to a legitimate depiction of what occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 has been the manipulation of film and xray.

If this had occured in 1865, and we substituted carriages for cars etc., what do you feel would have been the result of the investigation ?

Bad news, Charlie – according to Otto Eisenschiml’s landmark, if somewhat mistitled, Why Was Lincoln Murdered? (London: Faber & Faber, 1937), there was photographic jiggery-pokery involved in the Lincoln case. In the chapter entitled “The Prisoners at the Bar,” Eisenschiml writes: “…the photograph of Booth used throughout the whole trial was not a picture of John Wilkes Booth at all, but one of his brother Edwin” (p.265). He goes on to make a compelling case that Booth’s pursuers were similarly armed with the wrong photograph; and demonstrates alteration of the stenographic record to conceal this photographic subterfuge.

The point being, of course, that Booth was allowed to escape in order to blaze a trail to the Confederacy, thus concealing the real identities and locations of the plotters.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that the major deterrent to a legitimate depiction of what occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 has been the manipulation of film and xray.

If this had occured in 1865, and we substituted carriages for cars etc., what do you feel would have been the result of the investigation ?

Bad news, Charlie – according to Otto Eisenschiml’s landmark, if somewhat mistitled, Why Was Lincoln Murdered? (London: Faber & Faber, 1937), there was photographic jiggery-pokery involved in the Lincoln case. In the chapter entitled “The Prisoners at the Bar,” Eisenschiml writes: “…the photograph of Booth used throughout the whole trial was not a picture of John Wilkes Booth at all, but one of his brother Edwin” (p.265). He goes on to make a compelling case that Booth’s pursuers were similarly armed with the wrong photograph; and demonstrates alteration of the stenographic record to conceal this photographic subterfuge.

The point being, of course, that Booth was allowed to escape in order to blaze a trail to the Confederacy, thus concealing the real identities and locations of the plotters.

Paul

I thought Booth was allowed to escape (we agree on that point) because he was a hit man for the banks, who murdered President Lincoln due to his plan to print money from the US Treasure instead of the Federal Reserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Booth was allowed to escape (we agree on that point) because he was a hit man for the banks, who murdered President Lincoln due to his plan to print money from the US Treasury instead of the Federal Reserve.

Myra,

Don't dissent, but am disinclined to reduce the deep politics of such events to one cause or motive. As a rule of thumb when examining the context of high-level political assassinations, we see something I can only describe as "confluence" - a group of causes and motives of differing levels of importance to the coalition that forms prior to the murder itself. The prime-mover(s) neither need nor desire participation, but they do need to be sure of tacit acquiescence.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although apparently not many are interested, tho I am very much so, I would like to redirect this thread to what I meant as its more baser roots.

Without what "I personally" believe/speculate to be

very graphic distortions of film and photographic evidence, along with missing xrays and autopsy photos........what is left to produce enough evidence for a prosecutor to even "consider" bringing this case to trial? With this same thought in mind, also please judge what you "truly" believe to be the veracity of the 1964 testimony of Marina Oswald? Do you feel that her statements of Lee practicing with his rifle by aiming at the leaves on trees, as they strolled the baby thru the municipal Park, would go unquestioned? Or how about that had she not physically held the door shut to their bathroom, that Lee would have shot Richard Nixon? Is this what classifies Lee as a mad killer?

This question is not as nearly "off the wall" as many of the questions introduced by the W.C. and it goes directly to the core of why this forum exists 43 years after the fact.

To some this question may seem over speculative and therefore unimportant. I do not, because I contend that this mass of some false testimony (outright lies) and altered evidence was and is the total government stance. It is as unbelievable now as it was in 1964. Yet we are continuing to be led in concentric circles....biting every piece of bait that is "trolled".

Without this very highly questionable intoduction of "EVIDENCE"...what does the prosecution have?

I would very much appreciate your views...in particular those views which are contrary to my "speculations" ! Unless I am oversimplifying...THIS

is the entire case !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without what "I personally" believe/speculate to be

very graphic distortions of film and photographic evidence, along with missing xrays and autopsy photos........what is left to produce enough evidence for a prosecutor to even "consider" bringing this case to trial? Charlie Black

I am still surprised that the govt released the Zapruder film. I know it's a concoction, but it still shows (at least to me) President Kennedy getting shot from the front right. This section of his head is facing the camera!

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still surprised that the govt released the Zapruder film.

Me, too, particularly as early as 25 November 1963, which is when Soviet TV viewers got to see it! (Unless, and one must permit the possibility, we are dealing with a completely different film of the actual bullet impacts...)

I know it's a concoction, but it still shows (at least to me) President Kennedy getting shot from the front right.

And if they permitted it, they wanted you to believe in a right-front shot. All the more reason to look elsewhere, surely!

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still surprised that the govt released the Zapruder film.

Me, too, particularly as early as 25 November 1963, which is when Soviet TV viewers got to see it! (Unless, and one must permit the possibility, we are dealing with a completely different film of the actual bullet impacts...)

Paul

The Soviets saw the film on Nov. 25 '63. I never heard of this before. There is another film seen by a handful of people. The turn onto Elm is shown, no sign blocking the limo, the limo stop. This film was made by a govt agency and/or the oil barons. I wonder if that's the film the Soviets saw.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without what "I personally" believe/speculate to be

very graphic distortions of film and photographic evidence, along with missing xrays and autopsy photos........what is left to produce enough evidence for a prosecutor to even "consider" bringing this case to trial? Charlie Black

I am still surprised that the govt released the Zapruder film. I know it's a concoction, but it still shows (at least to me) President Kennedy getting shot from the front right. This section of his head is facing the camera!

Kathy

I don't believe the gov't willingly released the film, Jim Garrison made them release it:

"Garrison was able to subpoena the Zapruder film and show it in public for the first time. Until the trial, the film had not been seen by the public, and bootleg copies made by assassination investigators working with Garrison led to the film being widely distributed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Garrison

(This jibes with everything else I've read.)

Still, by the time Garrison got access to the tape it had been in the clutches of Time/Life/Luce/CIA for years. To me that means that it was and is useless as evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Booth was allowed to escape (we agree on that point) because he was a hit man for the banks, who murdered President Lincoln due to his plan to print money from the US Treasury instead of the Federal Reserve.

Myra,

Don't dissent, but am disinclined to reduce the deep politics of such events to one cause or motive. As a rule of thumb when examining the context of high-level political assassinations, we see something I can only describe as "confluence" - a group of causes and motives of differing levels of importance to the coalition that forms prior to the murder itself. The prime-mover(s) neither need nor desire participation, but they do need to be sure of tacit acquiescence.

Paul

Makes sense Paul.

Do you think that Lincoln's plan to print money from the US Treasury instead of the Federal Reserve was a factor in his murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although apparently not many are interested, tho I am very much so, I would like to redirect this thread to what I meant as its more baser roots.

Without what "I personally" believe/speculate to be

very graphic distortions of film and photographic evidence, along with missing xrays and autopsy photos........what is left to produce enough evidence for a prosecutor to even "consider" bringing this case to trial? With this same thought in mind, also please judge what you "truly" believe to be the veracity of the 1964 testimony of Marina Oswald?

...

Marina herself has emphatically renounced her own 1964 testimony, so no I don't believe it.

And Mark Lane described the horrendous pressure the "government" thugs applied before her testimony, in "Rush to Judgement" I believe.

http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Judgment-Mark-L...TF8&s=books

http://www.jfkresearch.com/marina/marina.htm

(OW=Oprah, MOP=Marina)

OW>You do not believe your husband killed John F. Kennedy?

MOP>No -- and it's not an overnight conclusion and it's not because I read books, and this book and that book. It's the responsible statement to make in front of the country that I'm grateful to -- and when I did say that I think Lee killed President Kennedy.

OW>You said that 33 years ago. You believed he did.

MOP>Absolutely. And the Warren Commission came to the conclusion and this question was asked after all the testimonies were done, "Mrs. Porter now with the evidence in front of you, what you know, what is your conclusion? Was your husband innocent or guilty? You cannot no because some evidence was there and in the middle of the table was a rifle which I identified as Lee's rifle and I was a stupid young girl and right now if you show me my husband's hunting rifle and I would be smart enough to say that I am not sure because up to this date I know nothing about this rifle. I'm not saying it was Lee's or not, but I trusted so blindly that it must be his rifle -- it was a stick with metal. That's all a rifle is to me up to this day.

...

OW>Tell me this: do you believe that your husband had nothing to do with the killing -- or -- do you believe . . .

MOP>Absolutely nothing.

...

OW>You believed what you were told then. Why do you no longer believe?

MOP>I started getting evidence that supported, you know, just the factual things -- the witnesses -- why did they say it? Did the documents exist? So, by the time that I gave an interview on the 25th anniversary, I had enough confidence in (the) documentation. Lee Harvey Oswald is not guilty -- and I thought that in good America there are journalists and people who will come and work it. Now it's 33 years after that and we will go back and work on that and now it will say "alleged" assassin. So 25 years after (the) assassination, I knew he was not guilty, but I knew you needed more information. So I started getting some more because I know the answers, but how can I prove it to you, (so) that you could touch it, smell it and whatever.

...

OW>So, you're saying, for 20 years you lived and believed that he WAS the assassin?

MOP>Yes and I did not know why the people made such a big, uh, just to write the books or make a big story out of nothing so when I started digging in -- I have been lied to.

OW>You believe the Warren Commission lied to us?

MOP>(The) conclusion? Yes, because the answers of Lee's innocence -- guess where I found it?

OW>Where?

MOP>In the Warren Commission Report, in the testimony. So every one of you, it's all in the documentation A lot of things admitted. So I learned . . .

OW>Are you saying that the Warren Commission Report says he's innocent?

MOP>No, I said I . . . the Warren Commission lied about their conclusion.

OW>OK

MOP>. . . which is the report. And then comes the 26 volumes of the testimony, of the evidence, which does not support their conclusion -- only by omission. Another thing . . .

OW>Do you think he was involved in some way?

MOP>I'll tell you in a second. I did not know that (the) Warren Commission had, not the Attorney General, but someone under him -- Katzenbach -- it was his memo, not ordering, but telling (the) Warren Commission that they must find Lee Harvey Oswald guilty. You don't conduct (an) investigation with presumptions.

OW>. . . that you must find him guilty

MOP>. . . so, when you read this, you can see how carefully they sifted only to get the thing to prove one thing.

OW>. . . to prove the theory that one man did it alone.

MOP>Yes, and the witnesses or anybody who said differently or discarded and put away -- not the photographs, not the testimony -- nothing there.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

Would you please quote your source....Soviet viewers TV 11/25/63. I have never heard of this !

Charlie Black

Sure, Charlie, with pleasure.

Film of the actual shooting of JFK shown on Soviet TV on evening of 25 November 1963, as recorded in Foreign Office files:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/worldreaction.html

As noted in TASS despatch of same day:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_pe...lmson%20TV.html

The appearance of the same film was also noted in contemporaneous State Department records, but I’ve lost/can’t find my notes for that.

A distinctly Mockingbirdish attempt to muddy the waters of what exactly Soviet viewers saw is to be found in a brief AP despatch published in US newspapers on 26 November. Here is the version which appeared in The Dallas Morning News. Note how film of the actual shooting is transformed into the somehat more nebulous assassination “documentary”:

“Russians View Films of Slaying” DMN, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, section 4, p.3:

Moscow (AP) – Millions of Russians Monday watched a documentary of the assassination of President Kennedy and the fatal shooting of the man accused as his assassin.

The documentary included the President’s last speech at Houston, his motorcade through Dallas and interview with a man who saw the bullet strike Kennedy.

It would seem logical, but by no means certain, that the film seen by Soviet TV viewers on the evening of 25 November also made an appearance on a few selected US TV stations the following day.

Rick Freedman, “Pictures of Assassination Fall to Amateurs on Street,” Editor & Publisher, November 30, 1963, p.67:

“By Tuesday [26 November 1963 – PR], numerous pictures, both still and movie, were being offered to news media. At least one television station was besieged with protests after it had shown scenes of the President’s motorcade at the moment of the shooting. Many viewers considered them to be gruesome.”

It remains a curious fact that there is, as matters stand, more evidence for the Z-film being in distribution with US TV stations on 26 November than there is for the anti-alterationist claim that it was the Muchmore film which was shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on the afternoon of the same day. I have only been able to find only one such newspaper report – see below, the paragraph in bold – yet this is one more than I have so far been able to locate for the alleged debut of Muchmore:

AP, "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3:

Dallas, Tex.-AP - A strip of color movie film graphically depicting the assassination of President Kennedy was made by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8 millimeter camera.

Several persons in Dallas who have seen the film, which lasts about 15 seconds, say it clearly shows how the president was hit in the head with shattering force by the second of two bullets fired by the assassin.

Life magazine reportedly purchased still picture rights to the material for about $40,000.

("The film also was being distributed by United Press International Newsfilms to subscribing stations. WITI-TV in Milwaukee is a subscriber, but will reserve judgment on whether to show the film until after its officials have viewed it.")

This is what the film by Abe Zapruder is reported to show:

First the presidential limousine is coming toward the camera. As it comes abreast of the photographer, Mr. Kennedy is hit by the first bullet, apparently in the neck. He turns toward his wife Jacqueline, seated at his left, and she quickly begins to put her hands around his head.

At the same time, Texas Gov. John Connally, riding directly in front of the president, turns around to see what has happened.

Then Mr. Kennedy is hit on the upper right side of the back of his head with violent force. His head goes forward and then snaps back, and he slumps down on the seat.

At this time, Gov. Connolly is wounded and drops forward on his seat.

Mrs. Kennedy then jumps up and crawls across the back deck of the limousine, apparently seeking the aid of a secret service man who has been trotting behind the slowly moving vehicle. He jumps onto the car and shoves Mrs. Kennedy back into the seat. Then he orders the driver to speed to the hospital where the president died.

The elapsed time from the moment when Mr. Kennedy is first struck until the car disappears in an underpass is about five seconds."

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...