Film footage comparison & film tampering...

[Steve Howsley]

Huh?

I think he means Oswald was aiming at the head therefore two misses.

[Bill Chapman]

I think he means Oswald was aiming at the head therefore two misses.

Don't forget he missed the first shot by a good margin, not-to-mention his Walker miss at shorter range. Given those failures, one could posit that Oswald may have decided to aim center-mass on the twofer. He did indeed land one 2" from the spine, and about center on the vertical plane (reasonably equidistant between the top of the head and the backrest.

If 'bang-bang' is true, it seems he would have no time to aim precisely... just point-and-shoot and hope to get lucky. (The HSCA tests revealed that the rifle could be fired in 1.67 seconds, but most (if not all.. I don't recall) of the shots missed, only the first could be aimed precisely, and the second one could only be pointed.)

[Steve Howsley]

Don't forget he missed the first shot by a good margin, not-to-mention his Walker miss at shorter range. Given those failures, one could posit that Oswald may have decided to aim center-mass on the twofer.

Seems reasonable

[Michael Walton]

I guess no one here got my sarcasm regarding Oswald's shooting skills. Next time I'll put this:

/s/

To show I was being totally sarcastic about his "sharpshooting skills."

[Bill Chapman]

I guess no one here got my sarcasm regarding Oswald's shooting skills. Next time I'll put this:

/s/

To show I was being totally sarcastic about his "sharpshooting skills."

Are you addressing me. If so, then I already recognize that no CT thinks Oswald's shooting skills would be up to the task.

Again I ask, since Oswald was apparently a lousy shot, with a lousy weapon... would you seat yourself in JFK's position and let an Oswald-quality shooter fire at you, or not?

[Jerry Freeman]

Are you addressing me. If so, then I already recognize that no CT thinks Oswald's shooting skills would be up to the task.

Given the facts, no sane person would think Oswald's shooting skills were up to that task.

Again I ask, since Oswald was apparently a lousy shot, with a lousy weapon... would you seat yourself in JFK's position and let an Oswald-quality shooter fire at you, or not?

Typical silliness from the Champmeister.

[Allan Fritzke]

There was and is nothing wrong with the films.  Each frame of an 8mm film is the size of a pinky nail.  It's going to capture about as much as is to be expected, which is not much compared to 35mm and on up.

Nix was a blue-collar worker who knew absolutely nothing about film - he simply was there that day to capture the president going by, just like he was there at his house the week before capturing his family at a party.  The same with Zapruder and Muchmore. Nix - and the rest of them - wouldn't have the film background to make such a profound statement as "...the film looked different."

Keep in mind, too, that this was *film* - a very organic way of capturing motion. If the original looked one way and a copy of it looked different, it's to be expected.  There was nothing sinister about it.

As I've said ad nauseum numerous times, the films were NOT tampered with. The Z film actually proves that there was a conspiracy - there is no way in hell anyone could have pulled off the sharpshooting feat that Oswald was accused of doing.  The Nix film merely confirms the Zapruder film, that neither was tampered with in any way as seen in this excellent sync of the two films.

This comparison is repeatedly ignored over and over and over again as "big deal."  It actually IS a big deal and debunks so much BS I've read about elsewhere about the films being tampered with, about frames being removed, about the Z film being shot at 18 FPS then changed mid-sequence to 48 FPS, then 67% of the frames removed. It's all ridiculous.

Well the question arises when so many people say the motorcade momentarily halted and you can't see that in the Zapruder Film.  You also note that Clint Hill is able to jump off one car and run up to the other, certainly not at 10-12 mph!  Walking speed perhaps!

The second glaring question remains with autopsy photos and a lack of what you don't see on a morgue table.  If you don't think something happened in a frame like Z337, how did the head magically reappear again nice and neat on the morgue table?    He doesn't have a head shown in that frame!  it looks like a nice vertical cut across it.  You can see Jacqueline's shoulder and blouse below in that frame!


Now, compare that to the autopsy morgue photo, yes, the front of the head is all there!  No evidence of a rearward bullet coming out at front!  No evidence of a rearward thrust of his body as shown in the Zapruder film.   Nice neat photo.
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=topn&cat=0&pos=10
(Sorry can't display the image founder here, how to upload this image?)
It is little wonder during the funeral, Jacqueline remarked:  "That is not Jack!"