How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?

[Bill Chapman]

Bill's Response to my offered explanation:

Kennedy's hand and head movement is extremely meaningful if he is reacting to something he saw at the front of the limousine

LOL

Same goes for the rest of your post

Seek help


I was counting on you to enlighten me - "Seek help from you"!!

So Bill ..... you can start by giving your opinion as to why no one notes that rather large head and arm movement in any reports!    Why there is no splatter on Jacqueline's face?  I guess you answered that one by saying it was on the RH side of the face so the spray was directed only to his side and up  and that is  "shattering type" injury was in a direction in every other direction than on Jacqueline's face.   If anything the wind blew it in the direction of the grassy knoll I guess!   The mist floated in that  direction only - even though others all over the car reported something different!  No testimony from Jacqueline herself.    Witnesses more reliable than the picture evidence presented as it doesn't match their scripts would be your suggestion I could only assume!  The visual image is very much at odds with testimonial evidence from those closes to the scene!

I guess you just classify the "Kennedy move" as an involuntary movement do to a bullet strike from behind - must be nerves?  It was a "knee jerk reaction" against the force propelling him forwards from the bullet's impact!  Who wouldn't push back against when you are missing your head as shown in frame Z335!  (Even though a fully present face was seen again after the mist subsided.  The face was present until Z329!)
 
Did you even look at the frames Z313/314 ,Z322, Z329/330, Z335 and Z347 or are you just talking through your hat?  Your attempt at a reply is to knock down the writer rather than refute the evidence.    Witnesses more reliable than film I would have to assume is your statement of facts?    You are obviously making a rhetorical statement because you don't have any worthwhile rebuttal or answer and are only playing the devil's advocate!

Post something worthwhile:   - a rebuttal would have been nice rather than posting for the sake of posting!    Of the 454 posts you have made this year,  How many posts have you offered as solutions?    "Any statement that is intended to not have any feedback, output, or response is known as a rhetorical statement and useless.     A good starting point for a LNer!    This is exactly what you did here!   No solution is offered except to suggest that it is a wildly outlandish cockamanie statement!    Put some facts behind your dismissal of the film's evidence and its tampering please!   Paint us a coherent picture of this part of the film's scene and interpret it - I beg you!  Give us the whole story!  "You might even want to include the driver's 1/18 of a second neck turn and the white marker in the grass!  How was that all possible if not tampered with?

Here are the visual cues from the images that I would like to see you include in your story line!    It would be good to include,   lack of spray on Jacqueline's face 12 inches away from an explosive bullet,  large head and arm movement of JFK,  Clint Hill quickly moving forward in a ducking motion at same instant,  glass shatter seen in light and the front of head totally missing in Z335.  Include a rendition of a wipe out of a face in lightbox  Z347.          Give it a whirl, as I need a coherent rebuttal statement so I can adjust my statement of logic of what took place in those 3 or 4 seconds of Zapruder's film.     Give more than a rhetorical statement!   We can reach synergy - unfortunately that doesn't seem to be your goal to find a mutually agreeable solution based on presented facts in photo images!

I meant seek help of a psychological nature. You are batshit crazy, son. Possibly an Alex Jones fan?

In any case, we have matter that was blown forward and upward as seen in the Zapruder film, Nix film, Muchmore film, and Bronson films.

We have matter blown forward into the front seat as observed by Roy Kellerman. (2H78)

We have matter blown forward onto the back of William R. Greer. Fred Newcomb interview with William R. Greer, cited in Murder From Within, p.139)

We have matter blown forward onto Governor Connally. (4H133), and Mrs. Connally.(4H147)

We have matter blown forward onto the inside surface of the limousine windshield.

We have "Blood, tissue, or bone frag. scattered over interior of car and on the hood and on visors (both sides of rt visor)" (Notes of FBI Agent Robert Frazier, 11/23/63, 1:30AM), Clay Shaw trial testimony of Robert Frazier.

We have matter that was blown to the right and right front. (Zapruder film frame Z-313, William Newman and Abraham Zapruder interview, 11/22/63, WFAA TV)

In fact, blood and brain matter was blown every which way including some of what you said.

The Gore in Dealey Plaza
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm

[Allan Fritzke]

I meant seek help of a psychological nature. You are batshit crazy, son. Possibly an Alex Jones fan?

In any case, we have matter that was blown forward and upward as seen in the Zapruder film, Nix film, Muchmore film, and Bronson films.

We have matter blown forward into the front seat as observed by Roy Kellerman. (2H78)

We have matter blown forward onto the back of William R. Greer. Fred Newcomb interview with William R. Greer, cited in Murder From Within, p.139)

We have matter blown forward onto Governor Connally. (4H133), and Mrs. Connally.(4H147)

We have matter blown forward onto the inside surface of the limousine windshield.

We have "Blood, tissue, or bone frag. scattered over interior of car and on the hood and on visors (both sides of rt visor)" (Notes of FBI Agent Robert Frazier, 11/23/63, 1:30AM), Clay Shaw trial testimony of Robert Frazier.

We have matter that was blown to the right and right front. (Zapruder film frame Z-313, William Newman and Abraham Zapruder interview, 11/22/63, WFAA TV)

In fact, blood and brain matter was blown every which way including some of what you said.

The Gore in Dealey Plaza
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm

So tell me again who is batshit crazy?   Everyone in the car got hit with debris except Jacqueline Kennedy whose face was 6 to 12 inches away from him, sitting slightly to the front of his position and facing directly toward him according to Z312/313/314?   Policeman on LHS rear was also hit so hard with debris that "he thought he was struck by a bullet"!    I seem to see that you are missing that witness in your "hellbound" argument to prove that the debris field was only on the RHS of car and to the front!   Although you did mention Mrs. Connally!  I guess you are continuing to avoid answering my post as it is beyond your reasoning power to try and tie it all together for a logical argument.   Really the only reason she is kept clean is because the bullets flew front to back!  You could also have maybe voiced an argument that there was a strong wind from hell blowing that day!

You seem to think the answer to what I asked you lies with saying everyone else got hit with brain matter in the car front and right - except Jacqueline because she was to the left.  Look at her closely in each frame and see that she was no more or less concerned with JFK up until about Z329. She  remained "unblinded" by debris and continued to look after her husband in the same manner throughout that sequence.  In other words, she was unreactive to the misty cloud formed inches from her face (Z313) if you want to believe what you have saw in that frame!     

Who answers visual presented evidence with scripted witness statements?  I guess you do as you don't have access to the "still" seeing the heavy mist over Jacqueline in Z313!   You can hardly see her in the picture for mist!  You are a true LNer that uses rhetorical statements, avoids answering the difficult questions and the visual imagery laid out before you .  As a true LNer with no answers other than to call people batshit crazy!    "Witnesses are only to be trusted and way more reliable in your opinion than photographic evidence!"

As a furtherance of that argument, even President Bill Clinton issued statements denying his sexual misconduct with Lewinski in the oval office in front of cameras rolling.   Did he lie?  She was paid off when semen stains on her dress were brought in as evidence.  He was impeached but never removed!   I guess it would be safe to say witnesses or the President for that matter will say what they have to in order to protect themselves for a number of reasons - even under oath.   They may be under pressure to protect their organization, their job and reputation,  or even may be offered some money.    Being under oath doesn't mean you are going to die if you tell a lie.  You have to believe in God first and that he will strike you down for telling one!

Pictures don't lie, witnesses can and do if their skin is involved and there is money involved - Stormy Daniel's as an example!   She was paid off and admitted it.  We could only hope that FBI, CIA and Secret Service never have lied to the American people and never will.   That is a very noble thought on your part!   These people are always chosen for their moral scruples, integrity and ability to always tell the truth under oath no matter what and in all circumstances!   They have been hand chosen for the job and are the "incorruptibles" -  model citizens always!

 Well....then there is modern day Comey, Mccabe, Strzok, Paige, Mueller and maybe Rosenstein to name a few.   Certainly don't think there is anything new under the sun and what goes on now has gone on in the past even in  the era with J.Edgar Hoover at the helm for 48 years of service.    Having a fired  Allen Dulles appointed to the Warren Commission could be likened in a modern day setting to having someone like James Comey on a Commission in an ensuing investigation of a Donald Trump affair.  I don't think there would be any love lost there either!

Back to your collaboration of evidence of the various films.  You suggest that the other films Bronson, Nix and Muchmore Film "all show matter being blown forward and upward".   I would have to call you on that one!   That is pretty wishful thinking on your part as none show anything close or similar to what the Zapruder Film Shows with a plume in Z313 extending 6 feet above the car!   Then again only the Zapruder Film was used as evidence in the trial.    I think I can call you batshit crazy as well for figuring you have an irrefutable argument in that consensus of those films lol!   You better go see a psychiatrist for help yourself!

[Bill Chapman]

So tell me again who is batshit crazy?   Everyone in the car got hit with debris except Jacqueline Kennedy whose face was 6 to 12 inches away from him, sitting slightly to the front of his position and facing directly toward him according to Z312/313/314?   Policeman on LHS rear was also hit so hard with debris that "he thought he was struck by a bullet"!    I seem to see that you are missing that witness in your "hellbound" argument to prove that the debris field was only on the RHS of car and to the front!   Although you did mention Mrs. Connally!  I guess you are continuing to avoid answering my post as it is beyond your reasoning power to try and tie it all together for a logical argument.   Really the only reason she is kept clean is because the bullets flew front to back!  You could also have maybe voiced an argument that there was a strong wind from hell blowing that day!

You seem to think the answer to what I asked you lies with saying everyone else got hit with brain matter in the car front and right - except Jacqueline because she was to the left.  Look at her closely in each frame and see that she was no more or less concerned with JFK up until about Z329. She  remained "unblinded" by debris and continued to look after her husband in the same manner throughout that sequence.  In other words, she was unreactive to the misty cloud formed inches from her face (Z313) if you want to believe what you have saw in that frame!     

Who answers visual presented evidence with scripted witness statements?  I guess you do as you don't have access to the "still" seeing the heavy mist over Jacqueline in Z313!   You can hardly see her in the picture for mist!  You are a true LNer that uses rhetorical statements, avoids answering the difficult questions and the visual imagery laid out before you .  As a true LNer with no answers other than to call people batshit crazy!    "Witnesses are only to be trusted and way more reliable in your opinion than photographic evidence!"

As a furtherance of that argument, even President Bill Clinton issued statements denying his sexual misconduct with Lewinski in the oval office in front of cameras rolling.   Did he lie?  She was paid off when semen stains on her dress were brought in as evidence.  He was impeached but never removed!   I guess it would be safe to say witnesses or the President for that matter will say what they have to in order to protect themselves for a number of reasons - even under oath.   They may be under pressure to protect their organization, their job and reputation,  or even may be offered some money.    Being under oath doesn't mean you are going to die if you tell a lie.  You have to believe in God first and that he will strike you down for telling one!

Pictures don't lie, witnesses can and do if their skin is involved and there is money involved - Stormy Daniel's as an example!   She was paid off and admitted it.  We could only hope that FBI, CIA and Secret Service never have lied to the American people and never will.   That is a very noble thought on your part!   These people are always chosen for their moral scruples, integrity and ability to always tell the truth under oath no matter what and in all circumstances!   They have been hand chosen for the job and are the "incorruptibles" -  model citizens always!

 Well....then there is modern day Comey, Mccabe, Strzok, Paige, Mueller and maybe Rosenstein to name a few.   Certainly don't think there is anything new under the sun and what goes on now has gone on in the past even in  the era with J.Edgar Hoover at the helm for 48 years of service.    Having a fired  Allen Dulles appointed to the Warren Commission could be likened in a modern day setting to having someone like James Comey on a Commission in an ensuing investigation of a Donald Trump affair.  I don't think there would be any love lost there either!

Back to your collaboration of evidence of the various films.  You suggest that the other films Bronson, Nix and Muchmore Film "all show matter being blown forward and upward".   I would have to call you on that one!   That is pretty wishful thinking on your part as none show anything close or similar to what the Zapruder Film Shows with a plume in Z313 extending 6 feet above the car!   Then again only the Zapruder Film was used as evidence in the trial.    I think I can call you batshit crazy as well for figuring you have an irrefutable argument in that consensus of those films lol!   You better go see a psychiatrist for help yourself!

LOL

The statements I offered are cited...
Visit the link I provided.

[Royell Storing]

I meant seek help of a psychological nature. You are batshit crazy, son. Possibly an Alex Jones fan?

In any case, we have matter that was blown forward and upward as seen in the Zapruder film, Nix film, Muchmore film, and Bronson films.

We have matter blown forward into the front seat as observed by Roy Kellerman. (2H78)

We have matter blown forward onto the back of William R. Greer. Fred Newcomb interview with William R. Greer, cited in Murder From Within, p.139)

We have matter blown forward onto Governor Connally. (4H133), and Mrs. Connally.(4H147)

We have matter blown forward onto the inside surface of the limousine windshield.

We have "Blood, tissue, or bone frag. scattered over interior of car and on the hood and on visors (both sides of rt visor)" (Notes of FBI Agent Robert Frazier, 11/23/63, 1:30AM), Clay Shaw trial testimony of Robert Frazier.

We have matter that was blown to the right and right front. (Zapruder film frame Z-313, William Newman and Abraham Zapruder interview, 11/22/63, WFAA TV)

In fact, blood and brain matter was blown every which way including some of what you said.

The Gore in Dealey Plaza
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm

        Let's back the bus up here.  Where at Any Point are we seeing, "Matter that was Blown Forward and Upward" on the Bronson Film

[Bill Chapman]

        Let's back the bus up here.  Where at Any Point are we seeing, "Matter that was Blown Forward and Upward" on the Bronson Film

Back that chuckwagon up, Tex.
Are you expecting a tsunami of bloody gore?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

   And what would be the explanation for Motorcycle Officer Hargis riding closely on the LEFT Rear of the JFK Limo getting hit so hard with blood and brain matter that he thought he had been hit with a bullet?

Hargis said he "rode" "run through" the material as it came down.

Hargis:  "We were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it."

He also said this: "If he'd [JFK] got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side. "

He saw no exit hole in the back of the head; all he saw was a "splash" coming out of the other side, i.e., right side.

The Connallys said they were hit by blood and brain; Kellerman said he was hit by the blood/brain/matter; Greer said he was also hit. Blood and brain matter were reportedly found all on the interior of the limo, on the hood - that is, in FRONT of where JFK was seated.

Question: If the exit was in the back of the head how did this material/matter land in front of where JFK was? On the hood, the interior et cetera?

Hargis source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm

[Matt Grantham]

Frangible bullet Or I assume there is some resistance from the skull which could send some material backwards from the direction of the shot. Also if Greer was breaking material would move forward relative to the position of the car

  I assume the important thing from Hargis from your perspective is that he did not see an exit wound in the back of the head