The Shifting Single-Bullet Theory--It Always "Works" No Matter What

[Michael T. Griffith]

I already answered most of this in your other thread, please keep up. But I'll repeat it here just to rub it in.

No, you did not. Your idea of "answer" to throw up a bunch of flim-flam and smoke and posturing, and the few times you have tried to actually address a problem, you have blundered badly.

As for Brehm's son, you've been told and even shown the Zapruder sequence in real time, proving that your self serving opinion is worthless.

LOL! The sequence "in real time" has Brehm Jr. coming from behind his dad, then coming virtually parallel with him, and then standing calmly clapping in, by your admission, no more than 0.61 seconds. I guess you just can't wrap your mind around the fact that people can go watch the Zapruder film in real time and in slow motion and see all these things for themselves.

Again, if there's nothing unnaturally rapid about Brehm Jr.'s movement, you should easily be able to duplicate them in a reenactment. Do and record a reenactment, and duplicate those movements in 0.61 seconds, even with your stand-in already starting to step out when you start the timer, and post the video. That's all you gotta do.

For a start, your assumption that the frames in question begin with a stationary boy are already proven wrong because his extended leg is in the first inconvenient frame that you purposely omitted, so why do you persist with the lies?

Uh, I already answered this argument. How many times have I already told you that, yes, go ahead and assume that Brehm Jr. was already moving in Z277. That really doesn't help your case. I mean, never mind that your evidence that he's already moving in Z277 is questionable, as I've noted. But, again, for the fifth or sixth time, go ahead and assume that he's moving in Z277, because the movement is still unnaturally and impossibly fast even with this assumption.

As for the movement of Brehm's son, open your eyes and see the light.

Uh-huh. See above.

WOW, stop with the lies, you were the one who couldn't make a physical distinction between "stop" and slow", I simply showed and described the slowdown, which is obvious.

Oh, it's obvious?! Really?! This is more of your clown material. I would note that I already responded to this nonsense with several paragraphs of points and observations in previous replies.

Again, if your phony slowdown is so obvious, why did Luis Alvarez report that the only slowdown he could detect was the split-second slowdown from Z295-304, a slowdown that nobody had ever noticed before, a slowdown that is imperceptible when you view the film at normal speed, and a slowdown that does not even remotely resemble the stop or marked slowdown described by dozens of witnesses from all over the plaza?

Incredibly, you're still lying about my point regarding "stopped or markedly slowed" and "a stop and a rapid slowdown." You keep pretending that I've failed to distinguish "between stop and slow," when anyone who understands English can see that you're lying about this.

OMG, another massive Griffith Blunder, in the following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.

And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.

Just how juvenile and ridiculous can you get? Are you so clueless that you don't understand that there is a huge difference between seeing the individual frames published in a magazine or a report and watching the film itself? I mean, how old are you? Seriously, you act and argue like a teenager.

I mean, duh, yes, we all know that the individual frames were published by the WC and by LIFE magazine. Gee, no kidding!

Does your mom know you're using her Internet service?

The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.

Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.

Good luck refuting any of this but I know from past experience that you can't, so you will try and find my missing apostrophe and blab about some "scholar" that is commenting on a subject that is way beyond his/her level of expertise. Yawn!

More of your repetition of blah, blah, blah based on your ignorance of the evidence and on your refusal to read any of the scholarly research on the evidence of Zapruder film alteration. Every one of these arguments has been addressed in the scholarly pro-alteration literature. The problem is that you haven't read any of it.

Tell me, which anti-alteration author has answered the research of Weatherly, Ryan, Costella, Schaeffer, Mantik, etc.? How about you cite me some of those rebuttals, hey?

And, clearly, you haven't read a single scholarly pro-alteration response to the anti-alteration arguments, because you keep repeating some of them and acting like you're presenting unanswered arguments.

Btw you keep saying "alteration" and now you have introduced "CIA's Hawkeyeworks photographic laboratory in New York" and repeated claims from "two CIA photo technicians at NPIC" and even referred to Costella who claims huge changes to the images, which by definition means that the films were not merely edited but manipulated and faked, . . .

More of your ducking and dodging and bobbing and weaving. You pull this stunt over and over. Rather than deal with the established fact that the Zapruder film was secretly diverted to two CIA photographic labs, you make phony strawman arguments that are based on your ideological refusal to take alteration seriously.

Notice that not one syllable of all of your hot air here explains why those detours occurred and why they were suppressed from the official record of the film's chain of custody.

And, just on a point of logic, not to mention basic English, a film that has major changes made to many of its images is still an altered film. A "fake" film is one that has been made up and is in no way based on the original. If someone got a bunch of actors and lookalike limos and cars and filmed a fake shooting in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder's position, that would be a "fake" Zapruder film.

yet you cowardly never explicitly say how and what was altered, please explain?

HUH??  Just HUH?? LOL! Do you suffer from amnesia? Or, do you just really hope that no one has read our previous exchanges on the subject and also my article on Zapruder film alteration?? Holy smokes. In my article, I discuss several things that were altered: the limo's movement (the stop/marked slowdown was removed), Brehm Jr.'s movements, Summers' foreleg movements, Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations on the limo's trunk, JFK's backward motion, the impossible speed of the disappearance of the explosive spray, etc., etc.

It's all well and good to keep adding all these contradicting "scholars" whose opinions are directly at odds with each other and your claims of simple editing but let's be honest here, all you are doing is a pathetic attempt to delay the inevitable time, when you have to specifically describe scientifically exactly how and what has been changed. JohnM

Nonsense. Those scholars are not "contradicting" and their opinions are not "directly at odds with each other." You are both lying and bluffing at the same time. I can tell by the arguments you're making that your research has been very one-sided and that you have read very little of the scholarly research that supports alteration.

I see you did another post trying to explain away the obvious conflict between the Nix and Zapruder films regarding Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations. You've done nothing but repeat your previous arguments, and your own graphics prove that the camera angles were not very different.

I just had to laugh out loud when you asked me if I realized that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of Dealey Plaza! This qualifies you for the Captain Duh award, and the Captain Meaningless Argument award. Uh, yes, I've told you at least twice now that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of the limo. What don't you understand about this?

And, again, your own graphics show that the camera angles were not that different, certainly not enough to account for the drastic differences in Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.

[John Mytton]

No, you did not. Your idea of "answer" to throw up a bunch of flim-flam and smoke and posturing, and the few times you have tried to actually address a problem, you have blundered badly.

LOL! The sequence "in real time" has Brehm Jr. coming from behind his dad, then coming virtually parallel with him, and then standing calmly clapping in, by your admission, no more than 0.61 seconds. I guess you just can't wrap your mind around the fact that people can go watch the Zapruder film in real time and in slow motion and see all these things for themselves.

Again, if there's nothing unnaturally rapid about Brehm Jr.'s movement, you should easily be able to duplicate them in a reenactment. Do and record a reenactment, and duplicate those movements in 0.61 seconds, even with your stand-in already starting to step out when you start the timer, and post the video. That's all you gotta do.

Uh, I already answered this argument. How many times have I already told you that, yes, go ahead and assume that Brehm Jr. was already moving in Z277. That really doesn't help your case. I mean, never mind that your evidence that he's already moving in Z277 is questionable, as I've noted. But, again, for the fifth or sixth time, go ahead and assume that he's moving in Z277, because the movement is still unnaturally and impossibly fast even with this assumption.

Uh-huh. See above.

Oh, it's obvious?! Really?! This is more of your clown material. I would note that I already responded to this nonsense with several paragraphs of points and observations in previous replies.

Again, if your phony slowdown is so obvious, why did Luis Alvarez report that the only slowdown he could detect was the split-second slowdown from Z295-304, a slowdown that nobody had ever noticed before, a slowdown that is imperceptible when you view the film at normal speed, and a slowdown that does not even remotely resemble the stop or marked slowdown described by dozens of witnesses from all over the plaza?

Incredibly, you're still lying about my point regarding "stopped or markedly slowed" and "a stop and a rapid slowdown." You keep pretending that I've failed to distinguish "between stop and slow," when anyone who understands English can see that you're lying about this.

Just how juvenile and ridiculous can you get? Are you so clueless that you don't understand that there is a huge difference between seeing the individual frames published in a magazine or a report and watching the film itself? I mean, how old are you? Seriously, you act and argue like a teenager.

I mean, duh, yes, we all know that the individual frames were published by the WC and by LIFE magazine. Gee, no kidding!

Does your mom know you're using her Internet service?

More of your repetition of blah, blah, blah based on your ignorance of the evidence and on your refusal to read any of the scholarly research on the evidence of Zapruder film alteration. Every one of these arguments has been addressed in the scholarly pro-alteration literature. The problem is that you haven't read any of it.

Tell me, which anti-alteration author has answered the research of Weatherly, Ryan, Costella, Schaeffer, Mantik, etc.? How about you cite me some of those rebuttals, hey?

And, clearly, you haven't read a single scholarly pro-alteration response to the anti-alteration arguments, because you keep repeating some of them and acting like you're presenting unanswered arguments.

More of your ducking and dodging and bobbing and weaving. You pull this stunt over and over. Rather than deal with the established fact that the Zapruder film was secretly diverted to two CIA photographic labs, you make phony strawman arguments that are based on your ideological refusal to take alteration seriously.

Notice that not one syllable of all of your hot air here explains why those detours occurred and why they were suppressed from the official record of the film's chain of custody.

And, just on a point of logic, not to mention basic English, a film that has major changes made to many of its images is still an altered film. A "fake" film is one that has been made up and is in no way based on the original. If someone got a bunch of actors and lookalike limos and cars and filmed a fake shooting in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder's position, that would be a "fake" Zapruder film.

HUH??  Just HUH?? LOL! Do you suffer from amnesia? Or, do you just really hope that no one has read our previous exchanges on the subject and also my article on Zapruder film alteration?? Holy smokes. In my article, I discuss several things that were altered: the limo's movement (the stop/marked slowdown was removed), Brehm Jr.'s movements, Summers' foreleg movements, Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations on the limo's trunk, JFK's backward motion, the impossible speed of the disappearance of the explosive spray, etc., etc.

Nonsense. Those scholars are not "contradicting" and their opinions are not "directly at odds with each other." You are both lying and bluffing at the same time. I can tell by the arguments you're making that your research has been very one-sided and that you have read very little of the scholarly research that supports alteration.

I see you did another post trying to explain away the obvious conflict between the Nix and Zapruder films regarding Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations. You've done nothing but repeat your previous arguments, and your own graphics prove that the camera angles were not very different.

I just had to laugh out loud when you asked me if I realized that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of Dealey Plaza! This qualifies you for the Captain Duh award, and the Captain Meaningless Argument award. Uh, yes, I've told you at least twice now that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of the limo. What don't you understand about this?

And, again, your own graphics show that the POV/camera angles were not that different, certainly not enough to account for the drastic differences in Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.

And here we go again, no actual evidence, no refutation of my images, just the same old tired claims that what you see, in your opinion proves the Zapruder has been altered. Yawn!
For goodness sakes, for once in your life prove at least one of your stupid claims, and for bonus points provide some evidence of exactly how this alteration was accomplished and no, saying the film went to some secret CIA lab is not proof, and for that matter, the decades old recollections of CIA agent's rusty old memories isn't proof either.
Also, the Brehm claim is your claim and it's absolutely absurd for you, to ask me, to provide a recreation, so how about you show us your timed reenactment that you say you did and we can start from there?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

I just had to laugh out loud when you asked me if I realized that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of Dealey Plaza! This qualifies you for the Captain Duh award, and the Captain Meaningless Argument award. Uh, yes, I've told you at least twice now that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of the limo. What don't you understand about this?

And, again, your own graphics show that the POV/camera angles were not that different, certainly not enough to account for the drastic differences in Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.

.

Hilarious! The reason I was seeking further clarification is that even though you claim to realise that the Zapruder and Nix were filmed from diametrically opposed locations,  you then go on to repeatedly assert that their POV were not that different? How the heck did you come to that conclusion? And do you know what POV actually means??
Some of the delusional crap that you bonkers CT believers come up with is absolute comedy gold.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

This thread is a good example of the kind of reaching and straining and absurdity you get when you have a group of people who are chained down by a vacuous, discredited theory, i.e., the theory that there was only one gunman and that he fired only three shots.

Apparently in response to the Knott Lab 3D laser analysis that proves the SBT is impossible, we have one person making the astounding claim that the SBT is not necessary for the lone-gunman theory. Of course, in point of fact, we have known for many years from a host of released memos, among other sources, that WC staffers, especially Specter, concocted the theory because they realized the Zapruder film proved that JFK and Connally were hit too soon in succession for one gunman to have fired both non-fatal shots. 

Let us start with WC staffer Melvin Eisenberg’s 4/22/64 memorandum for record in which he admitted that JFK has clearly been hit by Z224-225 because of the movement of his hands:

The President had been definitely hit by frames 224-225, when he emerges from behind a sign with his hands clutching his throat. (p. 1)

It should be noted that Eisenberg was summarizing the views and findings from a conference held with a number of experts to determine from the Zapruder frames when the first and second bullets struck (i.e., the first and second bullets that the Commission was willing to acknowledge). The experts included the three autopsy doctors, Dr. F.W. Light, Dr. Alfred Olivier, FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt, and Eisenberg and Specter, among others.

The consensus from the conference of experts, said Eisenberg, was that JFK’s Z224-225 reaction may have begun as early as Z199 because of some apparent “jerkiness in his movement” at that point, but that “with a higher degree of possibility” the reaction began at Z204-206 because “his right elbow appears to be raised to an artificially high position”:

(b) The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier point -- possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be raised to an artificially high position). (p. 1)

The HSCA PEP experts noted these exact same movements from Z200-206, only they noted them in more detail. These movements are part of the reason that the HSCA PEP determined that JFK was hit before Z190. This was and is a momentous finding because the alleged lone gunman’s view of JFK would have been obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166 until Z210, with only a split-second break in the foliage at Z186 (not enough time for the human brain to process and respond to visual data).

To everyone except brainwashed pro-WC robots, the fact that JFK is already clearly reacting in Z225, not to mention Z224, proves indisputably and self-evidently that he could not be reacting to a Z224 hit, that this reaction began many frames earlier and was in response to a wound that occurred many frames earlier.

So far, I have stressed JFK’s Z225 reaction, but he is also already reacting in Z224. When he reemerges partially into view from behind the freeway sign in Z224, his left forearm is bent inward, whereas it was resting casually at his side before Z200. Z225 makes it obvious that this is part of his action of bringing both of his forearms and hands toward his throat. So, obviously, his Z224 reaction could not be in response to a Z224 hit.
 
WC chief counsel J. Lee Rankin acknowledged in his 5/7/64 memo to J. Edgar Hoover that at least 41 frames would have had to elapse between the first and second shots (i.e., the WC’s posited first and second shots):

The FBI laboratory examination of the Zapruder camera establishes that it operates at a speed of 18-1/3 frames per second. Weapons experts have testified that the minimum time required to operate the assassination weapon is 2-1/4 [2.25] seconds.  It would appear, therefore, that a minimum of 41 frames would have to elapse between the first and second shots. (18-1/3 x 2-1/4). (p. 1)

Thus, if any WC apologists are willing to admit that the Knott Lab 3D laser analysis destroys the SBT (so far I’ve seen only one who’s willing to admit this), and if they are still wedded to the mythical Z224 hit on Connally, and if they are willing to admit that JFK must have been hit no later than Z190 (given his Z200-206 and Z224-225 reactions), then they must face the fact that their alleged lone gunman would have had no more than 34 frames, or 1.85 seconds, to fire two shots. If we assume the first hit occurred at Z186, the alleged single shooter would have had no more than 38 frames, or only 2.07 seconds, to fire two shots.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Hilarious! The reason I was seeking further clarification is that even though you claim to realise that the Zapruder and Nix were filmed from diametrically opposed locations,  you then go on to repeatedly assert that their POV were not that different? How the heck did you come to that conclusion? And do you know what POV actually means?? Some of the delusional crap that you bonkers CT believers come up with is absolute comedy gold.

I think you were seeking "further clarification" either to dishonestly posture and/or because you appear to have trouble with English and/or because you only skim over my replies and do not actually read them (even though you quote them). How many times have I said that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, while I noted that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sites of the car? I made this point in my previous reply to you (Reply #15), and I made it in my second-previous reply to you (Reply #11). Allow me to quote myself from Reply #11:

----------------------------------------------
Your attempt to deal with Jackie's and Hill's conflicting locations in the Zapruder film and the Nix film is a joke. You won't even admit what anyone with two working eyes can plainly see about the distance between Jackie's and Hill's heads alone in the two films. Your entire "explanation" is that the apparent differences in their positions in the films are just an optical illusion caused by the fact that the films were shot from different sides of the limo and from different angles, yet one of your own graphics proves that the camera angles are not drastically different.

The camera angles are key, not the fact that the cameras were on opposite sides of the limo. Two cameras filming from opposite sides of a car are going to capture the same information about the positions and locations of bodies on/in the car, as long as they're filming from angles that are not drastically different. Simple common sense should tell you this.
----------------------------------------------

Remember now? Got it? Are we clear now?

Your own graphic titled "Spatial Chart 4 Northern Half of Dealey Plaza" shows that the camera angles were quite similar. They were nowhere near different enough to create the optical illusion that you are absurdly suggesting, but this is the only explanation you have offered to explain the self-evident conflict between Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.

And here we go again, no actual evidence, no refutation of my images, just the same old tired claims that what you see, in your opinion proves the Zapruder has been altered. Yawn!

For goodness sakes, for once in your life prove at least one of your stupid claims, and for bonus points provide some evidence of exactly how this alteration was accomplished and no, saying the film went to some secret CIA lab is not proof, and for that matter, the decades old recollections of CIA agent's rusty old memories isn't proof either.

Translation: You have no answer for the indications of alteration that have been discussed by experts such as Ryan, Weatherly, Costella, Schaeffer, Mantik, and others, and so you're going to fall back on your tactic of issuing adamant summary pronouncements based on your ideological rejection of even the possibility of alteration.

I'm guessing you still have not bothered to read any of the research done by the above-mentioned experts, right? Right? Here's a link to Dr. David Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film titled "The Zapruder Film Controversy":

https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf

You'll notice he spends eight pages on the arguments for authenticity. Given your pitiful response to my article on alteration, I can only imagine the illogical and evasive gyrations you're going to provide if you comment on Dr. Mantik's research.

Also, the Brehm claim is your claim and it's absolutely absurd for you, to ask me, to provide a recreation, so how about you show us your timed reenactment that you say you did and we can start from there?

Oh! It's "absolutely absurd" of me to challenge you to do a reenactment to back up your claim that a young boy, or even an adult, could perform all of Brehm Jr.'s actions in only 0.61 seconds?! Do you have any idea how silly you look in saying this? Exactly what in the world is "absurd" about challenging you to back up your claim with a reenactment? Huh? You see, most people believe that reenactments can provide crucial evidence about disputed events. That's why police departments and other investigative bodies often conduct reenactments. That's why the WC conducted several reenactments.

Be honest: You don't want to do a timed and filmed reenactment because deep down you know there's no way your stand-in will be able to duplicate Brehm Jr.'s movements in just 0.61 seconds. We both know it.

I actually did film the reenactment that I did with my son Jacob when we lived in England in the 1990s, but I recorded it with a VHS camera, and the VHS tape did not survive being shipped back to the U.S. When we received our household goods after we moved back to the states, I sadly discovered that the movers had packed our VHS tapes in a flimsy cardboard box without using padding and that the VHS tape of the reenactment, along with many other VHS tapes in the box, was crushed and damaged beyond recovery.

[CORRECTED]I actually did film the reenactment that I did with my son Jacob when we lived in Georgia in 1998, but I recorded it with a VHS camera, and the VHS tape did not survive being shipped to Texas. When we received our household goods in Texas, I sadly discovered that the movers had packed our VHS tapes in a flimsy cardboard box without using padding and that the VHS tape of the reenactment, along with many other VHS tapes in the box, was crushed and damaged beyond recovery.

[After I posted this reply, I started getting the gnawing feeling that I had erred on when I did the reenactment and in what move the video got destroyed. The more I thought about it, the more I began to suspect that I'd done the reenactment when we lived in Georgia and that the tape got destroyed in our move from Georgia to Texas. For one thing, as I thought back about our move from England, I recalled that the British movers had been very careful with our stuff and had used a ton of wrapping paper to make sure nothing got broken. Anyway, after doing a little searching, I found the third edition of my Zapruder film alteration article and confirmed my suspicion that I did the reenactment with Jacob in 1998 and that the VHS tape got destroyed when our household goods were shipped from Georgia to Texas.]

[John Mytton]

I think you were seeking "further clarification" either to dishonestly posture and/or because you appear to have trouble with English and/or because you only skim over my replies and do not actually read them (even though you quote them). How many times have I said that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, while I noted that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sites of the car? I made this point in my previous reply to you (Reply #15), and I made it in my second-previous reply to you (Reply #11). Allow me to quote myself from Reply #11:

----------------------------------------------
Your attempt to deal with Jackie's and Hill's conflicting locations in the Zapruder film and the Nix film is a joke. You won't even admit what anyone with two working eyes can plainly see about the distance between Jackie's and Hill's heads alone in the two films. Your entire "explanation" is that the apparent differences in their positions in the films are just an optical illusion caused by the fact that the films were shot from different sides of the limo and from different angles, yet one of your own graphics proves that the camera angles are not drastically different.

The camera angles are key, not the fact that the cameras were on opposite sides of the limo. Two cameras filming from opposite sides of a car are going to capture the same information about the positions and locations of bodies on/in the car, as long as they're filming from angles that are not drastically different. Simple common sense should tell you this.
----------------------------------------------

Remember now? Got it? Are we clear now?

Your own graphic titled "Spatial Chart 4 Northern Half of Dealey Plaza" shows that the camera angles were quite similar. They were nowhere near different enough to create the optical illusion that you are absurdly suggesting, but this is the only explanation you have offered to explain the self-evident conflict between Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.

Translation: You have no answer for the indications of alteration that have been discussed by experts such as Ryan, Weatherly, Costella, Schaeffer, Mantik, and others, and so you're going to fall back on your tactic of issuing adamant summary pronouncements based on your ideological rejection of even the possibility of alteration.

I'm guessing you still have not bothered to read any of the research done by the above-mentioned experts, right? Right? Here's a link to Dr. David Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film titled "The Zapruder Film Controversy":

https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf

You'll notice he spends eight pages on the arguments for authenticity. Given your pitiful response to my article on alteration, I can only imagine the illogical and evasive gyrations you're going to provide if you comment on Dr. Mantik's research.

Oh! It's "absolutely absurd" of me to challenge you to do a reenactment to back up your claim that a young boy, or even an adult, could perform all of Brehm Jr.'s actions in only 0.61 seconds?! Do you have any idea how silly you look in saying this? Exactly what in the world is "absurd" about challenging you to back up your claim with a reenactment? Huh? You see, most people believe that reenactments can provide crucial evidence about disputed events. That's why police departments and other investigative bodies often conduct reenactments. That's why the WC conducted several reenactments.

Be honest: You don't want to do a timed and filmed reenactment because deep down you know there's no way your stand-in will be able to duplicate Brehm Jr.'s movements in just 0.61 seconds. We both know it.

I actually did film the reenactment that I did with my son Jacob when we lived in England in the 1990s, but I recorded it with a VHS camera, and the VHS tape did not survive being shipped back to the U.S. When we received our household goods after we moved back to the states, I sadly discovered that the movers had packed our VHS tapes in a flimsy cardboard box without using padding and that the VHS tape of the reenactment, along with many other VHS tapes in the box, was crushed and damaged beyond recovery.

This is getting tiring, you keep presenting the same endless wall of words of regurgitated garbage but I just couldn't let some of the idiocy in this laughable post go by without highlighting just how delusional you really are.
My responses are grounded in physics, science and perspective whereas your weak attempts of refutation are based on your opinions, biased observations and maintaining this unseen conspiracy just so you can move a few more books, I've seen this before with the likes of Jim DiEugenio, another clown who never met a conspiracy he didn't like, and just so he also could maintain the rage and sell just 1 more book or sell 1 more deceptive DVD. Pathetic!

1. I'll tackle this nonsense first, you say you moved and your VHS tapes which in my experience are virtually indestructible, were "crushed", Hahahaha, you can throw 1 of those solid bad boys against a wall and they will still function, did you also pack Big Ben and London Bridge on top of them and even then I doubt they would be "crushed beyond recovery"? What a Dildo!

2. I have never doubted the reasoning on doing an originally unfilmed re-enactment, I wholeheartedly endorse the Baker time trial and the confirmation that Oswald had ample time to arrive at the 2nd floor Lunchroom. But asking me to prove/disprove another 1 of your dreamed up fantasies goes beyond the pale, It's YOUR problem not mine and it's up to YOU to provide evidence, it's as simple as that! Besides since the event was filmed and I have supplied a stabilized GIF of what actually happened, therefore makes any further involvement from me to be redundant! It happened as said and looks perfectly normal.



3. I see you have doubled down on your "camera angles were quite similar", and even though I supplied a graphic which completely destroyed your bizarre observation, you keep repeating your stupidity? Am I secretly on Candid Camera or is this some sort of alien experiment on the the concept of gullibility?

Once again the angles are NOT even remotely similar and the change of perspective accounts for the varying distances between Clint and Jackie. This is basic Kindergarten perspective 101!







4. Your Zapruder PDF is total lunacy, and I disproved a number of your amateur observations, like Malcom Summers leg being splayed forward which is proved because his left shoe is covering his right ankle, again Basic Perspective 101.



I could go on and on and on refuting your amateur observations but everyone has their limit and I'm rapidly approaching mine, go ahead and believe what you want but in the centuries to come, the events in Dealey Plaza are already in the history books and these wacky theories of yours will soon be forgotten and true history will prevail, as it always does.
Btw, your often repeated defence of "2/3 of the Western World believes..." malarkey is based on random selective polls of people who basically don't know the evidence beyond a few nuggets of CT nonsense and when the evidence is revealed to a jury as in the TV trial of Oswald, the jury had no qualms in convicting Oswald, and that's the fact Jack! Just imagine a jury being exposed to your endless unproven ludicrous accusations, you'd be thrown out of Court on your ass and probably sent to a Psychiatric Asylum.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

I actually did film the reenactment that I did with my son Jacob when we lived in England in the 1990s, but I recorded it with a VHS camera, and the VHS tape did not survive being shipped back to the U.S. When we received our household goods after we moved back to the states, I sadly discovered that the movers had packed our VHS tapes in a flimsy cardboard box without using padding and that the VHS tape of the reenactment, along with many other VHS tapes in the box, was crushed and damaged beyond recovery.

CORRECTION: After I posted the above-quoted paragraph in my previous reply, I started getting the gnawing feeling that I had erred on when I did the reenactment and in what move the video got destroyed. The more I thought about it, the more I began to suspect that I'd done the reenactment when we lived in Georgia and that the tape got destroyed in our move from Georgia to Texas. For one thing, as I thought back about our move from England, I recalled that the British movers were very careful with our stuff and used a ton of wrapping paper to make sure nothing got broken. After doing a little searching, I found the third edition of my Zapruder film alteration article and confirmed my suspicion that I did the reenactment with Jacob in 1998 and that the VHS tape got destroyed when our household goods were shipped from Georgia to Texas.

I've edited the original reply by adding a correction notice and by striking out the incorrect statements about when the reenactment was done and when the VHS tape got destroyed.