Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Mitch Todd]

You guys say this about every item of evidence that you can't explain.

I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read any of the articles and videos that I've linked in previous replies.

Would you care to offer an explanation for the evidence that Weldon presents, for starters? No, of course not. When at least eight witnesses in three different locations independently confirm something, such corroboration is usually considered to be very strong evidence.

The lack of damage to the windshield in Altgens 6 has already been pretty thoroughly explained. Yourf OP fails completely at that point, and can't be resuscitated by anything Weldon presented.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The lack of damage to the windshield in Altgens 6 has already been pretty thoroughly explained. Yourf OP fails completely at that point, and can't be resuscitated by anything Weldon presented.

Another surreal denial that simply ignores contrary evidence.

So never mind that Weldon demonstrated with a huge enlargement of Altgens 6 that the photo shows windshield damage? Never mind that Waldon also demonstrated that some subsequent printed versions of Altgens 6 were altered to conceal the damage? I mean, he proves this for all to see in his 1999 presentation. Did you even bother to watch the video of the presentation?

And what about the windshield damage visible in some of the pre-Z256 frames of the Zapruder film in the MPI large-format version of the film? If you spend a small amount of money and buy the DVD of the MPI version and play it on a large HD flat screen TV, you can see the damage with your own eyes in at least a few of the pre-Z256 frames that Dr. Mantik discusses. We both know your theory of the shooting has no plausible explanation for that damage, which is why you won't admit its existence.

[John Corbett]

Another surreal denial that simply ignores contrary evidence.

The things you imagine are not evidence of anything except your overly imaginative mind.

So never mind that Weldon demonstrated with a huge enlargement of Altgens 6 that the photo shows windshield damage? Never mind that Waldon also demonstrated that some subsequent printed versions of Altgens 6 were altered to conceal the damage? I mean, he proves this for all to see in his 1999 presentation. Did you even bother to watch the video of the presentation?

Never mind that Weldon is as goofy as MTG.

And what about the windshield damage visible in some of the pre-Z256 frames of the Zapruder film in the MPI large-format version of the film? If you spend a small amount of money and buy the DVD of the MPI version and play it on a large HD flat screen TV, you can see the damage with your own eyes in at least a few of the pre-Z256 frames that Dr. Mantik discusses. We both know your theory of the shooting has no plausible explanation for that damage, which is why you won't admit its existence.

I didn't know Mantik had bought into the silly early windshield damage claim. That erodes his credibility even further if such a thing is possible.

[Royell Storing]

The things you imagine are not evidence of anything except your overly imaginative mind.
Never mind that Weldon is as goofy as MTG.
I didn't know Mantik had bought into the silly early windshield damage claim. That erodes his credibility even further if such a thing is possible.

   Technology is making things clear with respect to the JFK Assassination. Steve Barber just proved this with his thread detailing that JFK NEVER Clutched at his throat. The higher definition images on the Zapruder Film prove this. If there are now JFK Assassination Images of higher detail, we need to give these images our serious consideration.   

[John Corbett]

   Technology is making things clear with respect to the JFK Assassination. Steve Barber just proved this with his thread detailing that JFK NEVER Clutched at his throat.

I don't know anybody other than Nellie Connally who thought JFK clutched his throat. Why would anyone need technology to figure that out?

The higher definition images on the Zapruder Film prove this. If there are now JFK Assassination Images of higher detail, we need to give these images our serious consideration.

There's only so much modern technology can do to enhance the Z-film. It can enlarge it, sharpen the images, etc. but if the film didn't initially capture something, technology can't magically insert it with authenticity. There's a fine line between AI enhancements and AI alterations. AI has the capability of creating false versions of the Z-film. Things CTs have alleged for years are now possible with AI.

[Royell Storing]

I don't know anybody other than Nellie Connally who thought JFK clutched his throat. Why would anyone need technology to figure that out?
There's only so much modern technology can do to enhance the Z-film. It can enlarge it, sharpen the images, etc. but if the film didn't initially capture something, technology can't magically insert it with authenticity. There's a fine line between AI enhancements and AI alterations. AI has the capability of creating false versions of the Z-film. Things CTs have alleged for years are now possible with AI.

   What we see above is in line with, "If God had wanted Man to fly, he would have been born with wings". Primitive Thinking.

[John Corbett]

   What we see above is in line with, "If God had wanted Man to fly, he would have been born with wings". Primitive Thinking.

Zapruder's camera was a recording device. If it didn't record something in 1963, we can't just add something in 63 years later and still claim it is the Zapruder film. AI can't perform magic. It can create the illusion of magic.