JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: James Dahl on April 05, 2018, 07:05:33 PM
-
Having done video compositing in my lifetime I have noticed that the Zapruder film does have many indicators of heavy editing, where a longer film sequence was cut into a shorter sequence with the splice occurring when the car is behind the sign.
- The immobile background and foreground crowd who DO NOT MOVE (other footage shows the crowd doing normal crowd things, milling about, trying to see over each other, etc)
- The running fellow in the latter part of the video appears to be hand drawn in to add dynamism to the background
- There appear to be compositing errors around poles where the original background is partially visible
- The background appears to have been enlarged and are not to scale
-
Dino Brugioni says it was not the original he saw. He should know don't you think
-
This is the real question for me, why would they cut out the middle of the Zapruder film?
-
This is the real question for me, why would they cut out the middle of the Zapruder film?
Don't forget that at the beginning there is the Start/STOP/Start = A GAP in the Film. Sitzman said during her Tink Thompson interview for his "Six Seconds In Dallas", that their elevated position on the pedestal permitted them to see the JFK Limo/Motorcade coming down Houston St. and then turning onto Elm. There is No Legit reason for the GAP at the beginning of the Current Zapruder Film..
-
The only reason I can think of is the gap shows the parade being re-routed from Main Street (the intended route) to Elm Street (and directly below Oswald's position)
-
Isn't it a little odd that all the police motorcycles are ahead of the limousine at the begging of the Zapruder film and then behind when it restarts? My understanding is that Zapruder claimed he never stopped filming
-
Isn't it a little odd that all the police motorcycles are ahead of the limousine at the begging of the Zapruder film and then behind when it restarts? My understanding is that Zapruder claimed he never stopped filming
Jack White's deconstruction of the Zapruder film, calls "altered and parts are fabricated"
More detailed deconstruction and elaboration on the alterations, retiming and editing
Further analysis from Jack White
-
The only reason I can think of is the gap shows the parade being re-routed from Main Street (the intended route) to Elm Street (and directly below Oswald's position)
If Zapuder filmed the JFK Limo turning onto Elm St and then straightening out and heading down Elm St, (just as he did with the lead DPD motorcycle cops), this footage would have Also Included the Dal Tex Bld in the background. This building is often looked at as being the source of shot(s)
-
If Zapuder filmed the JFK Limo turning onto Elm St and then straightening out and heading down Elm St, (just as he did with the lead DPD motorcycle cops), this footage would have Also Included the Dal Tex Bld in the background. This building is often looked at as being the source of shot(s)
The 1998 laser analysis
Their ballistic analysis traced the FMJ through-and-through wound to Oswald in the Book Depository, but the headshot with an expanding round to Dal-Tex 2nd floor
-
Their ballistic analysis traced the FMJ through-and-through wound to Oswald in the Book Depository, but the headshot with an expanding round to Dal-Tex 2nd floor
That's an interesting trick. How would ballistics determine that it was Oswald?
-
That's an interesting trick. How would ballistics determine that it was Oswald?
It can't, only where the shot came from. "The Shooter in the 6th floor of the Book Depository" if you prefer other than Oswald
-
Dino Brugioni says it was not the original he saw. He should know don't you think
In my opinion, Brugioni did not see - and could not have seen -the original. The original was either still in Zapruder's safe or in Chicago (depending on when Brugioni saw his version). Zapruder sold the original and a first generation copy to Time/Life on Saturday morning, the day after the assassination. That original was then sent to the Time/Life offices in Chicago where they went to publishing stills/frames from it. The copy was sent to the office in New York. Two other first generation copies were given to the government on Friday, the day of the assassination.
So Brugioni likely either saw a copy that Zapruder gave the government or a copy of one of the two copies. But he couldn't, as I see it, have seen the original since it wasn't in the possession of the government. At least not during the time in question; which was, as I understand it, shortly after the assassination.
-
In my opinion, Brugioni did not - and could not have - see the original. The original was either still in Zapruder's safe or in Chicago (depending on when Brugioni saw his version). He sold the original and a first generation copy to Time/Life on Saturday morning. The original was then sent to the Time/Life offices in Chicago where they went to publishing stills/frames from it. Two first generation copies were given to the government on Friday, the day of the assassination.
So Brugioni likley either saw a copy or a copy of one of the copies. But he couldn't, as I see it, have seen the original since it wasn't in the possession of the government.
The Point is, NPIC Image Expert Dino Brugioni said that the Zapruder Film he Examined on 11/23/63 was Different than the Current Zapruder Film.
-
The Point is, NPIC Image Expert Dino Brugioni said that the Zapruder Film he Examined on 11/23/63 was Different than the Current Zapruder Film.
It's interesting how you conspiracy buffs all hate the CIA and think they killed President Kennedy, not to mention a slew of other accusations against them made over the years--but the minute a former CIA employee says something you just happen to accept the word of the former CIA employee who claims that there were "more frames" in the Zapruder film than what has been available over the years. Never mind the fact that Zaprider testified at the Clay Shaw trial while viewing his film that he identified it has his own film, or all other evidence that supports the film being authentic!
-
It's interesting how you conspiracy buffs all hate the CIA and think they killed President Kennedy, not to mention a slew of other accusations against them made over the years--but the minute a former CIA employee says something you just happen to accept the word of the former CIA employee who claims that there were "more frames" in the Zapruder film than what has been available over the years. Never mind the fact that Zaprider testified at the Clay Shaw trial while viewing his film that he identified it has his own film, or all other evidence that supports the film being authentic!
NPIC Image Expert Dino Brugioni examined Images. This is what he did for his entire career. He was Legendary in this regard as to his examining the Images taken of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, U2 Spy Plane Images, etc. He was Not whatever your idea of a cloak-n-dagger CIA Agent may be. You would never confuse Dino Brugioni with Tosh Plumlee. Well, maybe YOU would. And let's not minimize what Brugioni had to say concerning the film he viewed on 11/23/63 vs The Current Zapruder Film. Not only did he believe there were More frames on the 11/23/63 film, he believed he Examined/Viewed Differing Images on these 2 Films.
-
NPIC Image Expert Dino Brugioni examined Images. This is what he did for his entire career. He was Legendary in this regard as to his examining the Images taken of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, U2 Spy Plane Images, etc. He was Not whatever your idea of a cloak-n-dagger CIA Agent may be. You would never confuse Dino Brugioni with Tosh Plumlee. Well, maybe YOU would. And let's not minimize what Brugioni had to say concerning the film he viewed on 11/23/63 vs The Current Zapruder Film. Not only did he believe there were More frames on the 11/23/63 film, he believed he Examined/Viewed Differing Images on these 2 Films.
No kidding! I read up on the guy years ago, after Horne started peddling his tripe.
It makes no difference to me what you think you know about Brugioni , comparing him with Plumlee. How would know what type of CIA agent Brugioni is compared to any of them?
Your type believe anything these people say when it comes to everything JFK assassination--as long as it doesn't jibe with the official investigations. We have had FBI agents come out of the woodwork claiming all sorts of rubbish, trying to sell their conspiracy nonsense, and with ease, they can be torn to shreds with evidence. I do not believe anyone claiming that the Zapruder film--or any of the photographic evidence--in the JFK assassination has been tampered with. People like Brugioni are a dime a dozen.
-
No kidding! I read up on the guy years ago, after Horne started peddling his tripe.
It makes no difference to me what you think you know about Brugioni , comparing him with Plumlee. How would know what type of CIA agent Brugioni is compared to any of them?
Your type believe anything these people say when it comes to everything JFK assassination--as long as it doesn't jibe with the official investigations. We have had FBI agents come out of the woodwork claiming all sorts of rubbish, trying to sell their conspiracy nonsense, and with ease, they can be torn to shreds with evidence. I do not believe anyone claiming that the Zapruder film--or any of the photographic evidence--in the JFK assassination has been tampered with. People like Brugioni are a dime a dozen.
Other than NPIC "Image Expert" Brugioni, how many other individuals have voiced an opinion as to what they saw on the "63" Zapruder Film vs what they see on The Current Zapruder Film? And let's Not Forget that Time/Life LOCKED the Zapruder Film inside a Vault for its' initial 12 years of existence. The chain of custody regarding The Current Zapruder Film is Completely Unknown.
PS - You are doing both History & Yourself a disservice when you disparage a Legend such a Dino Brugioni. You can disagree with this NPIC Image Expert all you want, but labeling him "dime a dozen" does nothing but reveal your bias and lower the level of discussion.
-
It's interesting how you conspiracy buffs all hate the CIA and think they killed President Kennedy, not to mention a slew of other accusations against them made over the years--but the minute a former CIA employee says something you just happen to accept the word of the former CIA employee who claims that there were "more frames" in the Zapruder film than what has been available over the years. Never mind the fact that Zaprider testified at the Clay Shaw trial while viewing his film that he identified it has his own film, or all other evidence that supports the film being authentic!
Zapruder himself stated that he never stopped filming the motorcade, yet the film cuts from before the turn onto Elm to after, so yeah follow your own advice on primary sources.
-
Zapruder himself stated that he never stopped filming the motorcade, yet the film cuts from before the turn onto Elm to after, so yeah follow your own advice on primary sources.
So he didn't recall stopping his camera. Read his grandaughter's book. You might learn something.
-
Other than NPIC "Image Expert" Brugioni, how many other individuals have voiced an opinion as to what they saw on the "63" Zapruder Film vs what they see on The Current Zapruder Film? And let's Not Forget that Time/Life LOCKED the Zapruder Film inside a Vault for its' initial 12 years of existence. The chain of custody regarding The Current Zapruder Film is Completely Unknown.
PS - You are doing both History & Yourself a disservice when you disparage a Legend such a Dino Brugioni. You can disagree with this NPIC Image Expert all you want, but labeling him "dime a dozen" does nothing but reveal your bias and lower the level of discussion.
Storing, the copy that is in the National Archives has the splices where the film was damaged. That film was sold back to the Zapruder family for $1.00 after the bootleg copies began appearing everywhere. I take it that you haven't(or won't) read Alexandria Zapruder's book on the subject of the film, have you? Where did you come up with the "chain of custody is unknown" nonsense?
When I want your advice (which will never happen) I'll ask for it, Storing. And, I am sure you could care less about me doing "disservice to [my]self". Spare me.
-
So he didn't recall stopping his camera. Read his grandaughter's book. You might learn something.
Zapruder's granddaughter gives the following account of his filming (this is from her book):
(http://i64.tinypic.com/23to80l.jpg)
Zapruder said in the Clay Shaw trial that the film shown to the jury (multiple times) was the same one that was developed in Dallas the day of the assassination. The trial film was one of the copies made by Time/Life of the original Zapruder film (which they had) and that was subpoenaed by Garrison. That copy that was shown in the trial was later bootlegged and released to large parts of the public.
From the trial:
Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas?
A: Yes, it does.
It seems obvious that if large parts were cut out or changed that he would have noticed it. Maybe not but we have lots of other evidence that is, for me, persuasive that the film wasn't deliberately altered.
The rest of his testimony is here: http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html
-
So he didn't recall stopping his camera. Read his grandaughter's book. You might learn something.
Why do I have to read his granddaughter's book, she wasn't there. Zapruder was there and he said he never stopped filming. You are wrong
-
Zapruder said in the Clay Shaw trial that the film shown to the jury (multiple times) was the same one that was developed in Dallas the day of the assassination. The trial film was one of the copies made by Time/Life that was subpoenaed by Garrison. That copy was bootlegged and released to large parts of the public.
From the trial:
Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas?
A: Yes, it does.
It seems obvious that if large parts were cut out or changed that he would have noticed it. Maybe not but we have lots of other evidence that is, for me, persuasive that the film wasn't deliberately altered.
The rest of his testimony is here: http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html
Zapruder was Unable to ID Himself on the Zapruder Film Still Frames shown to him during his WC Testimony. Now, years later you want to swear by him when he is viewing a film in the middle of a packed courtroom? Zapruder was paid $150,000 for his film. This $150,000 would make it difficult for him to discredit an alleged copy of the film he sold to Time/Life for a small fortune. In 1963 when Zapruder sold his film for $150K, the average American was making roughly $4,000. $150,000 was a Ton of $$$ back in 1963.
-
Royell Sterling that is a take I have never heard or considered I believe I also have heard that Greer had all kinds of problems making that turn and driving erratically during the time period in the lapse in the film
-
Royell Sterling that is a take I have never heard or considered I believe I also have heard that Greer had all kinds of problems making that turn and driving erratically during the time period in the lapse in the film
Yeah, there are stories that Greer almost jumped the curb as he steered a Hard left in order to correct the direction the JFK Limo was heading.
-
Isn't it a little odd that all the police motorcycles are ahead of the limousine at the begging of the Zapruder film and then behind when it restarts? My understanding is that Zapruder claimed he never stopped filming
The motorcycles seen at the START of the Zapruder film are the " lead motorcycles " positioned ahead of Curry's lead car
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Motorcade_image_compilation.jpg (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Motorcade_image_compilation.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/WH_Vol20_0255a__chaney.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BOTHUN1.jpg)
-
Why do I have to read his granddaughter's book, she wasn't there. Zapruder was there and he said he never stopped filming. You are wrong
No, I am not wrong.
-
Why do I have to read his granddaughter's book, she wasn't there. Zapruder was there and he said he never stopped filming. You are wrong
Sorry, where did Zapruder state he never stopped filming?
I understand that in the interviews/testimony he doesn't mention stopping. But where does he say explicitly he never stopped?
-
Zapruder was Unable to ID Himself on the Zapruder Film Still Frames shown to him during his WC Testimony. Now, years later you want to swear by him when he is viewing a film in the middle of a packed courtroom? Zapruder was paid $150,000 for his film. This $150,000 would make it difficult for him to discredit an alleged copy of the film he sold to Time/Life for a small fortune. In 1963 when Zapruder sold his film for $150K, the average American was making roughly $4,000. $150,000 was a Ton of $$$ back in 1963.
What?!!!!! "ID himself on the Zapruder film frames"? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you referring to him being asked to look at the Willis slide which show he and Marilyn Sitzman and identify himself? Well, if that is the case you are wrong because he does identify himself and his secretary and where they were standing. Since the slide is so blurry, he was pointing out that he would have to say that that is him, but he most definitely was not "wrong" because the slide shows exactly where he was standing while he filmed, Storing. Most people can't even see Zapruder and Sitzman until they are told where to look because the slide is so blurry at that point since they are off in the distance and blend in with the background. He immediately ID'd himself without being coached in any way, shape or form! So cut the crap.
Furthermore, didn't you read Zapruder's testimony carefully? He didn't scrutinize his film, he didn't even retain a copy for himself, and it sounds to me like he does a good job at describing from memory the frames he is being shown.
So, you are saying that because Zapruder was paid such a sum of money, this makes him suspicious? This doesn't surprise me and you most likely believe that Zaprude was in on a plot? Is that correct? As usual, you twist thing like a pretzel to create your fantasy. It never ceases to amaze me.
-
What?!!!!! "ID himself on the Zapruder film frames"? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you referring to him being asked to look at the Willis slide which show he and Marilyn Sitzman and identify himself? Well, if that is the case you are wrong because he does identify himself and his secretary and where they were standing. Since the slide is so blurry, he was pointing out that he would have to say that that is him, but he most definitely was not "wrong" because the slide shows exactly where he was standing while he filmed, Storing. Most people can't even see Zapruder and Sitzman until they are told where to look because the slide is so blurry at that point since they are off in the distance and blend in with the background. He immediately ID'd himself without being coached in any way, shape or form! So cut the crap.
Furthermore, didn't you read Zapruder's testimony carefully? He didn't scrutinize his film, he didn't even retain a copy for himself, and it sounds to me like he does a good job at describing from memory the frames he is being shown.
So, you are saying that because Zapruder was paid such a sum of money, this makes him suspicious? This doesn't surprise me and you most likely believe that Zaprude was in on a plot? Is that correct? As usual, you twist thing like a pretzel to create your fantasy. It never ceases to amaze me.
YES. I am referring to the Willis Slide. Do you really believe the Copy of whatever Zapruder was shown in court was Not also "Blurry"? You have been around long enough to Know what copies of the Z Film looked like back in the 60's,70's, 80's etc. Even that bootleg Z Film that Groden revealed to the public in "75" was a mass of absolutely Blurry Images. As to Zapruder's WC Testimony, he is UNABLE to ID Himself based on what He SEES on the Willis Slide. Zapruder gives a Vague ID based on knowing his position inside Dealey Plaza. Zapruder did Not "Immediately ID Himself". This description of Yours is incorrect. I am Not saying Zapruder was "in on the plot". What I am saying is based on the HUGE amount of $$$ he was given for his film, he is Not going to turn around and claim In Court that the film that Time/Life had in its' possession is Not the film he shot inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. To do so would have resulted in Zapruder then being asked to forfeit his $$$ due to He being the one that sold/personally handed it to Time/Life. I will say Zapruder's general integrity can be questioned due to: (1) He did INTENTIONALLY HIDE the FACT he was paid $150,000 for the film & (2) He did INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT to the public that he donated ALL the money from his film to the Police Fund/Officer Tippit. This was Intentional Misrepresentation/ Fake News on the part of Zapruder.
-
YES. I am referring to the Willis Slide. Do you really believe the Copy of whatever Zapruder was shown in court was Not also "Blurry"? You have been around long enough to Know what copies of the Z Film looked like back in the 60's,70's, 80's etc. Even that bootleg Z Film that Groden revealed to the public in "75" was a mass of absolutely Blurry Images. As to Zapruder's WC Testimony, he is UNABLE to ID Himself based on what He SEES on the Willis Slide. Zapruder gives a Vague ID based on knowing his position inside Dealey Plaza. Zapruder did Not "Immediately ID Himself". This description of Yours is incorrect. I am Not saying Zapruder was "in on the plot". What I am saying is based on the HUGE amount of $$$ he was given for his film, he is Not going to turn around and claim In Court that the film that Time/Life had in its' possession is Not the film he shot inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. To do so would have resulted in Zapruder then being asked to forfeit his $$$ due to He being the one that sold/personally handed it to Time/Life. I will say Zapruder's general integrity can be questioned due to: (1) He did INTENTIONALLY HIDE the FACT he was paid $150,000 for the film & (2) He did INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT to the public that he donated ALL the money from his film to the Police Fund/Officer Tippit. This was Intentional Misrepresentation/ Fake News on the part of Zapruder.
You need to re read Z's testimony. What caught Zapruder's eye in the Willis slide wasn't only where he and S were standing, it was the pergola as well. He makes that quite clear when he confused the peristyles on the east end of DP with the pergola. And where did Zapruder state that he gave "all" his money to the Tippit family? I do not recall ever reading that. He is quoted as saying he donated $25,000 to the Tippit family. That's not the entire sum of money from Life.
-
You need to re read Z's testimony. What caught Zapruder's eye in the Willis slide wasn't only where he and S were standing, it was the pergola as well. He makes that quite clear when he confused the peristyles on the east end of DP with the pergola. And where did Zapruder state that he gave "all" his money to the Tippit family? I do not recall ever reading that. He is quoted as saying he donated $25,000 to the Tippit family. That's not the entire sum of money from Life.
Zapruder purposely misled the public as to the Total sum he was being paid for his film. He agreed with Time/Life to receive 6 yearly installments of $25,000 = $150,000 total for his film. Zapruder received his 1st $25,000 installment Immediately/1963. He then made it publicly known that he gave ALL the money he had received for his film = $25,000 to the Police/Tippit Family. This technically was true at that point in time though Zapruder still had $125,000 coming his way. Zapruder hid this fact, Plus Z basked in the good PR, (he also had a business/$$$), for having donating ALL the $$$ he had received for his film to the Police/Tippit family. A complete Sham.
-
Zapruder purposely misled the public as to the Total sum he was being paid for his film. He agreed with Time/Life to receive 6 yearly installments of $25,000 = $150,000 total for his film. Zapruder received his 1st $25,000 installment Immediately/1963. He then made it publicly known that he gave ALL the money he had received for his film = $25,000 to the Police/Tippit Family. This technically was true at that point in time though Zapruder still had $125,000 coming his way. Zapruder hid this fact, Plus Z basked in the good PR, (he also had a business/$$$), for having donating ALL the $$$ he had received for his film to the Police/Tippit family. A complete Sham.
What are your sources for these claims against Zapruder?
-
What are your sources for these claims against Zapruder?
"National Nightmare" by Richard B. Trask. "...One installment of $25,000 being paid Immediately, $25,000 being paid on Jan 3, 1964, and four other $25,000 installments that were paid on subsequent Jan. 3rd's up through 1968."
-
"National Nightmare" by Richard B. Trask. "...One installment of $25,000 being paid Immediately, $25,000 being paid on Jan 3, 1964, and four other $25,000 installments that were paid on subsequent Jan. 3rd's up through 1968."
Where did this come from: " He then made it publicly known that he gave ALL the money he had received for his film = $25,000 to the Police/Tippit Family. "
Everything I have read re: the donation to the Tippit family, he stated as having given a portion of what he made from his film, not "all of it". Please point me to the citation for the exact words you are using to describe Zapruder's donation as to saying that he said he gave "all of it".
-
Where did this come from: " He then made it publicly known that he gave ALL the money he had received for his film = $25,000 to the Police/Tippit Family. "
Everything I have read re: the donation to the Tippit family, he stated as having given a portion of what he made from his film, not "all of it". Please point me to the citation for the exact words you are using to describe Zapruder's donation as to saying that he said he gave "all of it".
Barber - This book by Trask goes into detail regarding Zapruder and his film. It even goes into Harry McCormick emerging from the shadows when Zapruder went to have the 3 copies made. You asked for my source, & I gave it to you. You simply do Not want to accept this from me. Why not buy, beg, borrow, or steal the book & actually read it?
-
Royall Storing -
Richard Trask NEVER, as far as I'm aware, said or implied or suggested either in writing or verbally, that Harry McCormick "emerged from the shadows" or words to that effect "when Zapruder went to have the 3 copies made". McCormick was the person who first spoke to Zapruder in Dealey Plaza, put Zapruder and Forrest Sorrels in contact with one another, and was then present throughout the processing of the camera-original film.
Please cite title, chapter and page number of any Trask book which claims otherwise.
Thank you.
-
Royall Storing -
Richard Trask NEVER, as far as I'm aware, said or implied or suggested either in writing or verbally, that Harry McCormick "emerged from the shadows" or words to that effect "when Zapruder went to have the 3 copies made". McCormick was the person who first spoke to Zapruder in Dealey Plaza, put Zapruder and Forrest Sorrels in contact with one another, and was then present throughout the processing of the camera-original film.
Please cite title, chapter and page number of any Trask book which claims otherwise.
Thank you.
I advise Everyone to actually READ THE BOOK. This is the Final time I will spoon feed you "chapter and verse". "National Nightmare" Page 112, Full paragraph 2.
-
As I thought - Trask does NOT say that "Harry McCormick emerged from the shadows" - you are adding 2 + 2, getting 5 as the result, and then adding a dose of assumption, so that your total equals 8.
-
As I thought - Trask does NOT say that "Harry McCormick emerged from the shadows" - you are adding 2 + 2, getting 5 as the result, and then adding a dose of assumption, so that your total equals 8.
I have gifted you with some knowledge. You're welcome. You thought Harry was Only present, "throughout the processing of the camera-original film". Do Not feel bad. Nobody knows how everything went down in this case. There are Many areas that remain Murky and some just Completely Unknown. The location of the Officer Chaney/Lead Car Event being shrouded in mystery to this day. As for your math, you better stick to mistaken Zapruder time lines.
-
I have gifted you with some knowledge. You're welcome. You thought Harry was Only present, "throughout the processing of the camera-original film". Do Not feel bad. Nobody knows how everything went down in this case. There are Many areas that remain Murky and some just Completely Unknown. The location of the Officer Chaney/Lead Car Event being shrouded in mystery to this day. As for your math, you better stick to mistaken Zapruder time lines.
I am absolutely staggered that you could find the time to take a break from your research to 'gift me with some knowledge' from your vast and insightful understanding of the case. We can certainly agree that nobody knows how everything happened that awful day, as you yourself have so clearly illustrated on many occasions in the past.
As for my math, I was trying to show - by means of an obviously ridiculous example - how convoluted your "logic" was, and it seems I was successful, as you didn't "get it" at all, and like your reference to Chaney and the Lead Car, I don't know what your reference to "mistaken Zapruder time lines" means in the context of this discussion.
I appreciate your taking the time to education me, but please don't feel under any obligation to respond, as I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this exchange.
-
I am absolutely staggered that you could find the time to take a break from your research to 'gift me with some knowledge' from your vast and insightful understanding of the case. We can certainly agree that nobody knows how everything happened that awful day, as you yourself have so clearly illustrated on many occasions in the past.
As for my math, I was trying to show - by means of an obviously ridiculous example - how convoluted your "logic" was, and it seems I was successful, as you didn't "get it" at all, and like your reference to Chaney and the Lead Car, I don't know what your reference to "mistaken Zapruder time lines" means in the context of this discussion.
I appreciate your taking the time to education me, but please don't feel under any obligation to respond, as I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this exchange.
Your Now ducking out is right in line with your conduct when you were unable to document the source of power for the sign atop the TSBD. When pressed, you run.
I understood your math. Point is, there was Nothing "convoluted" in my logic. Trask Documented that Harry McCormick and Tom Dillard were both sent to Jamieson's lab, ".... for Another try to secure publication rights of stills from the movie". This was After 6PM on 11/22/63. It was during their conversation, after "coming out of the shadows", that Zapruder agreed to, "...meet McCormick in the morning to discuss possible film rights". You need to expand your research to Include the reading of this book.
-
Your Now ducking out is right in line with your conduct when you were unable to document the source of power for the sign atop the TSBD. When pressed, you run.
< snip>
You need to expand your research to Include the reading of this book.
Are you confusing me with someone else? As far as I know, I have never discussed the power source for the sign atop the TSBD with you, or indeed anyone else. I haven't got the faintest idea where the power came from, nor have I ever had wondered (or cared) where it came from, so I think an apology from you is in order.
As for reading Trask's book, I have had it since it was first published, along with his other books, all of which are excellent.
-
Are you confusing me with someone else? As far as I know, I have never discussed the power source for the sign atop the TSBD with you, or indeed anyone else. I haven't got the faintest idea where the power came from, nor have I ever had wondered (or cared) where it came from, so I think an apology from you is in order.
As for reading Trask's book, I have had it since it was first published, along with his other books, all of which are excellent.
You say that you "have had" Trask's book. You do Not say you have actually read it. Maybe you are having memory issues? If this is the case I do apologize.
-
You say that you "have had" Trask's book. You do Not say you have actually read it. Maybe you are having memory issues? If this is the case I do apologize.
There is nothing wrong with my memory, and even if there were, that is not what I asked you to apologize for, as you well know.
Just answer two simple questions for me - YES or NO is all that is required in each case.
(1) Did I ever discuss the power source for the (Hertz) sign on the roof of the TSBD with you?
(2) By saying that all of Trask's books are "excellent", does that or does it not suggest to you that I have read all of them?
FYI, Trask's "Pictures of the Pain" and "National Nightmare" are undoubtedly two of my most-referenced books.
-
What is up with the back of JFK's head on 374 Sorry I cannot post the picture, but there is a considerable amount of red near the back of his head on this frame
https://www.google.com/search?q=zapruder+frame+374&rlz=1C1VFKB_enUS769US769&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiml9Cs4YHbAhVFXKwKHSx6BkYQsAQILw&biw=1782&bih=929#imgrc=kFC9VqyHXCPcoM: