I am challenging the Wiegman Film "TIME LINE". You immediately have knee jerked to alleging that I have claimed, ".... all the footage has been altered". This is simply Not  True.
     I am using the Wiegman Film copy on the Discovery Channel DVD, "Unsolved History JFK, Death in Dealey Plaza". Specifically, what Wiegman Film copy are you examining?   

I'm using the Weigman version at the JFK Theorist.
Just to clarify:
1] You accept Altgens 8 shows the Hesters both lying on the grass while Zapruder and Sitzman are by the pedestal.
2] The Bell footage showing only Mrs Hester on the grass and her husband hiding out in the pergola while Zapruder and Sitzman are still moving about by the pedsestal.

The Weigman footage shows the moment Charles Hester gets up and moves to the pergola, heroically abandoning his wife.
The Weigman footage captures the moment that connects point #1 to point #2.
Are you suggesting Zapruder and Sitzman disappear between after point 1 (Altgens and reappear at point 2 (Bell)?
Or is it more plausible that, as Weigman runs towards the Hesters, Zapruder and Sitzman are still on top of the pedestal but the footage is too poor to pick them out?
We know Zapruder and Sitzman were still on top of the pedestal while Weigman was running towards the Hesters from the synchronisations provided by the JFK Theorist and me in this thread.
So - can you accept that the Weigman footage is too poor quality to show Zapruder and Sitzman still on the pedestal as Weigman runs towards the Hesters?

If you can provide a version of Weigman that clearly shows Zapruder and Sitzman are NOT on top of the pedestal while Weigman is running towards the Hesters then I will gladly concede that something suspicious is happening.

MTG can't get it through his head that no matter what Thomas said in any of his writings or lectures, the radio transmission Thomas claims is "I'll check it" crosstalk on channel 1 is both bogus and nothing but a lie by Thomas.

The fact that heterodyne tones accompany (Surround, if you will)  the speech by someone opening their microphone on channel 1 and speaking into the microphone is proof solid that it's not crosstalk.  The heterodyne tones prove this.  It is in no way, shape or form "crosstalk". End of story.

LOL! So in answer to my reply, you merely repeated your response! Ok, then let me repeat what I said in reply to your claims:

You have no clue what you are talking about. I wonder if you even read my reply. I'm certain you haven't read the 2015-2018 research done by BBN acoustical scientists. I doubt you've even read a small portion of Dr. Thomas's hundreds of pages of research on the acoustical evidence.

Did you miss the fact that even Bowles admitted that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is crosstalk? Again, did you even read my reply or did you just glance at it before you rubber-stamped Corbett's inane reply?

Did you miss the fact that Dr. Mullen's PCC test proved that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is actual crosstalk and that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is nothing but an overdub that was not even recorded at the same speed as the acknowledged crosstalk transmissions?

As for your spurious argument that the Fisher transmission can't be crosstalk because it is accompanied by heterodyne tones, I take it you're unaware that heterodyne tones also occur near and during the Decker transmission. So, according to you, the Decker transmission can't be crosstalk. You would have known better than to repeat the heterodyne argument if you had read Dr. Thomas's research or Dr. Thompson's research.

BTW, Linsker and his colleagues tried to conceal the fact that even their own incompetently done PCC test disqualified the Decker transmission as crosstalk if they accepted the heterodyne argument (Thompson, Last Second in Dallas, p. 512).

This whole erroneous heterodyne argument started with the NRC/NAS panel because they didn't understand the relationship of the transmitters and didn't understand how broadcasts can be superimposed from one channel onto another. They wrongly assumed that the Channel 2 broadcast had been picked up over the motorcycle's transmitter, i.e., its open microphone, but the broadcast was actually picked up by another transmitter, most likely a police unit parked at the Trade Mart where police officers had gathered for JFK's expected arrival.

The NRC/NAS panel also wrongly assumed that the differences in the energy in the Channel 1 heterodynes and the Channel 2 heterodynes proved that the Decker transmission must have been recorded in real time, because they didn't understand that a broadcast from one channel could have been superimposed on another channel in real time. If the panel members had bothered to consult with the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists, the scientists could have educated them on this issue.

I doubt you have any interest in doing so, but if you want to read a scientific analysis that includes a discussion of the heterodyne tones heard on the dictabelt, see Appendix B in Thompson's book. The appendix was written by BBN acoustical scientist Dr. Richard Mullen and is titled "Signal Processing Results for Both DPD Audio Files."

You should also read BBN acoustical scientist Dr. James Barger's detailed discussion on the criteria to establish crosstalk in the dictabelt. It's titled "Quantitative Analysis of Crosstalk Found in Audio Recorded During the JFK Assassination" and is Appendix A in Thompson's book.

The focus of this one-page article is Dr. Michael Baden's demonstration in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy? of how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning to make the HSCA FPP's trajectory through the neck align with the sixth-floor window.

"Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory"

Dr. Wecht mocked the FPP majority's assumption about JFK's forward lean with the joking remark that they were assuming that JFK was bent over tying his shoe laces when the bullet struck. This humorous exaggeration perfectly captures the demonstrably false nature of the FPP's assumption, which Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate in front of TV cameras.

Of course, Baden had no idea he was driving a huge nail in the SBT's coffin with his demonstration.

Keep in mind that Dr. Humes's wound diagram for the WC (i.e., CE 385) puts the wound at C3 or C4. Humes put the wound noticeably above the throat wound, as we see in CE 385. Humes had to put the back wound above the throat wound because he and the WC claimed the bullet traveled a "downward path" through the neck, a piece of pure fiction that even the HSCA FPP rejected and debunked.

True to form, SBT believers shrug off this enormous conflict between the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP experts. No matter what, for them the SBT still works, never mind that Humes put the wound at least 2.5 inches higher in CE 385 than where the FPP located it. One WC apologist here, apparently clueless about basic geometry, has even claimed that it makes no difference whatsoever if Humes was wrong and the FPP was right about the wound's location! By golly, the SBT still works! Amazing!

Finally, surely no objective person can look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and conclude that it shows the wound where Humes placed it in CE 385. The HSCA FPP concluded the photo puts the wound at T1, which is at least 2.5 inches lower than where CE 385 places it. Indeed, the FPP said they placed the wound "in the back area" and "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in his drawing:

The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated in this drawing. (1 HSCA 256)

   You have now claimed "NOBODY cares" to 2 different people. Try buying a vowel.

And still nobody cares.

To be sure, there are plenty of farfetched JFKA CT's out there, mostly on the backdrop to the sordid event, and the subsequent cover-up. So, CT'ers often look nutty.

Furthermore, many JFKA CTs have become a platform for people to promote their ideological agendas.

OTOH, the second official investigation into the JFKA, the HSCA-1979, concluded there was a probability of JFKAC, and that likely there had been a gunshot at the GK, as the limo passed.

There were a lot of smart and skeptical guys on the HSCA, and plenty of professional staffers.

Unfortunately, the smart guys were in the minority which is why the HSCA issued their FUBAR finding of a conspiracy.