Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
BC:

Iler just posted instructions on how to use the ignore function on The Education Forum...No credible research forum puts the ignore feature above good content and oversight...If you are smart you will realize Iler is just creating the grounds for establishment of the clique...In this context the ignore feature Iler is promoting is similar to how the forum is dealing with the Prayer Man evidence...This is censorship and ignoring of correct evidence under the color of site administration...You are looking at the "correction" of the site they promised here...And, if you noticed, the thread is locked to any member input towards this edict...That is exactly what it looks like...Cheap sh*t researchers putting people on ignore instead of surviving by good practices and their own good wits...They are the kind of people who slander you on their podcasts and then deny you the right to respond...The clique in pure form...

Doyle,

The only two things that are right in your tinfoil-hat CT are that big-tall, dressed-in-black Gloria Calvery is standing on one of the lower the TSBD steps in Darnell, and that the person back in the corner isn't Lee Harvey Oswald.

-- Tom
2
You can NOT: (1) Put Shelley and Lovelady alongside that car only :20 seconds after the kill shot, and (2) Show Calvery & Reed on the Wiegman Film, "bolting on Adrenaline", as they run down the Elm St sidewalk. You are unable to do this which completely destroys your theory.

Dear Stormtrooper Storing,

I love it when two tinfoil-hat CTs like you and Doyle argue with each other!

-- Tom
3
Who are you going to believe?...

Lovelady & CIA Shelley or your own lying eyes?...

   You can NOT: (1) Put Shelley and Lovelady alongside that car only :20 seconds after the kill shot, and (2) Show Calvery & Reed on the Wiegman Film, "bolting on Adrenaline", as they run down the Elm St sidewalk. You are unable to do this which completely destroys your theory.
4
Who are you going to believe?...

Lovelady & CIA Shelley or your own lying eyes?...

You're both brainwashed-by-KGB-disinfo kooks in my book.
5

Who are you going to believe?...

Lovelady & CIA Shelley or your own lying eyes?...
6
BC:

Iler just posted instructions on how to use the ignore function on The Education Forum...No credible research forum puts the ignore feature above good content and oversight...If you are smart you will realize Iler is just creating the grounds for establishment of the clique...In this context the ignore feature Iler is promoting is similar to how the forum is dealing with the Prayer Man evidence...This is censorship and ignoring of correct evidence under the color of site administration...You are looking at the "correction" of the site they promised here...And, if you noticed, the thread is locked to any member input towards this edict...That is exactly what it looks like...Cheap sh*t researchers putting people on ignore instead of surviving by good practices and their own good wits...They are the kind of people who slander you on their podcasts and then deny you the right to respond...The clique in pure form...

7
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Tom Graves on Yesterday at 07:29:08 PM »
A lot of people were there in Dealey Plaza, and they gave different versions of what happened. Some of them have to be wrong because they can't all be right. You [Andrew Mason] have never understood that.

Good point!

(I corrected your typo for you.)
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Last post by Tom Graves on Yesterday at 07:20:37 PM »
Agents are moving their heads all the time. Their job requires it. You are imagining a turn by Rosemary Willis that is not apparent. She had to move her head to watch out to see where she was going and look at the motorcade.

JFK, Jackie, JBC and Nellie moved their heads to acknowledge the crowd.  Mary Woodward and her friends shouted to the President as he was approaching their position and he and Jackie turned and smiled and waved at them as they passed by. And then there was a “horrible ear shattering noise” followed by two quicker shots. She said she and her friends were the last people he acknowledged.

Just to take one example from your litany of lame rationalizations, you say "Jackie moved [turned, to be more precise] her head [to her left starting at Z-145] to acknowledge the crowd."

Rhetorical question: Is that why she had a concerned look on her face as she was looking directly at Robert Croft in his well-known Z-161 photograph?

Seems like a strange way to "acknowledge the crowd."

(Was Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman turned so far to his right in the Croft photo to "acknowledge the crowd," or to "keep an eye on them xxxxxxx"?)


By the way, you never gave a rational answer to my question:

Why did Secret Service Agent George Hickey lean so far over the side of the car, and when did he begin that motion?


Answers:

Hickey began his conscious response to Oswald's first missing-everything "Z-124" shot by Z-146.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z146.jpg


He maxed out in Z-157

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z157.jpg

9
The print of Altgens 6 in Groden's book is a good-quality print.

If there's no damage in the area identified by Weldon and many others, why were two subsequent reproductions of Altgens 6 altered to obscure that area, one by a diagonal line and the other by bleaching out the area altogether? Why alter the photo in the very area identified as showing a hole and/or damage if there's nothing there?

Why do you assume anyone tried to obscure anything?
Quote

Well, again, I can't force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing.

Says the guy who sees a bullet hole where none exists.
Quote

It's been some time, but I saw high-quality enlargements of the suspect area in Altgens 6, and I could see damage there. A long list of other researchers can see damage there, but you say you don't see it.

You and a few other kooks are the only ones who do.
Quote

You are a genuine quack on this issue.

Irony alert.
Quote

I answered every one of these arguments in the thread on the backyard rifle photos, but here you are repeating them again as if they're still valid.

The are. Your silly counterpoints are not.
Quote

The HSCA PEP was talking about the movement of the camera "in the real world" when the photos were allegedly taken. Do you not understand this?

As I asked you before, if the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" between the backgrounds of the two backyard photos, why did they report that their photogrammetric measurements found that the camera moved only “slightly to the left” and only “slightly downward” between exposures, and that the camera’s vertical movement was “very small” (6 HSCA 178-179; 2 HSCA 416)?

Again, the PEP's ultimate aim was to determine if the camera moved "in the real world" between each exposure of the film, and they found that it moved only "slightly to the left" and "slightly downward," that its vertical movement was "very small." And, again, they didn't even measure to determine if the camera moved angularly. Why not?

And, no, the backyard photos they analyzed (133-A and 133-B) are not "tiny photos." I debunked this falsehood in the backyard rifle photos thread, but you just keep repeating it. Here's what I pointed out to you about your "tiny photos" claim:

"Tiny photos"? Huh? The HSCA PEP admitted that 133-A DeM, which is much clearer than 133-A, was “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens” because of its higher resolution (6 HSCA 148). The PEP was able to make large high-quality prints with 133-A DeM.

Remember? Do you ever wonder why the PEP never described 133-A and 133-B as "tiny photos"?

The distances between background objects were so small that they could only be detected via “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” (2 HSCA 398, 405). This wasn't because the photos were "tiny," but because the background differences themselves were extremely small.

This is not a bit surprising, since the PEP determined from these measurements that the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and down. If the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story, the camera movement would have been far, far greater.

One of your comments deserves special attention:

This comment is further proof that you have no clue what you're talking about and are trying to bluff and bluster your way through. I guess the PEP experts must have been retarded, because they didn't even measure for angular movement, but only for the camera's horizontal and vertical position.

You haven't "proved" anything about the camera's upward tilt. Your goofy graphics are not proof of anything. To determine the camera's angular movement, you would need to do more photogrammetric measurements, not just measurements designed to detect a change in the camera's horizonal or vertical position.

Yes, your graphics are indeed goofy. You talk like you really don't understand what the PEP experts said or did.

Folks, compare John Mytton's comments with my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos."

It's truly amazing how one man could believe in so many myths.
10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 06:53:27 PM »
Why are those the only two possibilities?  His job was to watch the crowd.  To see the crowd ahead he had to look out around the two agents on the running boards.

You are saying Altgens was wrong.  He was there. You weren’t.

A lot of people were there and they gave different versions of what happened and some of them have to be wrong because they can't all be right. You've never understood that.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10