JFK Assassination Forum

(deleted)   

One of Tom Dillard's photos.

I hadn't heard about this, but this post at the McAdams forum suggests the damage was done by HSCA consultant SRI International: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/as_cdRN9yrk.

Note: on the Dillard Photos:The HSCA was requested by the SRI
International to be allowed at a cost of $5,000.00 to enhance by means
of state of the ark equipment to find possible hidden information within
the negatives of the Dillard photos....of the TSBD...Dillard had custody
of his original negatives, but he co-operated and turned over twelve of
the negatives..four eventually being processed....SRI would not accept
liability and made this clear...in early 78 the study resulted in the
findings above.
Unfortunately ,the negatives, particularly frame 24,
"........became detached from the agitation apparatus and the gelatine
was abraded during the time it was freely agitated without
support"....in otherwords they ruined it.....they blamed it on a
malfunction of equipment ...they extended apologies and regrets to the
Committee and Dillard....
Robert Groden who was the HSCA independent consultant was asked to
comment ..on the damage...He found that negative # 8 also had been
damaged by a coating not originally on the negative...but now
evident...negative # 24 suffered also from this problem...( this is the
negative that showed the 6th floor window ) also part of this negative
appeared to have had it's emulsion rubbed off from the film base....To a
lay person, the negative looks terrible .....the emulsion on the
negative appears to have run down and melted into a pool of taffy like,
a pool below.... The left side of the sniper's double window in badly
affected, though the lower part of the snipers window escaped serious
damage ...the whole negative looked like it was worn and crackled...and
in otherwords the negative also had a tear (hole) in it......Dillard in
1979 received back his damaged goods , and copies of the SRI report, and
a letter and the Groden comments...Blakely lamely wrote Dillard that the
Committee was assured the process was safe and regretted the damage...."
These two historically signifigant frames had been irreversibly harmed
by experts."....(12)

12: "Pictures of the Pain" Richard B Trask, 1994:p: 452 (note 38) p:469

The US has done more than its part in Ukraine.  Of course, there is resentment in Ukraine.  Trump is not just dishing out billions in US taxpayer dollars to them.  Instead he is holding others accountable for doing their part and asking that the US get some compensation.  The policy of just sending them endless billions with no accountability is over.  They don't like it.  Tough.  This is a regional conflict.  Ukraine has the misfortune to be in Russia's sphere of interest.  No one can change that.  There is no magic wand to wave or enough wealth in history to change that.  You know who else is unpopular?  Zelensky.  He has suspended elections to keep himself in power.

No offense, but these are just Trump-speak talking points. A "slightly" more nuanced perspective from the Journal of Democracy, written by two experts on Ukrainian politics:

A year ago, some in government thought that it might be possible to hold the presidential election despite the war, not least because the president would have won easily: According to data collected by MOBILISE (led by Olga Onuch) in partnership with the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), Zelensky’s approval was sky-high at 85 percent in July 2023, even with few gains on the battlefield. That number has since dipped — to 77 percent in late 2023. More recent data from February suggest that trust in Zelensky also declined from 77 to 64 percent in February 2024, likely because of Zelensky’s unpopular decision to reshuffle the army leadership. Nonetheless, the president remains the most popular and trusted politician in Ukraine by a wide margin. Only military figures such as former army commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi and army-intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov are more popular than Zelensky.

Ultimately the government chose not to hold elections — a decision that was in line with both the recommendations of local elections-focused NGOs and Ukrainian public opinion: According to a December 2023 survey, 84 percent of Ukrainians opposed holding a presidential election. When asked in February 2024 what should happen in lieu of elections, 69 percent preferred that Zelensky stay in office until the end of martial law. Even among those who dislike the president, it is hard to find anyone in Ukraine who supports holding a vote now. Opposition leaders such as former prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk have publicly recognized that, despite their disagreements with the president on most things, now is not the time to go to the polls and Zelensky’s legitimacy is not in question.

The most fundamental reason for not holding elections is that approximately a third of the country’s population would face enormous challenges participating — including around 6.5 million Ukrainians living abroad (over a million of whom reside in Russia) and five million living in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, as well as nearly four million internally displaced people and a million active military personnel. Finding and registering these displaced Ukrainians would be an enormous undertaking, one that would effectively be impossible in Russia or areas under Russian control, which include Crimea and five Ukrainian provinces. Locating Ukrainian military personnel would not be hard, but arranging a free and fair vote on the frontlines would be. How does one ensure a secret ballot in the trenches? In addition, active warfare in significant parts of Ukrainian-controlled territory creates obvious difficulties: Missile and other attacks occur almost daily in various parts of Ukraine, including large cities such as Kharkiv.

All this means that voter turnout would not only be low, but would systematically underrepresent those Ukrainians most directly affected by the war. Chosen by a rump of the population, winners of such elections might be considered illegitimate by at least some of the population. And Russia would likely make its own accusations of illegitimacy in an effort to polarize Ukrainian voters and cast international doubt on Ukraine’s democracy.

Very few democracies have held elections with an active military conflict on their territory. Among European democracies directly affected by World War II, only Denmark (under German occupation) held elections during the war. Great Britain did not hold elections between 1935 and the war’s end in July 1945. The United States did hold elections in 1864 during the American Civil War, but without the participation of nine Confederate states. This does not seem to be a good model to follow: The systematic exclusion of Southern states almost certainly exacerbated polarization in the country.

...

Thus, while it is certainly possible to hold some kind of elections in Ukraine, it would be nearly impossible to hold ones that are free, fair, and inclusive. Some Ukrainians fear that election campaigning would sow divisions in society at a moment when the country needs to remain united. Moreover, organizing elections now would divert scarce resources and attention away from defending Ukraine against the existential threat from Russia.

Alas, MTG lives in a fantasy world when it comes to Ukraine, just as with the JFKA. My wife's family is THERE - Russia, Belarus, Ukraine. Ukrainian polls are overwhelmingly negative toward Trump. Trump's "support" of Ukraine has been lukewarm and begrudging at best, and a large portion of the aid has actually been just a percentage of what the Biden administration had already approved. Anyone who can watch The Donald's mastubatory love affair with Putin and tell me with a straight face that he has been supportive of Ukraine is living in a different reality. Article exactly one month ago in the Atlantic: "Ukraine has Finally Given Up on Trump." IMHO, Trump cares literally nothing about Ukraine.

The US has done more than its part in Ukraine.  Of course, there is resentment in Ukraine.  Trump is not just dishing out billions in US taxpayer dollars to them.  Instead he is holding others accountable for doing their part and asking that the US get some compensation.  The policy of just sending them endless billions with no accountability is over.  They don't like it.  Tough.  This is a regional conflict.  Ukraine has the misfortune to be in Russia's sphere of interest.  No one can change that.  There is no magic wand to wave or enough wealth in history to change that.  You know who else is unpopular?  Zelensky.  He has suspended elections to keep himself in power. 

Your comments would be better if you read what I wrote first.   I am talking about the second shot occurring when the car was passing in front of Gayle Newman down by the lamp post.  JFK was not moving at that time.  He had already reacted and she observed him react.  In her statement made to the Dallas Sheriff a few hours after the events, she said (22 H 842):

"President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was startled and covered his head with his hands and then raised up.  After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car."

Not surprisingly, it is very similar to what she said in her WFAA-TV interview by Jay Watson about 20 minutes after the events in which she said that JBC was turned to his side at the time of the second shot.
Except that this corresponds to the last turn to the right that JFK made which Mary Woodward observed.  She said that after she shouted to the President to get his attention and he turned and smiled and waved at her group and that they were the last people JFK ever acknowledged because as the car passed by there was the first "horrible ear-shattering noise".  So, you can ignore that and speculate that JBC was turning in response to a shot. But that is not the evidence.
Again, you don't seem to read very well.  Or perhaps it is just a comprehension thing. I have shown repeatedly that JFK was clear of the tree as seen in the Secret Service film when he was just past the lamp post (z190) but before passing the Thornton sign (z200).  I put it closer to the lamp post - about z193.
Sigh.  You really don't read anything I write, do you?  I have NEVER suggested that JBC reacted to his thigh wound.  He reacted to hearing the first shot and realizing an assassination was unfolding.
Just as he said - he turned to look at JFK because he was worried that JFK was being assassinated.

You finally got one thing right. I don't understand anything you write. None of it makes the least bit of sense. Do you ever stop to wonder why you're the only one who believes the JFKA happened that way?