Recent Posts
11
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:51:17 AM »I answered the challenge.
You asked for a plausible alternative explanation that accounted for your so-called list of evidence and that's exactly what I did.
The WCR wins by default.
That's what this is for you, isn't it - a competition.
What a child you are.
What a dumba$$ you are. I gave you 11 pieces of evidence to explain and your vague one sentence answer that Oswald was framed using his rifle hardly explained those 11 pieces of evidence. You didn't bother to explain how the conspirators got Oswald's rifle. You didn't explain how they got Oswald to bring a long paper bag into work that day. You don't explain how Oswald's palm and finger prints got on the bag. You didn't explain why fibers matching Oswald's rifle blanket ended in the bag. You didn't explain how fibers matching Oswald's shirt end up on the butt plate of the rifle. You didn't bother to explain why Oswald's fingerprints ended up on the boxes that were stacked to form a rifle rest oriented exactly how they would be if Oswald was facing down Elm St. You didn't bother to explain how the conspirators ensured Oswald wouldn't be seen elsewhere at the time the shots were fired. Just a simpleton statement that Oswald's rifle was used to frame him, with no evidence whatsoever that somebody else had used that rifle to kill JFK. Just crazy stuff you have imagined as an excuse to deny the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.
It's easy to conjure up a vague alternative story to the one the WCR presented. The devil is in the details and you have provided none. The WCR's narrative addressed all of the 11 items and a whole lot more. If we were to give you a grade for your effort, it would be an incomplete.
12
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:29:16 AM »As is SOP for CTs, you completely fail the challenge to present an alternative narrative that explains the body of evidence and instead choose to use the diversion of attacking the WC narrative. The reason the CTs ALWAYS resort to this tactic is because they know there is no plausible alternative explanation of the evidence. The WCR wins by default.
I answered the challenge.
You asked for a plausible alternative explanation that accounted for your so-called list of evidence and that's exactly what I did.
The WCR wins by default.
That's what this is for you, isn't it - a competition.
What a child you are.
13
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:27:05 AM »I believe you focus on silly stuff and ignore what is important.
Do you believe Arnold Rowland saw the man with the rifle at the west end of the 6th floor?
14
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 12:26:44 AM »There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired.
I've not bothered reading past this opening line as I've no doubt it's the usual WC arselicking nothingness.
You previously posted - "There is ample evidence that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30"
There is no evidence that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30.
It's good to see you back-tracking on this nonsense and throwing Tim under the bus at the same time.
As I had to inform Tim, your interpretation of the select pieces of evidence you choose to interpret is your interpretation. And that's all it is.
The assumptions you draw from this interpretation are just your assumptions. And that's all they are.
Your theory is your theory.
Jumping up and down and insisting it's a fact, like some petulant child, means nothing.
LATER EDIT: I couldn't resist and read your post.
I'm so glad I did or I would have missed the challenge:
give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.
Oswald was framed using his own rifle.
That's why the eye-witnesses described a man wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
It's why Euins described the shooter having a distinctive bald spot on top of his head which he could only see when the shooter tilted his head to look down the rifle. This would require the shooter to tilt his head to the left demonstrating he was a left-handed shooter - which Oswald wasn't.
Euins also failed to notice a telescopic sight on the rifle even though he described it in detail and recalled the shooter taking aim down the rifle.
Brennan, the only other witness who saw the rifle while it was being used, also failed to notice a telescopic sight.
Reportedly, Oswald stated he was on the first floor having lunch in the Domino Room when he saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman. Thanks to the testimonies of Jarman and Norman we know the only time this would have been possible was after they entered the back door of the TSBD building around 12:23pm
And that's before getting into all the evidence demonstrating how the Warren Commission fabricated and omitted evidence in order to create a false narrative regarding what took place on the 6th floor before the assassination - the subject of this thread.
As is SOP for CTs, you completely fail the challenge to present an alternative narrative that explains the body of evidence and instead choose to use the diversion of attacking the WC narrative. The reason the CTs ALWAYS resort to this tactic is because they know there is no plausible alternative explanation of the evidence. The WCR wins by default.
15
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 12:20:11 AM »I had to start this thread in response to something a Nutter posted on another thread insinuating that Arnold Rowland made up seeing the man with the rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
Of all the crazy things the Warren Commission has forced Nutters to believe this has to be right up there.
Barbara Rowland confirms her husband's account of seeing the man with the rifle at the southwestern end of the 6th floor of the TSBD building:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson’s visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book
Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn’t see the man, because I didn’t know exactly what window he was talking about at first. And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped
back, because I didn’t see him.
Mr. BELIN. Which window was it?
Mrs. ROWLAND. It was the far left-hand window.
Mr. BELIN. As you face the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. It would be the window to the south side of the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be on the eastern part of the south side or the western part of the south side?
Mrs. ROWLAND. West.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be the farthermost west window?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes; the farthermost west pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. The farthermost west pair of windows. What did your husband say to you?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, we assumed that it was a Secret Service man.
Mr. BELIN. But what did he say, if you remember?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the motorcade.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting Rowland ran around telling every law enforcement officer he could find about the man with the rifle. He told three or four officials about this man before he gave his affidavit:
"...We stood there for a time talking about the security measures that were being made for the president’s visit in view of the recent trouble when Mr. Adelai Stevenson had been a recent visitor to Dallas. It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surrounding buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book...building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it.
He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service men.
This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair. In about 15 minutes President Kennedy passed the spot where we were standing and the motorcade had just turned west on Elm heading down the hill when I heard a noise which I thought to be a back fire."
To imagine that Rowland invented this sighting is beyond belief as it would require the almost miraculous coincidence of him inventing a man (whose description closely matches that of other eyewitnesses) carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
What are the chances Rowland making up a white, slender male carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor and it turns out that's exactly what happened?
ROLL UP, ROLL UP NUTTERS.
LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS MATTER.
DON'T BE SHY.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE MIRACLE ON ELM STREET?
I believe you focus on silly stuff and ignore what is important.
16
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:06:10 AM »Yes,
Arnold completely botches the description of what the man with the rifle would have looked like if he was framed in the window as he depicts the man with a rifle. Talking about port of arms and other nonsense. Once again the window starts 14 inches off the floor and the open part extends another 29 inches. Specter knew this and that was the whole point of the many different questions Arlan Specter asked of Rowland to describe the man in the frame of the window. Specter knew he was making the whole thing up. In a similar fashion he did the same thing in questioning Rowland about the caliber of the rifle being a 30 odd size six. Specter knew that Rowland had no idea what he was talking about and was making the whole thing up and drove the point home.
Rowland should have been playing the lottery that day. He is standing there blowing smoke up his wife’s behind about security people present on this parade route so that it did not turn out like the Adlai Stevenson incident, except there really was a guy on the 6th floor with a rifle.
In the same manner that Rowland caught the WC Panel off guards by announcing another person in the Snipers Nest, the attorneys and the WC Panel was just as surprised by Charles Givens stating he returned to the 6th floor and saw LHO walking from the SN area. They had no idea he was going to make that admission. The idea that was either staged or a made up story is not bore out by the reaction of the panel and attorneys.
Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he was standing at the gate on the fifth floor.
I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it. When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way.
Mr. BELIN. Coming from what way?
Mr. GIVENS. Toward the window up front where the shots were fired from.
Mr. BELIN. Just a second, where did you go? Where were you when you saw him on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. I had went and got my jacket and was on my way back to the elevator.
Mr. BELIN. All right, just a second. I am going to get a plan of the sixth floor, if I have one, and try and have you point that out to me.
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
The chicken bones story is summed up by Shelley. There were different sets of chicken bones but only one had the pop bottle mentioned by BRW. Located right where BRW said they were.
Mr. BALL - Now, did you find any chicken bones up there or see any?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, I went up later on that day; I believe after we had gotten back from City Hall with someone, I don't remember who it was, one of the officers and they got them.
Mr. BALL - They did what?
Mr. SHELLEY - They got the bones.
Mr. BALL - Where were they?
Mr. SHELLEY - They were on the third--yeah, it would be the third window from the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL - And were they in a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Laying on a sack.
Mr. BALL - Laying on a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; with a coke bottle sitting in the window.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any other chicken bones anyplace around there?
Mr. SHELLEY - No, sir; that's all.
Mr. BALL - That's the only ones?
Mr. SHELLEY - That's all.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody eating fried chicken on that floor that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - At one time I think I said I did but Charles Givens was the guy that was eating and he was further on over toward the west side and he was eating a sandwich so he says.
Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken.
Mr. BALL - Do you think you did or do you know?
Mr. SHELLEY - I asked Charles Givens whether it was him that was eating and he said it was a sandwich.
Mr. BALL - Was that before you went down for lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; it was pretty early in the morning, about 9:30.
Mr. BALL - Where was it?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was two-thirds across the building toward the west because I didn't put plywood over there and he didn't get too far from where we were actually working.
There were different sets of chicken bones
This is a falsehood you've been corrected on before. It's something you made up out of thin air.
There was one set of chicken bones on the 6th floor.
Studebaker is adamant about this specific point.
Mr. BALL. That's the sack, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And it shows - it has some chicken bones in it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Any chicken bones in any other place?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. None outside the sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back In. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.
I know this won't make any difference to you.
I feel confident you will carry on posting the same falsehood even when the evidence proves you wrong.
17
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 11:34:40 PM »There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Taken as a whole, the body of evidence places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. For any single piece of evidence, you can come up with an unlikely but plausible alternative explanation that doesn't implicate Oswald. When you have to reach for the least likely explanation for so many pieces of evidence in order to argue for Oswald's innocence, the argument becomes laughable. If you dispute that fact, then give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.
1. Several witnesses saw a gunman in the southeast corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
2. 3 spent shells were found at that window a short time later.
3. A rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
4. The 3 spent shells were determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
5. Only 2 bullets were recovered from the shooting, both determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
6. A clear paper trail established that Oswald ordered the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald was photographed with the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
9. Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested were found on the butt plate of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
10. A bag was found nearby the sniper's nest with Oswald's finger and palm print on it. The bag had fibers that matched the blanket that Oswald has used to store the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
11. Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest. The fingerprints were oriented as they would be had Oswald fired the shots from behind those boxes.
We also have Oswald's action following the shooter which point to his guilt in the JFKA. but I'll settle for a plausible explanation of the 10 items listed above that does no conclude that Oswald was the assassin.
My prediction is that if you accept this challenge at all, you will do what CTs always do when presented the evidence listed above. You will attack pieces of the evidence individually, but you will not present a single comprehensive narrative that explains all of these pieces collectively. No such explanation is possible. If it was, somebody would have come up with it by now.
There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired.
I've not bothered reading past this opening line as I've no doubt it's the usual WC arselicking nothingness.
You previously posted - "There is ample evidence that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30"
There is no evidence that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30.
It's good to see you back-tracking on this nonsense and throwing Tim under the bus at the same time.
As I had to inform Tim, your interpretation of the select pieces of evidence you choose to interpret is your interpretation. And that's all it is.
The assumptions you draw from this interpretation are just your assumptions. And that's all they are.
Your theory is your theory.
Jumping up and down and insisting it's a fact, like some petulant child, means nothing.
LATER EDIT: I couldn't resist and read your post.
I'm so glad I did or I would have missed the challenge:
give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.
Oswald was framed using his own rifle.
That's why the eye-witnesses described a man wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
It's why Euins described the shooter having a distinctive bald spot on top of his head which he could only see when the shooter tilted his head to look down the rifle. This would require the shooter to tilt his head to the left demonstrating he was a left-handed shooter - which Oswald wasn't.
Euins also failed to notice a telescopic sight on the rifle even though he described it in detail and recalled the shooter taking aim down the rifle.
Brennan, the only other witness who saw the rifle while it was being used, also failed to notice a telescopic sight.
Reportedly, Oswald stated he was on the first floor having lunch in the Domino Room when he saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman. Thanks to the testimonies of Jarman and Norman we know the only time this would have been possible was after they entered the back door of the TSBD building around 12:23pm
And that's before getting into all the evidence demonstrating how the Warren Commission fabricated and omitted evidence in order to create a false narrative regarding what took place on the 6th floor before the assassination - the subject of this thread.
18
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 11:24:36 PM »This traces back to the timeline of the Darnell Film. It shows Officer Baker running across The Island. The timestamp for those images of Officer Baker is currently accepted as being :20 seconds after the kill shot. Prior to that, the Darnell Film's opening frame shows the driver of Camera Car #2 standing flatfooted outside of his camera car #2. This clearly indicates that all 3 camera cars had been standing still for an extended period of time. Certainly longer than the :20 second timeline attached to Officer Baker running across the Island. Wiegman jumped out of Camera Car #1, and ran down Elm St. He filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass. With all 3 camera cars being at a dead stop, a dead stop that was so long that that the driver of Camera Car #2 vacated the vehicle, means the filming of the JFK Limo being on Elm St was far longer than the Zapruder Film leads us to believe. This means the JFK Limo did an extended "rolling stop" or a flat-out "Stop" on Elm St. Extending Officer Baker's currently accepted :20 second timestamp on the Darnell Film also places his confronting Oswald inside the 2nd Floor Lunch Room to a later point in time. There are other dominoes also falling as other timelines are properly put into place. This ALL started with the Hi Definition Opening Frames of the Darnell Film being released by the Sixth Floor Museum. I believe that the Darnell Film Hi Definition revelations also reveals why NBC has Never released their Original Darnell Film or their Original Wiegman Film.
The opening frame of the Darnell footage is less than 20 seconds after the headshot.
At the time of the opening frame Weigman, is filming the Hesters.
He finishes filming around 17 seconds after the headshot.
Four or five seconds into this footage we see Weigman running down the knoll to where the Newmans are.
19
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 11:18:05 PM »I had to start this thread in response to something a Nutter posted on another thread insinuating that Arnold Rowland made up seeing the man with the rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
Of all the crazy things the Warren Commission has forced Nutters to believe this has to be right up there.
Barbara Rowland confirms her husband's account of seeing the man with the rifle at the southwestern end of the 6th floor of the TSBD building:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson’s visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book
Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn’t see the man, because I didn’t know exactly what window he was talking about at first. And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped
back, because I didn’t see him.
Mr. BELIN. Which window was it?
Mrs. ROWLAND. It was the far left-hand window.
Mr. BELIN. As you face the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. It would be the window to the south side of the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be on the eastern part of the south side or the western part of the south side?
Mrs. ROWLAND. West.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be the farthermost west window?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes; the farthermost west pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. The farthermost west pair of windows. What did your husband say to you?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, we assumed that it was a Secret Service man.
Mr. BELIN. But what did he say, if you remember?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the motorcade.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting Rowland ran around telling every law enforcement officer he could find about the man with the rifle. He told three or four officials about this man before he gave his affidavit:
"...We stood there for a time talking about the security measures that were being made for the president’s visit in view of the recent trouble when Mr. Adelai Stevenson had been a recent visitor to Dallas. It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surrounding buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book...building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it.
He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service men.
This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair. In about 15 minutes President Kennedy passed the spot where we were standing and the motorcade had just turned west on Elm heading down the hill when I heard a noise which I thought to be a back fire."
To imagine that Rowland invented this sighting is beyond belief as it would require the almost miraculous coincidence of him inventing a man (whose description closely matches that of other eyewitnesses) carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
What are the chances Rowland making up a white, slender male carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor and it turns out that's exactly what happened?
ROLL UP, ROLL UP NUTTERS.
LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS MATTER.
DON'T BE SHY.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE MIRACLE ON ELM STREET?
Of all the crazy things the Warren Commission has forced Nutters to believe this has to be right up there.
Barbara Rowland confirms her husband's account of seeing the man with the rifle at the southwestern end of the 6th floor of the TSBD building:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson’s visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book
Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn’t see the man, because I didn’t know exactly what window he was talking about at first. And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped
back, because I didn’t see him.
Mr. BELIN. Which window was it?
Mrs. ROWLAND. It was the far left-hand window.
Mr. BELIN. As you face the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. It would be the window to the south side of the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be on the eastern part of the south side or the western part of the south side?
Mrs. ROWLAND. West.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be the farthermost west window?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes; the farthermost west pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. The farthermost west pair of windows. What did your husband say to you?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, we assumed that it was a Secret Service man.
Mr. BELIN. But what did he say, if you remember?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the motorcade.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting Rowland ran around telling every law enforcement officer he could find about the man with the rifle. He told three or four officials about this man before he gave his affidavit:
"...We stood there for a time talking about the security measures that were being made for the president’s visit in view of the recent trouble when Mr. Adelai Stevenson had been a recent visitor to Dallas. It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surrounding buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book...building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it.
He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service men.
This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair. In about 15 minutes President Kennedy passed the spot where we were standing and the motorcade had just turned west on Elm heading down the hill when I heard a noise which I thought to be a back fire."
To imagine that Rowland invented this sighting is beyond belief as it would require the almost miraculous coincidence of him inventing a man (whose description closely matches that of other eyewitnesses) carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
What are the chances Rowland making up a white, slender male carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor and it turns out that's exactly what happened?
ROLL UP, ROLL UP NUTTERS.
LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS MATTER.
DON'T BE SHY.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE MIRACLE ON ELM STREET?
20
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 09:16:20 PM »And why does that matter?
This traces back to the timeline of the Darnell Film. It shows Officer Baker running across The Island. The timestamp for those images of Officer Baker is currently accepted as being :20 seconds after the kill shot. Prior to that, the Darnell Film's opening frame shows the driver of Camera Car #2 standing flatfooted outside of his camera car #2. This clearly indicates that all 3 camera cars had been standing still for an extended period of time. Certainly longer than the :20 second timeline attached to Officer Baker running across the Island. Wiegman jumped out of Camera Car #1, and ran down Elm St. He filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass. With all 3 camera cars being at a dead stop, a dead stop that was so long that that the driver of Camera Car #2 vacated the vehicle, means the filming of the JFK Limo being on Elm St was far longer than the Zapruder Film leads us to believe. This means the JFK Limo did an extended "rolling stop" or a flat-out "Stop" on Elm St. Extending Officer Baker's currently accepted :20 second timestamp on the Darnell Film also places his confronting Oswald inside the 2nd Floor Lunch Room to a later point in time. There are other dominoes also falling as other timelines are properly put into place. This ALL started with the Hi Definition Opening Frames of the Darnell Film being released by the Sixth Floor Museum. I believe that the Darnell Film Hi Definition revelations also reveals why NBC has Never released their Original Darnell Film or their Original Wiegman Film.