JFK Assassination Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell

« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 02:46:46 AM »

Quote from: Royell Storing on Today at 02:24:32 AM

I said "CLEARER" Darnell Film frames. You have only posted the 1st frame. There are "CLEARER" frames than the 1st frame. If for whatever reason you have Not been able to examine frames other than the 1st frame, just say so.
If you believe that Wiegman is Not moving across the Knoll on the Bell Film, just how long do you believe he stood stock still there on the Knoll? Remember that Wiegman standing still impacts the TICK/TOCK of his film footage afterward. Like his filming Officer Haygood coming down Elm Street. Changing the Haygood timeline further calls into question his 5 minute window.

You are literally unbelievable.
I have posted a frame (which is not the first frame of the Darnell footage) that clearly shows the Thornton sign.
Everyone can see it.
It's crystal clear.
I would like to see you post a clearer frame...but you can't...you're too old to understand how the technology works that would allow you to post a frame...that's why you never post any images.

If you believe that Wiegman is Not moving across the Knoll on the Bell Film,

You need to really focus here.
Don't just assume anything.
OK...here goes...
WEIGMAN DOES NOT MOVE ACROSS THE KNOLL.
He does not move one centimetre across the knoll in the Bell footage.
It does not happen.
It's not a question of belief.
It simply does not happen.
That is a fact.
WEIGMAN DOES NOT MOVE ONE CENTIMETRE ACROSS THE KNOLL IN THE BELL FILM.

That is literally the end of that discussion as far as I'm concerned. It does not happen.
That you keep insisting it does is so weird I don't know what to think.
You clearly have mental health issues.
Or...you are so old you have nom idea what's real and what's just in your mind.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell

« Last post by Royell Storing on Today at 02:44:44 AM »

Quote from: Dan O'meara on Today at 01:02:27 AM

You make sh!t up and believe it's a fact.
You are an incredibly tiring person to deal with.
Why not post an actual fact you can back up. It's all your fantastical opinion. Your constant insistence that Weigman can be seen running across the knoll in the Bell footage DQ's you from this discussion.

You're frustrated because I refer to Facts that You are Not familiar with. Remember, I had to tell you which figure was Wiegman on the Bell Film.
Again, you're very good with the Prayer Man stuff. But when we move away from that, you get lost due to your limited knowledge. You need to bone up on the Assassination Films, the 11/22/63 layout of the Knoll, and the position of those on the knoll relative to each other and the Knoll landmarks. Such as the Z Perch, Stemmons Sign, Street Light Pole, & Thornton Sign.
And, from the point we see Wiegman on the Bell Film, he had to move (W) across the knoll in order to arrive (W) of the street light pole where he filmed the Newman Family.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Gerald Posner on the JFKA

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 02:02:24 AM »

MTG--

This was from Posner's X post. AFAIK, he does not post at Education Forum.

Posner is a JFKA researcher who has come to different conclusions than myself.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions. They will be as good as anyone else's.

I find the LNT implausible.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: George Mantello, the founder of Permindex, was a Hero

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:58:06 AM »

FL--

Unfortunately, for many in the modern-day JFKA research world, saving 100,000 fellow human beings would be a negative, if they were Jews.

Mantello is obviously a hero.

But, that has little bearing on the JFKA itself.

However, reason some, as Mantello was Jewish, that means Mossad perped the JFKA....

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 01:24:50 AM »

The Nutter narrative is that from 12:00 noon until Bonnie Ray left the 6th floor (around 12:25pm), Oswald was hidden in the SN, quiet as a mouse, just a few yards away from Bonnie Ray as he ate his lunch sat on an incredibly uncomfortable trolley while he looked out on Dealey Plaza through a closed, dirty window.
For almost half an hour Oswald hid in silence.
And he must have been really, amazingly silent because there was no work going on in the TSBD building. Most employees were outside waiting for the parade.
Silence.
For almost half an hour.
Can't assemble a rifle in silence.
Can't move Rolling Reader boxes around in silence.

So let's not accept the lies of the Warren Commission Sham.
Once we accept that the accounts of Williams, Givens, Lovelady, Arce and Piper, it turns out Oswald never had enough time to even get into the SN before Bonnie Ray was in position, let alone organise the SN or assemble a rifle.
And what's with Arnold Rowland's sighting of a white male, fitting the description of the shooter as seen by others, with a scoped rifle at the southwest end of the 6th floor 15 minutes before the arrival of the motorcade in Dealey Plaza.
And what to make of Arnold's observation of a black male in the SN at the same time, who disappeared around 5 minutes before the motorcade arrived?
And what to make of the statements of every single one of the first responders, at least 6 of them, who put the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch in the SN before Fritz arrived on the scene?

What, exactly, was the Warren Commission Sham trying to cover up?

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Fourth Edition of "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds"

« Last post by Tim Nickerson on Today at 01:19:08 AM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Today at 12:50:26 AM

LOL! You're still peddling this hilarious nonsense?! Let me just briefly repeat the facts I documented for you the last time you floated this hokum: Every medical panel that has looked at the skull x-rays has identified the 6.5 mm object as a separate image from the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit -- the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the HSCA FPP, the HSCA FPP's radiology consultants, and the ARRB's medical panel. Both objects are clearly visible on the AP skull x-rays, and anyone with functioning eyes can see they have different shapes and are located in different vertical positions in relation to the right orbit:

AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment

As you can see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is at least 1 inch higher in the skull than the 6.5 mm object and has an obviously different shape.

Any objective people who read this exchange are going to wonder how in the world you can claim with a straight face that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same objects.

Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue". Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficulty, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.
=========

And there's this from Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.:

"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):

DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.

The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray." -- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D. - "Respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York."

https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

===========

THERE IS A METALLIC FRAGMENT ABOVE THE SINUS APPEARING TO BE BETWEEN THE BONY TABLES OF THE FRONTAL BONE
- Dr. G. M. McDonnel, in his report to the HSCA concerning Observation, analysis, and conclusions in connection with radiographic images and enhanced images attributed to President John F. Kennedy.
============

Post the enhanced AP X-Ray with an arrow pointing at the fragment that my red arrow is pointing at in the lateral view below.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / George Mantello, the founder of Permindex, was a Hero

« Last post by Fred Litwin on Today at 01:03:27 AM »

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/george-mantello-founder-of-permindex-was-a-hero

George Mantello, the founder of Permindex, was a Hero

Permindex was a Swiss company founded by George Mantello. It opened a world trade center in Rome in 1960 and Clay Shaw was on its board. Conspiracy theorists would tell you that it was a shadowy organization, but the truth is that they couldn't find enough tenants for their world trade center and it closed in February 1962.

What is interesting is that George Mantello saved the lives of thousands of Jews during World War II. He wasn't a villain - he was a hero.

Clay Shaw never attended a board meeting. He didn't like to fly and so had very little to do with the organization.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell

« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 01:02:27 AM »

Quote from: Royell Storing on Yesterday at 01:21:19 AM

You've done extremely good work concerning the Prayer Man and the activity around the TSBD immediately after the Kill Shot. And your theory of Shelley and Lovelady entering the TSBD via the front door is unique. All of this is to your credit. I made the mistake of thinking that your knowledge of the JFK Assassination was also this broad based. At this point, it's not even close to that level. You need to familiarize yourself with the 11/22/63 layout of the Knoll. Also, who was where, who went where, and what JFK Assassination Films and Photos document this. Start with the Couch Film. The Couch Film shows what is believed to be Wiegman running Down the (W) side of the Knoll. The Bell Film shows Wiegman on the upper (E) side of the Knoll. How much time do you think is between the Bell Film images of Wiegman on the (E) side of the Knoll vs the Couch Film showing Wiegman running down the (W) side of the Knoll? And remember that we see Officer Hargis standing alongside the Light Pole on the Bell Film. TICK/TOCK
Get to know the JFK Assassination Images, (both film and photo), and think it through. If you do this, you will Not have to rely on smokescreens like, "Zapruder, Sitzman, and Wiegman are ALL behind the sign". That is extremely weak in many ways. Especially if you Know the distance between Wiegman and Sitzman. If you substituted a Bill Board for the Thornton Sign, that bill board would Not stretch from Wiegman to Sitzman. That bill board would Not be wide enough to obscure both Sitzman and Wiegman. Again familiarize yourself with who was where, along with the 11/22/63 position of the Knoll landmarks. Especially: (1) the Light Post, (2) the Stemmons Sign, and, (3) the Thornton Sign.

You make sh!t up and believe it's a fact.
You are an incredibly tiring person to deal with.
Why not post an actual fact you can back up. It's all your fantastical opinion. Your constant insistence that Weigman can be seen running across the knoll in the Bell footage DQ's you from this discussion.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?

« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:57:29 AM »

Quote from: Brian Doyle on Yesterday at 05:12:56 PM

It pains me to see the punk hoaxer researcher Bart Kamp referred to as "Of Standing"...

These people ridicule you on their podcasts and then when you ask for equal airtime to defend yourself threaten you with legal action just for asking...

It's amazing how much you denigrate Kamp and his work, yet it forms the basis for the totality of your opinion regarding the subject of this thread.
You refer to him as the "punk hoaxer" yet accept his Lovelady identification as gospel.

#doublestandards
#credibility

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Fourth Edition of "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds"

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 12:50:26 AM »

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Yesterday at 11:23:39 PM

Just so you know, a bullet fragment was not deposited on the outer table of the skull at or near the entry point. Sturdivan had trouble understanding what that "6.5 mm" object was doing in the back of the head, and for good reason. It was not in the back of the head. It was the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and just above the right eye.

LOL! You're still peddling this hilarious nonsense?! I had mistakenly assumed you had abandoned this fiction after our last exchange on the subject, but I see I assumed too much.

So, let me just briefly repeat the facts that I documented for you the last time I dealt with this hokum: Every medical panel that has looked at the skull x-rays has identified the 6.5 mm object as a separate image from the 7 x 2 mm fragment above the right orbit: the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the HSCA FPP, the HSCA FPP's radiology consultants, and the ARRB's medical panel. Both objects are clearly visible on the AP skull x-rays, and anyone with functioning eyes can see they have different shapes and are located in different vertical positions in relation to the right orbit:

AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (JPG, regular size)

AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (PDF, enlarged)

As you can see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is at least 1 inch higher in the skull than the 6.5 mm object, is about 1/4 inch to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and has an obviously different shape than the 6.5 mm object.

Any objective people who read this exchange are going to wonder how in the world you can claim with a straight face that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same objects.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10