Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
Did you go to the trouble of correcting my "about 2.2 seconds" "to 2.295 seconds" to give Oswald more time to get off a shot between Z-273 and Z-313?
No. I was correcting your statement that I suggested z273 as the time of the second shot. I have consistently placed the second shot between z271-272.  At z273 JFK’s hair on the right side is already flying up, which Hickey said occurred on the second shot. The change in JBC’s wrist and hat as well as the beginning of his forward motion occurs between z271-272.
32
When it is presented whether in its original form or reused in a documentary and not identified as a re-enactment, it is a fraud. Failure to do so implies it is an actual recording made during the assassination. For years, I believed it was a recording of the actual event and I would bet most people who heard it believed the same thing. I would be a lot of people still believe it to be a recording of a live broadcast. That makes it a fraud.

 :'( Oh, so painful
33
  :D It was a record for entertainment purposes
One line. Nobody claimed it was 11//22. True statement

nobody claimed it was.

When it is presented whether in its original form or reused in a documentary and not identified as a re-enactment, it is a fraud. Failure to do so implies it is an actual recording made during the assassination. For years, I believed it was a recording of the actual event and I would bet most people who heard it believed the same thing. I would be a lot of people still believe it to be a recording of a live broadcast. That makes it a fraud.
34
In any event, presenting a reenactment of an event as if it were an actual broadcast is serious breach of journalistic ethics. It's called manufacturing the news. It is a fraudulent practice.

  :D It was a record for entertainment purposes
One line. It was not news. True statement

It is not a broadcast of an actual event.

nobody claimed it was.
35
It was a sound bite on a record for entertainment. It wasn't broadcast as news
nobody described as the day it happened

Every documentary that has used that recording and not identified it as a re-enactment has perpetrated a fraud. The originators of the recording also perpetrated a fraud if they didn't identify it as a re-enactment. It is not a broadcast of an actual event.
36
Producer Nigel Turner used dramatic reconstructions with actors to portray the covertly recorded conversation between right-wing activist Joseph Milteer and police informant Willie Somerset on 'TMWKK' because the original surveillance audio recordings were either inaudible, structurally fragmented, or legally/technically unfit for direct broadcast.

Original 1963 police wire/surveillance recordings of Milteer were muffled, degraded, and difficult for general television audiences to understand clearly without enhancement or re-reading.

Using voice actors allowed the precise, controversial text of what Milteer stated regarding threats against President Kennedy to be presented coherently to the audience.


What a sham! We have no idea what was actually said or if this interview was actually recorded. They could have had the actors say just about anything they wanted and apparently did. Just the kind of fraud one would expect from the charlatans who produced TMWKK. I don't believe a word of this. Why should I?
37
My Second Oral History Interview for the Sixth Floor Museum

This conversation with Stephen Fagin was about my book, On the Trail of Delusion -- Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser. A transcript is included in he post.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/my-second-oral-history-interview-for-the-sixth-floor-museum
38
In any event, presenting a reenactment of an event as if it were an actual broadcast is serious breach of journalistic ethics. It's called manufacturing the news. It is a fraudulent practice.

It was a sound bite on a record for entertainment. It wasn't broadcast as news
nobody described as the day it happened
39
Pate left KBOX before making the recording

In any event, presenting a reenactment of an event as if it were an actual broadcast is serious breach of journalistic ethics. It's called manufacturing the news. It is a fraudulent practice.
40
The windshield shot... Bill "Rubbernecking" Greer was likely being put on notice... "don't you dare divulge why you slowed the limo... because we can get to you too..."

It's amazing what imagination can conjure up in lieu of evidence.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10