Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Who Is This Man In The TSBD?
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Today at 01:22:15 PM »
Charles Givens?

Hey, isn't that Ralph Stinky in the upper right hand corner of the photo?  No, wait, it's a black dude.  Sorry+  p.s. hey, your gadget worked, Duncan !!  It always spells Ralph's name correctly !!!   LOL
12
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Did Ruby really kill Oswald?
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Today at 01:17:14 PM »
Gosh, Ralph (uh, i uh, mean, uh, Dave Conti).  How come you don't post anymore?  How's your new movie comin' along???    LOL !!!

Raff* posted about this not too long ago on his oh-so famous blog, oddwalski in the doorwayski, uh........  yes, he's still at it.  And he's coming out with another movie.  This is priceless !!!
13
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The Backyard Photo Paradox
« Last post by Gerry Down on Today at 01:14:46 PM »
Well, the one he was shown.

Would that be the same one a FBI agent showed Michael Paine on Friday evening, despite the fact that the BY photos were not (offically) found until the second search (this time with a warrant) of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon?

You mean the FBI realized that the photos they took from the Paine house on the Friday might not be admissible as evidence for the expected court trial as they had been taken without a warrant and so they whitewashed from the record that they had shown them to Michael Paine on the Friday and just pretended they found them on the Saturday in accordance with now having actually got a search warrant like they should have done in the first place?
14
Yes. Then he took the remains of his lunch out front to watch the P. Parade. I believe that the Wiegman film shows him holding his Coke in one hand and some food (either apple or sandwich) in the other-------------



And the original Altgens 6 (taken just before this) showed him holding the Coke-------



 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I can't believe you've gone public with your Black Oswald theory.
For those of you not familiar with Mr Ford's track record with 'tampering the evidence' let me explain.
He is using this really 'bleached out' version of Altgens 6 to "prove" there is a white arm holding a bottle of Coca-Cola (please don't ask how he knows it's a bottle of Coke). Note - look how white the ladies at the bottom of the picture look.

Somehow he knows this 'white arm' belongs to Oswald ( :D :D :D)



As insane as this appears to be, you ain't seen nothin' yet folks. Below is a close-up from a 'normal' version of Altgens 6. In it we can see the arm is not white at all, if anything, it belongs to a black person, hence Mr Ford's Black Oswald theory.



But there's more. Mr Ford is convinced the Wiegman film has been altered. According to his theory, the shadow we see cast down the left side of Lovelady as we look at it, has been added to disguise the fact Lovelady is wearing a long-sleeved shirt. (The shadow, by the way is obviously the edge of the wall of the front entrance, but don't tell Alan that).
Now why has this pic been altered to disguise the fact Lovelady is wearing a long-sleeved shirt?
I'll let Alan tell you - prepare to have your mind blown  8)

15
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:38:20 PM »
On another thread Robin Unger posted this very clear Gif (excellent work again Robin).
It shows JBC rising and looking back towards the president after ducking down in front of the jump seats.
Although he may (or may not) hint at this, nowhere in the dozens of statements he gave in interviews, reports, testimonies etc., does JBC mention this specific and notable action.
Like Jackie forgetting she climbed on the trunk, JBC seems to have forgotten this quite significant action, highlighting the dubious nature of putting eye-witness testimony before the Z-film:

16
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:05:37 PM »
I think you are stretching it a bit to call a 25-28 frame - 1.5 second - delay "bizarre".  Given what he had to do to react, it might be considered rather quick.  It was certainly quicker than Kellerman's reaction which does not begin until z252.

Keep in mind, JBC's was not a reaction prompted by recognizing a physical impact. His brain first had to recognize the sound as a gunshot.  Then his brain had to process the significance of that sound ie. that an assassination of the President was unfolding.  Then his brain had to make a decision to turn around to check on JFK.  Then the brain had to instruct the muscles to co-ordinate a turn to the rear to perform the check. All of that took 25-28 frames (z195-198 to z223) or 1.37 to 1.53 seconds.

And that is assuming that his reaction began at z223.  It may not have.  If you look at JBC's shirt, the amount of white shirt visible in z222 is less than in z223. In fact, z222 and z224 look very similar (so much for the jacket bulge theory).  One possible and very reasonable explanation would be that, while he is behind the sign, JBC is already beginning to move his body.
?? I agree that he doesn't turn around to see JFK until after JFK is shot (on the first shot).  JBC said he turned around after the first shot and before he - JBC - was hit in the back.  So, according to the evidence, that turn is before JBC was hit in the back.
The evidentiary context in which JBC turned around to see JFK was JBC reacting to the sound of the shot.  The actions that you describe are, according to the evidence, the result of JFK being hit by the first shot and JBC reacting to hearing it, not being hit in the back by it. 
He did say in his interview in the hospital that he saw "the President had slumped".
The uncertainty is evident in the fact that in 1966 in the Life article (25 Nov 1966) he said:

  • “Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.”

Also, in his testimony before the HSCA he said:
  • “When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit-no, I guess it was
    after I was hit-I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no,
    no," just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone through this
    24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed.

    The President had been so marvelously received and then here,
    at the last moment, this great tragedy. I just said, "no, no, no, no."
    Then I said right after I was hit, I said, "My God, they are going to
    kill us all.”
This is a revealing statement.  While he could not recall when exactly he uttered the "no, no, no", he did recall why he said it:  out of concern for the president being assassinated and not because he had just been hit in the back.  So that fits with having said it before he was hit.  And it also explains how he would have known that JFK had been hit and had slumped.  His statement "they are going to kill us all" indicates that he was aware at that time that JFK had been hit. That is a possibility. Sure. But if she was mistaken about that and JBC was hit at z223, she was also mistaken about seeing JFK clutching at his neck/face BEFORE her husband was hit.  And she was also mistaken that she reached out to pull him down immediately after he was hit because she does not appear to do anything of the kind until after z278 when JBC begins to fall back onto her.

And this is exactly why I consider the confusion and contradiction of eye-witness testimony to be 'secondary' evidence.
JBC says "Oh, no, no, no" immediately after he is shot but Nellie says it was before he was shot then JBC contradicts himself and says it was after and that he "just said" it because the day was spoiled (LOL) even though Jackie remembers him screaming like a stuck pig but she doesn't remember climbing on to the trunk. JBC sees the president slumped over but also states -  "I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots". Nellie says she comforted JBC after the headshot, JBC says it was before the headshot, Kellerman is absolutely positive JFK shouts out "My God, I am hit" but he is silent according to everyone else, Greer doesn't hear anybody say anything and on and on and on...

The contradictory nature of these testimonies can be manipulated to support almost any scenario and in that sense are useless.
In my opinion the Z-film is 'primary' evidence and eye-witness testimony can only be validated if it is represented in the Z-film.
The pages of arguments I have presented demonstrating a first shot hit at z223 have deliberately avoided witness statements (for the very reasons we see above) but is there a way of validating these statements through the Z-film?
For example - Nellie testifies that:

"The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us.
I thought John had been killed, and then there was some imperceptible movement, just some little something that let me know that there was still some life, and that is when I started saying to him, "It's all right. Be still."


In the Z-film the moment the headshot occurs both JBC and Nellie immediately duck down in front of the jump seats. There is no time for Nellie to comfort JBC or notice the 'human matter' over everything. These are possibly things that happened later in the journey.
However, JBC testifies Nellie comforts him before the headshot and the Z-film appears to show Nellie lean towards JBC's ear  at which point she could  say something to him. Although not definitive, the Z-film supports JBC's testimony to a certain extent and refutes Nellie's testimony.
I believe this is how witness statements should be viewed - through the lens of the Z-film:

17
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Ray Mitcham on Today at 11:10:29 AM »
Mrs Connolly's testimony to W.C.

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

Nelly referencing JBC's own words to identify JBC as being hit by the first shot. Same as Jackie.

Where did Jackie say JBC was hit by the first shot?


What  you don't understand that Mrs Connolly said JBC  was hit by the second shot.


"Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

As the first shot was hit...I recall John saying Oh, no,no,no Then there was a second shot and it hit John



18
Nope! Agent Hosty has Mr Oswald put himself in the lunchroom pre-motorcade, Agent Bookhout shifts the timeframe dramatically to "at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building"--------and adds the Baker/Truly encounter to Mr Oswald's story.

There is no consistency in his statement. LHO tells Kelley he ate with the colored boys, He tells Bookhout he ate alone. He tells Hosty he went outside to watch the parade after eating lunch and getting a coke from the 2nd floor. He tells Holmes he went out to see what the commotion was about after the assassination. LHO tells Bookout he ate lunch after the assassination and after the lunchroom encounter. LHO places the lunch room encounter before the assassination in the Bookhout interrogation and does not mention it to Kelley. LHO tells Holmes he was still working at the time of the assassination. LHO never told the same story twice. Through it all LHO never once mentions hearing shots.


Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize. He stated that his lunch consisted of a cheese sandwich and an apple..."

Agent Bookhout:

OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of BILL SHELLEY, he did not believe that there was going to be any more work that day due to the confusion in the building.
...
OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., but that he is not required to punch a time clock. His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor; however he frequently is required to go to the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh floors of the building in order to get books and this was true on November 22, 1963, and he had been on all of the floors in the performance of his duties on November 22, 1963.

Inspector Kelley, 11/23 interrogation report:
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as 'Junior', a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread, fruit, and apples..."

Agent Hosty
O stated he was present for work at the TSBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to the 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat with lunch and returned to the 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P parade
19
So something Trump allegedly "considered" but never did might be a crime?  A "thought crime"! LOL  Orwell would be a proud.  You need a new hobby.  Trump is no longer president.

Funny enough, right up until the march on the Capitol the claims of voter fraud were all over the place. After the storming of the Capitol everything suddenly went quiet, lawsuits were being dropped, Trump disappeared out of sight and a obvious resignation about the upcoming inauguration became apparent....

I wonder what brought on the sudden change of heart....

Could it possibly be the realisation that the incitement of the mob with lies had gone too far?
20
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The Backyard Photo Paradox
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Today at 09:52:39 AM »
Well, the one he was shown. And by implication, as the issue he had with the photo was that he was holding a rifle, he was implying all other photos that show him holding the rifle are not real.

Well, the one he was shown.

Would that be the same one a FBI agent showed Michael Paine on Friday evening, despite the fact that the BY photos were not (offically) found until the second search (this time with a warrant) of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Mobile View