Proof the fatal shot came from somewhere else other then the rear

[Tom Scully]

If you conclude, instead of embracing a strong suspicion that the Z-film has been altered, or the BYP, for that matter, I have to part ways with you if I am to maintain a standard of proof I do hold the government agencies I mentioned above, to.

Does any of your rambling connect Roberts being quoted in an affidavit on Dec 5th which conflicts with what she says months later... and the alteration of the Zfilm or BYPs?

An unaltered original 0183 film out of Zaps camera would be about 30 feet of CONNECTED FILM without splices, WITH the 0183 imprint, WITH the reverse side either connected (making 60 feet of film) or still attached as a 16mm film.

What we have in the archives cannot be considered an UNALTERED FILM.

Then, when we address the anomolies seen in 1/18th of a second from frame to frame we are futher convinced with a study in reality and physics that people do not move like that in the real world.

Using the Zfilm to come to any conclusions related to what happened in DP that day is the real joke....

What I'm saying is your posts and question have nothing to do with the issue being discussed other than for you to show off all the links you have and all the speculation you offer about how these connections IMPLY something is going on.... You still never PROVE anything.

That you don't like Horne or Dino's statement is again, your problem Tom... you offer nothing to refute the statements or the Film map or anything else posted which relates to the issue.

When it comes to film and photo "evidence," I already told you I try not to go there.

then by all means Tom, please DON'T GO THERE as it appears you have little if any feel of understanding of what is going on in these images and EVIDENCE...

As I've asked in the past with your posts - can you take a single post and actually say what you think - directly.

What you regard as this or that is not the point yet again.. we are not hear trying to mee the Scully standard for evidence...
YOU on the other hand never connect the dots - all you do is splatter a while bunch of these dots against the wall and say "See, it's all connected" without saying or proving a thing.

Where do you stand Tom?

Oswald - Lone Nut or set up Patsy?
The Evidence collected - pure and pristine or altered to implicate Oswald at any and all costs?

Your point related to Roberts - I never posted that I concluded foreknowledge due to Roberts' stating the DPD was at her door before Oswald was arrested... so what difference does it make whterh it was a 2pm or 3pm?

Can you please just get to a single identifyable POINT of all your references and links rather than play evidence cop and/or post nazi in order that WE meet some arbitrary standard of evidence that only exists in your mind?

Brian was replying to my post Tom, not yours. You stepped in trying to correct him by fostering your evidence expectations on him in areas that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Are you saying you think Det. Potts arrived at 1026 closer to 2:00 than 3:00 and hung around doing nothing until shortly after 3:00 when Oswald's image was first broadcast on television, or that Oswald's image was first broadcast sometime earlier? I'd enjoy seeing you post links to primary sources supporting an earlier broadcast timeline or an actual earlier than 3:00 arrival by Det. Potts or any other LE at 1026 N. Beckley.

This is a tactic Tom. We are talking about the zfilm yet since your understanding of the films and photos is not your thing you push the conversation into the areas you WANT to discuss.

Start anew thread and have at it Tom... bring up all the witness conflicts that you feel make a difference in the outcome of an analysis.

Brehm said the limo moved barely 10-12 feet between the 1st and last shots, numerous others say the limo slowed to a crawl or even stopped... those two concepts are corroborative not mutually exclusive.
Then we add in what the FBI and SS did to move the evidence of the shots around making it virtually impossible to reconstruct the scene using the evidence offered...

when the physical evidence is such crap, corroborated witness statements take a front seat.

In the end Tom, your posts are disjointed ramblings of someone with a vast knowledge of the connections but little practical application of your non-existent conclusions.

Say what you mean Tom and then support it with something that makes sense... the DPD, FBI, CIA, SS et al couldn't do it - their evidence invariably comes up inauthentic, or corroborated by other evidence which cannot be authenticated.

Is being direct and on topic even possible for you?

Again, I was replying to these comments .....

...What this shows me is that the alteration of the Z-film was considerably more sophisticated than just the removal of frames. .....One of the earliest corroborative pieces would be Earlene Roberts and both landlords swearing up and down that the Dallas police were at their place just after 1:30. That would be before Oswald's actual arrest. However the official record has Bill Alexander showing up with the warrant a little after 4pm. These photographic alterations we're looking at, are not simple - they take time, they have to be possibly repeated once or twice before they're gotten right... and to do that on an 8-mm film would have taken a bit of expertise and quite a bit of specialized equipment, back in 1963. Brugione is quite clear about the chain of custody in his interview, his job was apparently to make presentation boards but there was another team with perhaps a different purpose from which he was excluded. He talks specifically about seeing a "big chunk" of Kennedy's skull about three to four feet in the air above Kennedy's head, on the reel he worked on - which is of course missing from the public version.

You made many demands. You expect you've "proven" many of your conclusions. You cannot seem to grasp there
are other approaches, informed strategies. Whether it is Bush lecturing while standing over Ford's coffin, or Janney serving up his "missing" CIA assassin, I am satisfied it is a responsible choice to respond with, "that is all well and good, but what about this, this, and this?" ....or words to that effect.

You posture as if I must define Oswald differently than Bush or Ford have. Could they have done any worse by the
young book warehouse order picker?

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008...t_buf.html
......Steven Ford, the late president's son, said during a recent visit to Grand Rapids. "I've sat around the dinner table with Dad many times, and he'd be the first to tell you they couldn't rule out a conspiracy, but there was no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone."........"President Ford was very explicit to me that he believed Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone," said Thomas DeFrank, author of the new Ford biography "Tell it When I'm Gone." ......

I do not believe Oswald traveled to Mexico City in Sept., 1963, or that he purchased a $13 used rifle from Klein's mail order and
used it to assassinate JFk, firing from a sixth floor window at this workplace, the TSBD. Aside from Bush, Ford, and [URL="http://tomscully.com/node/13"]much other noise
to the contrary[/URL].