Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland

[Lauren Johnson]

Jim

Have you not chosen to join EF or you still "not welcome?"

[Jim DiEugenio]

I have not tried to join EF.

I think the place has really fallen in the quality of membership.

They have lost so many good posters like Martin Hay, Robert Charles Dunne, Dwayne Dunn etc.

[Magda Hassan]

BTW, Roy/Blatburst is also pushing the whole line of rigamarole about him being a careful researcher.

This is the guy who wrote that when the cut Z frames are inserted into the Z film at around 207 forward, that still does not prove a conspiracy.

HA HA HA LOL

See, those excised frames clearly show Kennedy's head buckling from an impact. And when Groden first showed them at Harvard in 1993, the audience was shocked since it was on a big screen with very good resolution.

Everyone realized why Hoover had cut those frames. Because the WC wrote that Oswald could not have gotten a shot off at that point since his vision was blocked by the branches of an oak tree. If you can believe it even Dunacan McRae said it looked like he was hit before he went behind the sign. (DVP went nuts when he said that, of course.) The HSCA photo panel also said this was the case.

But not that "careful researcher" Roy/Blatburst. The troll who feels fine at Max Holland's site.

Jim, Stephen has been contacting us to let him join so he can comment/rebut what has been said about him here. Any point? We have our policy of not having LNers of course.

[Ivan De Mey]

Yeah, I saw that too and I added to my post above about it.

Wow, what chutzpah.

And man now the EF has fallen: Von Pein and Roy. Bad cop, good cop.

BTW, Roy/Blatburst is also pushing the whole line of rigamarole about him being a careful researcher.

This is the guy who wrote that when the cut Z frames are inserted into the Z film at around 207 forward, that still does not prove a conspiracy.

HA HA HA LOL

See, those excised frames clearly show Kennedy's head buckling from an impact. And when Groden first showed them at Harvard in 1993, the audience was shocked since it was on a big screen with very good resolution.

Everyone realized why Hoover had cut those frames. Because the WC wrote that Oswald could not have gotten a shot off at that point since his vision was blocked by the branches of an oak tree. If you can believe it even Dunacan McRae said it looked like he was hit before he went behind the sign. (DVP went nuts when he said that, of course.) The HSCA photo panel also said this was the case.

But not that "careful researcher" Roy/Blatburst. The troll who feels fine at Max Holland's site.

Is the Zapruder film with the cut frames inserted to be seen somewhere? Can't seem to find it on YouTube.

[Drew Phipps]

There's another solution to that: Simply quit talking about the motives of other researchers and just discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of their theories.

[Albert Doyle]

Blackburst is fair game. He's a Lone Nutter who uses the classic Lone Nut method (ala Bugliosi) of whitewashing the evidence in phony high rigor analysis while fully intending to lose incriminating content in diversionary volume. He then pleads that he is only being objective and following higher standards. If you read the Amazon comments section for his review he had every chance to answer for it but didn't. There's a modern element in Million Fragments​ of using Shaw's gay-ness as a contemporary focus. Sort of like switching the subject and trying to humanize Shaw as a progressive gay man. It's obvious the only reason Carpenter is doing that is because he's trying to shift attention from Shaw's wolf status and participation in the assassination.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Magda:

Roy/Blatburst is a Krazy Kid Oswald advocate all the way. You have a policy on that. Why break it for him?

If I had any interest in going back on EF, I would have no problem locking horns with him. But I don't have any such interest for reasons I stated above.

And I am doing very little that is personal.

But anyone who posts at Max Holland's web site and then allies himself with DVP, I mean puhlease!

Its really odd he is complaining since he has no problem going after other "mythologists". For instance, according to Bill Davy, he trashed his book when it came out.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Ivan:

It should be.


Just google "Z film including excised frames."

If not Groden sells it.

But see, there is a difference seeing it on a big screen in film form, versus seeing a video or digitized version.

On a big screen, with high resolution it is really compelling.

[Albert Doyle]

I have not tried to join EF.

I think the place has really fallen in the quality of membership.

Mostly because of your absence. I think the cause needs you over there. The place has gotten weedy with deniers and contrarian skeptics.

[Tracy Riddle]

Yeah, I saw that too and I added to my post above about it.

Wow, what chutzpah.

And man now the EF has fallen: Von Pein and Roy. Bad cop, good cop.

BTW, Roy/Blatburst is also pushing the whole line of rigamarole about him being a careful researcher.

This is the guy who wrote that when the cut Z frames are inserted into the Z film at around 207 forward, that still does not prove a conspiracy.

HA HA HA LOL

See, those excised frames clearly show Kennedy's head buckling from an impact. And when Groden first showed them at Harvard in 1993, the audience was shocked since it was on a big screen with very good resolution.

Everyone realized why Hoover had cut those frames. Because the WC wrote that Oswald could not have gotten a shot off at that point since his vision was blocked by the branches of an oak tree. If you can believe it even Dunacan McRae said it looked like he was hit before he went behind the sign. (DVP went nuts when he said that, of course.) The HSCA photo panel also said this was the case.

But not that "careful researcher" Roy/Blatburst. The troll who feels fine at Max Holland's site.

Is the Zapruder film with the cut frames inserted to be seen somewhere? Can't seem to find it on YouTube.

You can see some frames here, about 1/3 the way down the page:

http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza