Robert,
You are far too intelligent to pass through this life and not appreciate the extent to which the government went to
conceal the true causes of the death of JFK. If they would alter the autopsy X-rays, substitute someone else's brain,
post agents at the photo processing plants around Dallas for two weeks to make sure they got all the photos and
films, steal the body and alter the wounds (by surgery to the head and mutilating the throat wound), why would you
think they would be squeamish about reworking the film, when it would have given the game away? You know that
Greer brought the limo to a halt after bullets began to be fired, which is only one of at least fifteen indications of
Secret Service complicity in the assassination, do you not? Leaving that in would have blown the case wide open.
There are five physical properties that distinguish the original (developed in Dallas) from the substitute (developed
in Rochester). I am talking about properties of the strips of celluloid, respectively. So we know there were different
films. The chain of custody of the original was clearly broken, since one was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, the
23rd, where it was studied by one team of specialists, the other on Sunday, the 24th, where it was studied by another
team of specialists. The second film appears to have been a transitional version in relation to what we have today
since Homer McMahon, who worked on it Sunday night to prepare a briefing board of hits to passengers for an
unspecified official, reported observing six to eight impacts, which is certainly not what we see in the film today.
There are many features beyond the blow-out to the left-rear that are not seen in the current version of the film,
including brains and blood strewn across the trunk and JFK's motions under the impact of the two head shots he
received after Greer brought the limo to a halt: he fell forward from the hit to the back of his head, then Jackie
eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by the frangible bullet
that blew his brains out to the left-rear with such force that Officer Hargis, when hit by the debris, though that
he himself had been shot. No witness, by the way, reported the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body that
is such a prominent feature of the extant film. The bulging of brains (called the "blob") to the right-front of his
head as well as the blood spray were painted in, while the massive defect (visible in frame 374) was painted out.
Here are some resources I would invite you to consider if you want to understand how we know that the film is
a fake and why it had to be altered. Dawn is not quite right when she suggests that the term "alteration" is a
better term than "fabrication", because each of its frames had to be reshot (using an optical printer) in order to
create a series of images around the sprocket areas (called "ghost panels") which link successive frames due
to images that are created when a film is exposed because of the properties of light relative to its mechanisms.
If they had not reshot the frames (in a laboratory), the deception would have been immediately apparent, since
the non-consecutive "ghost panels" would have exposed the deception. They had to change the film's content.
"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...5772.shtml
"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zaprude...24-48.html
"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/...radox.html
Then watch John Costella's "Introduction to the JFK Film Hoax"
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
You might want to start with the last on my list, which is John Costella's video introduction to the faking of the
film. John has a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which means he is an expert on
the properties of light in relation to the physics of moving bodies. I like Robert Groden personally, but he is not
a scientist and cannot compare with John in relation to technical and scientific questions about the film. I do
not know what he told you, but if you simply compare frame 374 with 313-316, it should be obvious where
the blow-out to the back of the head, which is visible in frame 374, has been painted over black in 313-316.
You may also want to take a look at "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK", which I have linked above.
In the process of recreating the film, they removed multiple impacts of bullets on bodies and shortened the time
line, which means that, for anyone who takes the film to be authentic, it becomes impossible to reconstruct what
actually happened. They did not only remove the limo stop, but also placed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill back on
the grass, when they had both stepped out into the street, where Jean called to JFK and Mary took the picture for
which she is know. Officer Chaney, who was riding to the right-rear, motored forward to inform Chief Curry the
president had been hit, which John discovered when he complied a record of the eyewitness reports about the
shooting, which is archived at
http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html When he explained to me what he had
found, I published an article about it, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery",
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_...fk_fil.htm
Jim
[q][quote name='Robert Morrow' date='27 November 2010 - 06:07 AM' timestamp='1290834452' post='213298']
[q][quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='26 November 2010 - 04:06 AM' timestamp='1290762417' post='213221']
That David Von Pein wants to sell us a bill of goods about the Tippit shooting, when I have already explained why he is wrong:
He also implied that Lee did NOT shoot Tippit, not that he had. He began by observing that Lee had "supposedly" taken a
route far out of his way to the Texas Theater and pointed out the oddity of stopping to remove cartridges from a revolver.
In fact four casings ejected from automatics were found at the scene and were initialed by the first arriving officer.
There were two of one make and two of another. Acquilla Clemons, who was sitting on her porch across the street, said that
two men had shot Tippit and neither of them looked like Oswald. Subsequently, revolver casings were substituted for those
found at the scene, only now there were three of one make and only on of the other, none of which had the officer's initials.
where Robert Groden, THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD, provides an excellent account, which has now been supplemented
by DiEugenio's time-line, does not bother me nearly as much as that he and Robert Morrow both believe the Zapruder film is authentic,
when we know that witnesses in Dealey Plaza, such as Beverly Oliver, saw his brains blown out to the left-rear, that others, such as
Audrey Rike, felt the massive defect when he was lifting the body into the ceremonial bronze coffin, and that virtually all of the
physicians at Parkland, who were experienced with gunshot wounds, confirmed that both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was seen
extruding from the wound--a wound that is NOT seen in frames 313-316, for example, but IS visible in later frames like 374!
Now in "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", which you can google, I have presented the data virtually side-by-side
for ease of access, including the McClelland and Crenshaw diagrams, multiple quotes from physicians at Parkland, and frame 374.
What is there left to argue about? DiEugeio thinks Rollie Zavada is SINCERE and THEREFORE the film has not been faked? When
a group of Hollywood film restoration experts has found that the blow-out in those early frames was painted over in black--and
it was done very crudely!--what is there left to argue about? The blow-out existed in fact (which we know from the multitude
of witnesses, including the physicians) and it is visible in frame 374, but it is missing from frames 313-316! Case closed!
And have they never read the article Jim Marrs and I published some time ago, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", in which we
explain the multiple indications that the backyard photos were faked, which include (1) that the chin is not Oswald's chin, (2)
that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip, (3) that the finger-tips of his right hand holding the two newspapers
are cut off, and (4) that by using the newspapers he is holding, whose dimensions are known, Jack White has been able to
demonstrate that either the man in the photo is too short to be Lee Oswald or else the newspapers were introduced too large?!
These are only a few of the ways we know that the backyard photos are faked, which is what Lee said when he was shown one of
them. Moreover, there are at least four photos in the set, where the tilt and expression of the face is the same in each of the four!
Now it does not surprise me that David von Pein is going to come onto this forum and try to convince us of things that are not
true and have been proven to be false. But that DiEugenio or Morrow should continued to hold beliefs in the authenticity of the
film or that the backyard photos are genuine simply nauseates me. They are both seasoned students of the assassination, both
of whom should know better. Yet their attitudes here are simply inexcusable. No serious student of the death of JFK should
have to be spoon-fed how we know that the Zapruder is a fake, when I have published books with dozens of proofs and John P.
Costella has presented a visual tutorial, not to mention the many articles I have written about it, including "Zapruder JFK Film
impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", and "The JFK 'Head Shot'
Paradox". If you haven't read them and don't know what I am talking about, then that simply proves my point all the more.
In the year 2010, no one on this forum who is both competent and honest should be in the position to deny that the backyard
photos are faked. Jesse may believe what Marina has told him, but she cannot have taken these photographs, because no one
took them: they were faked! And once Jack White had testified before the HSCA about the multiple indications of fakery, no
serious student should have had any excuse to linger in doubt. Jim Marrs and I included Jack's findings in our article about this,
which means that, if you two needed a refresher course, we have already provided one. Kindly cease presenting indefensible
positions about either the Zapruder film or the backyard photographs! It is incredibly embarrassing for the two of you, whom
in other respects I admire, to place yourself on the same plane as David von Pein by upholding positions that are not only false
but have been proven to be false repeatedly in the past, lest we be forced to conclude that you are not both competent and honest.[/q]
James Fetzer, not buying that the Zapruder film was a fake. Robert Groden has a blow up of one of the frames of the Zapruder
film after the fatal head shot and it clearly shows an outward "volcano" effect of the back of JFK's head. There is your blowout.
Just because some folks think the back of JFK's head appears intact in the Zapruder film, post kill shot (and not in close analysis)
does not mean it was. I think it was severely damaged like a cracked eggshell at that point, only fully collapsing later on the
road to Parkland and at the hospital when the back head wound at that point was quite large. By that time blood and brains
had time to ooze out and fully deform the back of the head.
[/q]]
![[Image: vnmb0w.jpg]](http://oi39.tinypic.com/vnmb0w.jpg)
