|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 12, 2012 4:06:43 GMT -4
Jason Thompson the doctors in the trauma room at Parkland hospital that worked on JFK including Dr Charles Crenshaw and Dr Robert McCelland and staff, witnesses in Dealey plaza, photographers and personnel at Bethesda have sworn that the head wound was entry front right, exit back right. I said provide a reference, not repeat your claim. I will repeat that request until you comply.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 12, 2012 4:07:38 GMT -4
Maybe the inquiry should be into exactly who altered it, why and what did they do with the original film. Actually the question should be why you have not provided the evidence of tampering as requested. Again I will repeat that request until you comply.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 12, 2012 11:01:04 GMT -4
Interesting that she says she hears a "terrible noise" and sees the president in distress, but does nothing. She hardly "does nothing". She saves her husband's life by grabbing him and quickly pulling both of them as far down in their seats as they can go to get out of the line of fire. She easily did more than anyone else in that limousine both to save lives and to provide testimony about what happened. No doubt you'll now find this suspicious. Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd like to see how you react when you suddenly realize someone is shooting at you. Being someone who has actually been shot at, I can give a little insight right now. However, I might be a little bit different because my reaction to getting fired at was hardly anybody elses that I know. Long story short, I was fired at at night in a neighborhood with my dad. The first "round" (bullet, for you non-firearm guys) passed my head by several inches, with a hiss and then a snap. After this first shot, I said, "We're taking fire. Get to cover." (My military stuff kicked in for some reason). My dad and I stopped behind a stucco wall in the heart of the neighborhood. After which, I became often fully exposed as I passed out into the open to try and get a good look at the shooter who was in the woods just right of the walk way. We took two or three shots, only one of them came very close to hitting me. I did take cover, but I also assessed the situation. However, I was not in a car. Trapped and boxed in. I had a whole neighborhood to use for cover. My final verdit? Getting shot at is strangely fun... as long as nobody dies. Kennedy's whole head basically exploded in front of her. What do you expect the average person to do?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 12, 2012 12:22:04 GMT -4
twik you are correct that it is no longer untampered evidence. I'm sorry, but you are putting words into my mouth. I do NOT believe that the film has been tampered with in any intentional way. I merely request that you be consistent, and and not use it as evidence for ANYTHING if you claim it is not reliable. You can't have it both ways. And please, continue by explaining what you would have expected Nellie Connally to do when suddenly coming under rifle fire, why it's different from what she actually did, and what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 12, 2012 16:50:09 GMT -4
I will agree if I look at any one individual frame from the film, many subjects in it do not move. No matter how long I look.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 12, 2012 16:57:05 GMT -4
I have always wondered exactly how the Z-Film was supposed to have been modified. How did whoever did it know of its existance, seek in, take the film, modify it so that it wasn't obvious, then get it back in to the camera, and have no one any the wiser? What technology available in 1963 allowed a person to directly edit what was on an exposed strip of film, heck what technology today allows you to do that? This one has me baffled.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 12, 2012 18:02:19 GMT -4
does it really matter how they altered it? It certainly helps to be able to say that a technology existed that could alter it before concluding that it was altered.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 12, 2012 18:04:11 GMT -4
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah dah - it is the life we were meant to live. does anyone really prefer to have reality be a burden? I prefer the burden of the realities of the material world to believing any and all fanciful conspiracy that happens to come my way.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 12, 2012 18:13:25 GMT -4
PhantomWolf why don't you take a look at the z film or digitals and decide for yourself? Why do you assume no-opne here has done so? It matters more that you provide the evidence that it was altered, and yes, a suggestion of how it was done is indeed appropriate. Get on with it then.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 12, 2012 18:52:46 GMT -4
I have always wondered exactly how the Z-Film was supposed to have been modified. How did whoever did it know of its existance, seek in, take the film, modify it so that it wasn't obvious, then get it back in to the camera, and have no one any the wiser? What technology available in 1963 allowed a person to directly edit what was on an exposed strip of film, heck what technology today allows you to do that? This one has me baffled. And don't forget the timeline they were working on. Thirty frames were published in Life a week after the assassination. At that, the film was sold to Life on the twenty-third, a mere day after the assassination. And since the copy owned by Life matched the copies handled by the investigators, that means any alterations had to be made in less than twenty-four hours. No, without an explanation of how it was done, only an idiot would believe it had been altered.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 12, 2012 20:02:00 GMT -4
PhantomWolf why don't you take a look at the z film or digitals and decide for yourself? does it really matter how they altered it? (experts can explain probable methods used in detail but it was basically cut and matte) I have looked at it. I also know that cut and matte techniques don't work on pre-exposed film, they are use to expose different parts of the film at different times so as to give the impression that the entire frame was exposed at the same time. You can't take a previously exposed film and re-expose it without getting a double exposure. Nor can you cut up the film and resplice it without someone noticing that it was done. The images are actually bonded onto the film via the photochemicals, you can't just rearrange a few bits and get a new image from it. If it's not actually possible to alter it, then the whole claim that it was altered becomes meaningless. Please do.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 12, 2012 20:03:06 GMT -4
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah dah - it is the life we were meant to live. does anyone really prefer to have reality be a burden? I suggest that Jay's meaning just went over your head entirely.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 4:50:17 GMT -4
this is modified z- frame z298 it has been reduced horizontally to 70% note Hill and Moorman - size note Hill and the direction of her head any comments? How about you explain what you think is wrong with it and why?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 4:53:32 GMT -4
PhantomWolf what are you talking about...pre-exposed film? Umm, perhaps film that has been exposed prior to someone apparently modifying it?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 4:57:27 GMT -4
why would i have to prove how THEY altered the z-film? -> what needs to be explained is the anomolies that have been found in the z-film. Because unless you can show that there was actually a way to modify the film, then claiming things are anomolies won't fly. Even if you do understand how they occured, and even if I don't understand it, if it'ds not possible to physically modify the film, then such supposed anomolies must have gotten there some other way, such as not actually being anomolies at all, just things that you don't understand.
|
|