|
Post by twik on Jan 19, 2012 11:11:32 GMT -4
"Pictures don't lie?" Except, I suppose, when you don't like what they show - then they've been mysteriously tampered with. have you located the zapruder film frame that mirrors altgens6 picture? would you mind posting it for us, so we could all see please it makes it much easier to comment on when we can compare the same images, together, don't you think? I can't understand what you're asking. How would I get a frame that "mirrors" a photograph taken from a different angle? Do you simply mean the frame taken at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 19, 2012 14:48:05 GMT -4
as citizens WE should never just take for granted the conclusions of a government controlled commission. There's a difference between healthy skepticism of the government and wild-eyed, irrational, breathless paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 19, 2012 17:07:07 GMT -4
How about you find them first, since this is your theory? I presume that you have already found them and studied them, so it will save a lot of time if you narrow it down.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 19, 2012 20:22:26 GMT -4
is it so hard to narrow it down to 1 or so frames? please just post the zapruder film frame that mirrors or is taken about the same moment as the altgens6 photo was taken, and let's discuss it. If it's so easy then you should be able to do it. Just post the frames of the film near when the photo was taken and show that none of them match the photo. Your claim, your burden of proof, don't demand others do it for you.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 19, 2012 21:12:57 GMT -4
Where is "here"? I don't see anything.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 20, 2012 4:21:46 GMT -4
Jason Thompson concerning the zfilm being altered, yes, i prefer to defend it being altered. Please learn the difference between defending and restating. Not my burden of proof.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 20, 2012 4:32:44 GMT -4
Jason Thompson i am throwing every thing i can...in the hopes that you might see some of the anomalies. The problem is you're not verifying that what you see is in fact anomalous. Moving vs still people in different frames from a hand held film camera, for instance. Indeed, but your definition of 'honest' seems to be anyone who has concluded that it wasn't just a lone gunman. Why do you discount the ones who conclude that it was, and who support their findings with evidence that goes beyond 'doesn't this look odd?'? Why do you assume that the only reason people can disagree with them is because they do have such preconceived notions? I disagree with you because your arguments are often simply very very poor. It has nothing to do with having preconceived notions. I am arguing only where I see large flaws in your presented 'evidence'. I have little more than a passing interest in the JFK assassination. You also admit you did not watch all of it, specifically the relevant sections detailing how exposed motion picture film could actually be altered at all. I won't go off and do your research for you. Throughout the whole thing it is your burden of proof to prove yourself right. That means sitting through the 'boring technical bits' so you can actually support your assertions that you lift from such conferences. I did not. I argued for you to provide the evidence, and disagreed with specific examples which were easily explained (indeed to be expected) from film frames from a hand-held camera. No, the point is that you have to show that they are discrepancies, and that they cannot be explained without recourse to modification of the film. The fact that variable motion blur from frame to frame appears to have escaped you entirely until it was pointed out is one such example of where you fail to do this first step before demanding explanations and stating it is proof of alteration.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 20, 2012 4:36:52 GMT -4
this is z257 kellerman connally Jackie John F Kennedy do their actions mirror image in altgens6? are these two images a match? Should they be? The Zapruder film is motion picture, the altgen photo is a single image. What of the frames of the film bracketing the period in which the phot was taken? You cannot simply pull one frame from the film and say the fact it doesn't match a picture is proof of a conspiracy. You should analyse all the frames within the period during which the photo was taken and show that none of them match. In this case you can prove the negative, since you have a selection of images to search through in which there should be one that closely matches the photo. So get on and do that. It is not our burden of proof to search through the film for you to prove you wrong, it is yours to prove yourself right.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 20, 2012 6:30:06 GMT -4
I've just finished Stephen King's novel about Kennedy and Oswald, and he points out in the afterword (in which he says that he's about 98% sure that Oswald did it, maybe 99%) that Norman Mailer went to write a book about how the whole thing was a conspiracy, did the research, and realized that he no longer believed that it was a conspiracy and instead believed that Oswald acted alone. He did have preconceptions--and decided they were wrong and that Oswald did it. He looked at the evidence, not the theories, and simply couldn't make the evidence fit what he wanted to believe. That is intellectual honesty.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 20, 2012 7:48:35 GMT -4
Norman Mailer went to write a book about how the whole thing was a conspiracy, did the research, and realized that he no longer believed that it was a conspiracy and instead believed that Oswald acted alone. He did have preconceptions-- and decided they were wrong and that Oswald did it. He looked at the evidence, not the theories, and simply couldn't make the evidence fit what he wanted to believe. That is intellectual honesty. And he's not the only one. Dale Myers used to think the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. Then he appeared in "Beyond Conspiracy" with that amazingly elaborate 3D (actually 4D, 3 spatial dimensions over time) computer model matched to every film record he could find of the actual assassination and the events before and after. Basically, he did what playdor only claims to be doing -- cross-checking every picture against every other picture. He concluded that the "single bullet FACT" is absolutely confirmed and there's no credible alternative. Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, was reportedly also a conspiracy fan. But he certainly doesn't come across that way in productions such as "Inside the Target Car". They commission a Australian company that specializes in ballistics research for the Australian military to produce realisic mock-ups of human heads and torsos. They have an expert marksman shoot them on a range with the same type of weapon, the same type of ammo, with the same relative wind and in the same spots that Oswald hit. They get the very same results -- "brain" splatter and "head" motions and "wounds" -- that Oswald did. Mack comments "Many of the people writing all these conspiracy tales just don't know very much about the subject." Amen. And then "Unsolved History", with Dave Perry, another (former?) conspiracy fan, and Gary Mack again, commission (the same?) marksman to check the claimed alternate shooting spots in Dealy Plaza. None of them work; either the shots aren't there, or they'd certainly have been noticed by multiple known witnesses, or they'd produce totally different wounds on JFK (like blowing his head completely apart) and/or even killing Jackie. They test a few of the WC scenarios that the conspiracy fans often attack, like whether Oswald could have walked down the stairs quickly enough, or whether he could get from his boarding house to the Tippit murder scene, and found that he could do both easily. Basically, every one of the more honest investigators, even those who start off suspecting a theory, move far away from it the more they learn and test it. It's been almost 50 years. This thing has been investigated and reinvestigated to death, and every single time somebody does it honestly they come to the same conclusion: Oswald did it. Alone. Robert Oswald is right; it's time to just let this one go.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 20, 2012 8:09:26 GMT -4
so let's actually discuss rationally some of the evidence together "Rationally discussing the evidence together" does not mean "let's just for the hell of it tear up and discard all the overwhelming evidence for Oswald's guilt and see what's left that still proves him guilty." Rationally discussing the evidence can include playing devil's advocate, but that means giving reasons to consider tainted each of the many core pieces of evidence you'd like to discard, including, among other things, plauslble mechanisms by which things like pictures and movie films could have been undetectably altered with the technologies and under the conditions we know have existed over the past 50 years. And "rationally discussing the evidence" also means presenting incriminating evidence for alternate perpetrators that goes well beyond wildly subjective impugned motives based solely on theoretical personal gains someone might get from the assassination regardless of cost, technical difficulty or likelihood of detection. And "rationally discussing the evidence" goes beyond treating perfectly normal human behavior under extreme circumstances (like turning or ducking when somebody starts shooting) as somehow suspicious without a damn good reason. This is a stupid game, playdor. We've seen how you do it with Apollo, and now that we see you doing it with JFK it's obvious you're not at all serious about anything but an ego trip from pretending to be smarter than everyone else in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 20, 2012 12:20:41 GMT -4
rhetoric, rantings, wringing of hands, name calling, ridicule and references to "the experts" is this all you guys really have? It appears to be all you have. Our experts seem to have names attached to them, and publications, and verifiable data. The thoughts are my own. I can recognise things like motion blur. I have also told you that I have seen some of the experiments that reproduced things like the movement of Kennedy's head from a shot coming from behind, as well as numerous other examples of the effects of gunshots. If you think all the analyses and experiments that actually go out and prove the physics of the situation are of no consequence, what are you doing? You have demonstrated no interest whatsoever in any of these, and I'll take an experiment involving a car with ballistics gel dummies with real human bone in them being shot at over a whole bunch of assertions that Kennedy was shot from in front, thank you. I'll take actually seeing someone fire off three shots in the same time as Oswald did over any number of assertions that the rifle was crap and so prone to jam that it could not be done. You, on the other hand, take anything that contradicts the official version as gospel and ignore the rest. You assert that people should behave in certain ways (reaching a new low when you decided Jackie Kennedy's behaviour was suspect, as if you have the slightest idea how someone would react after literally seeing their spouse have their brains blown out right next to them). You ascribe sinister motives to meetings for which you have no evidence whatsoever. Why? What is it that is so important to you that you will ignore vast swathes of verifiable material evidence and refuse to fulfil your burden of proof?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 20, 2012 14:39:06 GMT -4
I thought you were smarter than this, it means i am pointing out that youngblood lied or at best did not recall the events truthfully, specter failed to uncover the facts and the WC accepted and entered the faulty evidence as FACT. Give me a break! Witnesses are human beings. They have fuzzy memories. They're often honestly uncertain about the facts. Taking pains to say what you know, what you don't know and what you're only partly certain of is being a good witness. It's hardly "lying" and it's rude and just plain dishonest to claim that it is. Witnesses are often in conflict with each other or with physical evidence. That's why you talk to as many as you can. When conflicts happened in the JFK assassination investigation, the Commission painstakingly pointed them out. Sometimes they had to apply their own or the investigators' professional judgment to explain and resolve conflicts. They'd say why they found a certain witness credible or not credible. Qualifying phrases like "the weight of the evidence indicates" appear in the report so often that they seem like cliches. Sometimes they'd avoid a finding altogether when in my admittedly nonprofessional opinion it was obvious and well supported. If only you could come even close to this level of care! The question of exactly when Youngblood vaulted over the seat to protect LBJ is a perfect example. The Commission simply could not be sure whether it was before or after Oswald's second shot because the witnesses themselves were not sure. Youngblood said no, LBJ said yes. It's entirely possible that it happened after the second shot because many witnesses simply did not recognize Oswald's first shot (the one that missed) as such. They mistook his second shot (the one that hit both JFK and JBC) as his first. Yet this is a minor detail with simply no bearing whatsoever on the important findings that Oswald fired all the shots himself with a Carcano 6.5 mm rifle from the 6th floor corner window of the Texas School Book Depository. How can we possibly discuss the WC findings, including Oswald's guilt, if you can't recognize the fundamental limitations of each kind of evidence, especially eyewitness recollections, and make informed judgments in reconciling their inevitable conflicts? You can't demand the absence of even the tiniest discrepancy in a case this huge. That simply does not happen in the real world. You base your findings on the evidence as a whole. You issue findings that best fit it all because there are, and will never be, findings that perfectly fit it all. Jumping rapidly and randomly from one piece of evidence to another, modifying it arbitrarily to suit your purposes while insisting it's the only one that matters in the entire case (until your next one) is the mark of a crank. Impugning motives and insisting that they constitute conclusive evidence -- even when unsupported or directly contradicted by all actual evidence -- is the mark of a crank. Insisting that even the most ordinary and inconsequential discrepancies must be explained by massive yet otherwise undetectable conspiracies to alter or falsify huge amounts of evidence -- by technical means you won't even begin to describe -- is the mark of a crank. (I suspect it's also the mark of a paranoid schizophrenic, but I'm not a psychiatrist.) Dismissing your opponents as being unable to think "outside the box" or for themselves simply because they disagree with you, not for any articulable reason, is the mark of a crank. Arbitrarily rejecting even the strongest and most compelling evidence for the conclusion you personally dislike while taking even outright guesswork as gospel whenever it supports the conclusion you like is the mark of a crank. You, sir, are a crank.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jan 20, 2012 15:41:50 GMT -4
rhetoric, rantings, wringing of hands, name calling, ridicule and references to "the experts" is this all you guys really have? "The lad doth project too much, methinks."
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 20, 2012 16:29:27 GMT -4
Jason Thompson "when you decided Jackie Kennedy's behaviour was suspect" you are delusional... seek help These are your comments about Jackie from earlier in the thread: Jackie bailed out the back of the limo, i would run <away> from the shooter wouldn't you? why did Jackie try to bail out of limo away from Greer if the shot came from the rear? would a more like scenario be if JFK had been shot from outside the limo to have Jackie pull JFK down or herself duck down...this just didn't happen, first instinct is survival, she tried to run AWAY from the danger. I think it would be polite to apologize for calling Jason Thompson delusional.
|
|