JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

It was impossible to edit a video like that in 1963. End of. Its a silly theory.

We have been over this already, not true. A video documentary due out in 2019 will expose this myth.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We have been over this already, not true. A video documentary due out in 2019 will expose this myth.

Whats it called?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Whats it called?

I don't know yet, Douglas Horne talked about it on a podcast in Jan 2019. He said 78 motion picture and visual and film professionals were interviewed and 75 agreed the zapruder film was a fake.

There another documentary in the works about the Parkland doctors and what they saw.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't know yet, Douglas Horne talked about it on a podcast in Jan 2019. He said 78 motion picture and visual and film professionals were interviewed and 75 agreed the zapruder film was a fake.

Listened to some of it. Hes mainly just trying to sell his book to gullible people such as yourself who believe his every word. EG you already assume hes correct and you dont even know the name of it. Didnt hear the bit about 78 motion picture experts. Needless to say Im very sceptical about that.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Listened to some of it. Hes mainly just trying to sell his book to gullible people such as yourself who believe his every word. EG you already assume hes correct and you dont even know the name of it. Didnt hear the bit about 78 motion picture experts. Needless to say Im very sceptical about that.

Your post is stupid. Listened to some of it and then you said I didn't hear the bit about the 78 motion picture experts. Duh because you did not listen to the full interview!

This for everyone else who has not heard the interview.
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/4/d/e/4de31a4ed474a464/MWN_Episode_107_-_Douglas_Horne_on_the_Zapruder_Film_Alteraton_Debate.mp3?c_id=30998591&cs_id=30998591&expiration=1549294131&hwt=fccd3539c47423fc1b45b29e21dc9774

I do believe him, his research is outstanding. He was also the military expert for the ARRB. He one of the people who secured the release of the operation Northwoods files.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your post is stupid. Listened to some of it and then you said I didn't hear the bit about the 78 motion picture experts. Duh because you did not listen to the full interview!

This for everyone else who has not heard the interview.
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/4/d/e/4de31a4ed474a464/MWN_Episode_107_-_Douglas_Horne_on_the_Zapruder_Film_Alteraton_Debate.mp3?c_id=30998591&cs_id=30998591&expiration=1549294131&hwt=fccd3539c47423fc1b45b29e21dc9774

I do believe him, his research is outstanding. He was also the military expert for the ARRB. He one of the people who secured the release of the operation Northwoods files.

Yes he does a lot of research. But to no avail in my opinion. He claims the back of Kennedys head is blacked out but we see the same "effect" on Jackie, on her clothes, her hair, her head. Same for JFKs suit and Connallys head and clothes. Its crazy to think the FBI would have altered the Zapruder film not knowing if anyone else had filmed the shooting. Theres no way they could've known another video or photo wouldn't have been developed elsewhere. But its the last theory that hasn't been exhausted for conspiracy theorists as none of the others hold any water.

I listened to some of it. Its 3 1/2 hours long. Whens the bit when he talks about the documentary?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Yes he does a lot of research. But to no avail in my opinion. He claims the back of Kennedys head is blacked out but we see the same "effect" on Jackie, on her clothes, her hair, her head. Same for JFKs suit and Connallys head and clothes. Its crazy to think the FBI would have altered the Zapruder film not knowing if anyone else had filmed the shooting. Theres no way they could've known another video or photo wouldn't have been developed elsewhere. But its the last theory that hasn't been exhausted for conspiracy theorists as none of the others hold any water.

I listened to some of it. Its 3 1/2 hours long. Whens the bit when he talks about the documentary?

The shadow at the back of the head looks like an animation a drawing. Keep looking at the photo I posted you see it not a shadow. When you see the weird black animation at this location and exactly where the eyewitnesses said there was an exit hole you can't ignore the implications.

Zapruder film is the only movie out there that actually shows the shooting from the opposite side. Are you expecting some mysterious footage would turn up after 12 years? The Zapruder movie was not released till 1975, the shooting took place in 1963. They waited 12 years before releasing the movie in colour. It like saying, someone, few years after 9/11 could have a had a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. 17 years later no video has turned up.

Nix and Muchmore, you only get glimpses of the back of the head, you don't see anything. Those films can be easily manipulated in a few hours at a studio.

It was between 2.30 and 3.30 not sure of the exact time.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The shadow at the back of the head looks like an animation a drawing. Keep looking at the photo I posted you see it not a shadow. When you see the weird black animation at this location and exactly where the eyewitnesses said there was an exit hole you can't ignore the implications.

Zapruder film is the only movie out there that actually shows the shooting from the opposite side. Are you expecting some mysterious footage would turn up after 12 years? The Zapruder movie was not released till 1975, the shooting took place in 1963. They waited 12 years before releasing the movie in colour. It like saying, someone, few years after 9/11 could have a had a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. 17 years later no video has turned up.

"They" didn't know that though. The decision not to show the headshot was made by Life and Zapruder to some extent. What if "they" edited it, Life/Zapruder showed the "altered" version and then someone else says "hang on Ive just developed mine and its different".

How could they guarantee that wouldn't have happened. Its stupid, it makes no sense.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nix and Muchmore, you only get glimpses of the back of the head, you don't see anything. Those films can be easily manipulated in a few hours at a studio.

But the Muchmore movie was not and could not have been altered. And it would've taken a lot more time in 1963 than a few hours to edit. The headshot, the blood spray going up and forward, the background would need to be edited in tiny detail to "hide" the original blood spray etc.

An absurd theory.

Can you explain how, in 1963, on 8 mm Kodachrome II film, they managed to edit 3 movies to such an extent. Ignore the headshot and blacking out for a minute. Explain how they could have edited out and then superimposed the blood splatter and the grass in the background.



Absolute batshít crazy.

Cheerful Spring

Oswald bullet impacted Kennedy skull from behind, then why don't we see blood splatter and brain tissue? The back of the head looks undisturbed on the Zapruder film. Why did the Carcano bullet blow apart?

The same bullet survived did not blow apart on the second shot? The magic bullet looks pristine after hitting Kennedy and Connelly.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Oswald bullet impacted Kennedy skull from behind, then why don't we see blood splatter and brain tissue? The back of the head looks undisturbed on the Zapruder film. Why did the Carcano bullet blow apart?

The same bullet survived did not blow apart on the second shot? The magic bullet looks pristine after hitting Kennedy and Connelly.

Because it hit a hard skull! The 2nd bullet did not. Grazed a rib and hit a wrist a lower speed, while tumbling.

Now please explain how, in 1963, on 8 mm Kodachrome II film, they managed to edit 3 movies to such an extent.

Also please explain why the same "blackouts" are visible in the other passengers in the car.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

"They" didn't know that though. The decision not to show the headshot was made by Life and Zapruder to some extent. What if "they" edited it, Life/Zapruder showed the "altered" version and then someone else says "hang on Ive just developed mine and its different".

How could they guarantee that wouldn't have happened. Its stupid, it makes no sense.



But the Muchmore movie was not and could not have been altered. And it would've taken a lot more time in 1963 than a few hours to edit. The headshot, the blood spray going up and forward, the background would need to be edited in tiny detail to "hide" the original blood spray etc.

An absurd theory.

Can you explain how, in 1963, on 8 mm Kodachrome II film, they managed to edit 3 movies to such an extent. Ignore the headshot and blacking out for a minute. Explain how they could have edited out and then superimposed the blood splatter and the grass in the background.



Absolute batshít crazy.

People involved have seen the Zapruder film we have now and they saw the one Zapruder had in 1963. The eyewitnesses recall different wounds on the Zapruder film from 1963. I posted the different recollections they had in this thread.

Zapruder only had the original and three copies no more, all four ended up in government hands that weekend. Those films were altered and replaced and we got four new altered films. Live Magazine got one of the altered films back and published images of it in their magazine Friday the 29th of Nov.

The government was in control of events after the shooting.

Nix and Muchmore films the blacken out the back of the head, would take a few hours maybe a day, I would not think it a long process to cover that up. It depends on how many people were working to change frames Not true, the right side and rear of the head had a hole, so blood spray would have gone up in the air from all sides (front, high, left right and right) blood does just go in one direction.

Superimposed the grass, not sure what you mean by this?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Because it hit a hard skull! The 2nd bullet did not. Grazed a rib and hit a wrist a lower speed, while tumbling.

Now please explain how, in 1963, on 8 mm Kodachrome II film, they managed to edit 3 movies to such an extent.

Also please explain why the same "blackouts" are visible in the other passengers in the car.

How thought you Skeptics claim the bullet tumbled when hit Connelly back? Now it tumbling when it left the Chest of Connelly? The bullet shattered 10cm of the 5th rib according to Dr Shaw. The bullet impacted hard bone. The wrist bone was then shattered.

Before all this, the bullet had entered the back of Kennedy and did u-turn near the right lung and escaped through the throat. The claim is bullets leave a larger hole when exiting? The wound at the throat, the opening was the same size as an entry wound.

Well post images then, I don't know what you referring to. Are you seeing shadows?

fxotoole

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A friend of his an author approached him and asked him to detail his account in a new book. He testimony was given at the Warren Commission but nobody has seen that transcript. It under lock and key.

Maybe others involved in the event have said the same thing.

He going to remember doing an autopsy on JFK. He likely shared this with others he knows but not the public.

The magic bullet theory is nonsensical anyhow. How does a bullet zigzag through different bodies and turn in the air?

Magneto made the bullet curve

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

People involved have seen the Zapruder film we have now and they saw the one Zapruder had in 1963. The eyewitnesses recall different wounds on the Zapruder film from 1963. I posted the different recollections they had in this thread.

And I've quoted different recollections of people. Some of the recollections are different from the same people over time. Abraham Zapruder for one. Pointed to the side of the head. Lots of conflicting statements. So what?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Zapruder only had the original and three copies no more, all four ended up in government hands that weekend. Those films were altered and replaced and we got four new altered films. Live Magazine got one of the altered films back and published images of it in their magazine Friday the 29th of Nov.

Life mag said the movie that came out was the same as the one they viewed on the 23rd before it was developed. Explain that.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nix and Muchmore films the blacken out the back of the head, would take a few hours maybe a day, I would not think it a long process to cover that up. It depends on how many people were working to change frames Not true, the right side and rear of the head had a hole, so blood spray would have gone up in the air from all sides (front, high, left right and right) blood does just go in one direction.

Explain how, technically, on 8 mm Kodachrome II film, they managed to do this in 1963.

So a few hours, maybe a day. Clock starts now, minute one, go. How did they do it? What tech did they use? Where was it done?

Also, explain how the Muchmore movie was altered.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Superimposed the grass, not sure what you mean by this?

In order to "move" the blood spray, they would've had to then superimpose the grass from where that spray was taken from. ie the blood originally went backwards I assume with a front shot, they would've had to change that to go forward. But now they have to show the grass and the back of the limo and Jackie in the background with no blood spray after they've edited that part of the film. How did they do this? Hundreds of tiny particles of blood spray edited and out and moved forward and the area where it was originally cleaned up.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How thought you Skeptics claim the bullet tumbled when hit Connelly back? Now it tumbling when it left the Chest of Connelly? The bullet shattered 10cm of the 5th rib according to Dr Shaw. The bullet impacted hard bone. The wrist bone was then shattered.

Before all this, the bullet had entered the back of Kennedy and did u-turn near the right lung and escaped through the throat. The claim is bullets leave a larger hole when exiting? The wound at the throat, the opening was the same size as an entry wound.

Well post images then, I don't know what you referring to. Are you seeing shadows?

Nope you're seeing shadows.

You're the sceptic, not me.

No uturn, the trajectory adds up. The bullet was tumbling when it entered Connally and when it left his chest into his rib. Hence the squeeze on the bullet.

Exit wounds aren't always bigger. They can actually, be smaller. Proof of which Ive already posted.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We have been over this already, not true. A video documentary due out in 2019 will expose this myth.

So a documentary that you don't know the name of that hasn't even been released is proof the Zapruder film was faked based on something someone said. And you believe it based on no evidence and knowing nothing about the content. So gullible!

Who are these 78 experts? How did the thousands of other experts who viewed it over the years and who still study it miss the fakery?

Based on the film, experts can tell where and when the film was made, and can even confirm that Zapruder pressed pause.

https://eu.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2013/11/21/kodak-researchers-helped-analyze-jfk-assassination-evidence/3667753/

And also, the blackouts you're seeing, just shadows Im afraid.

https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

And I've quoted different recollections of people. Some of the recollections are different from the same people over time. Abraham Zapruder for one. Pointed to the side of the head. Lots of conflicting statements. So what?



Life mag said the movie that came out was the same as the one they viewed on the 23rd before it was developed. Explain that.





Explain how, technically, on 8 mm Kodachrome II film, they managed to do this in 1963.

So a few hours, maybe a day. Clock starts now, minute one, go. How did they do it? What tech did they use? Where was it done?

Also, explain how the Muchmore movie was altered.



In order to "move" the blood spray, they would've had to then superimpose the grass from where that spray was taken from. ie the blood originally went backwards I assume with a front shot, they would've had to change that to go forward. But now they have to show the grass and the back of the limo and Jackie in the background with no blood spray after they've edited that part of the film. How did they do this? Hundreds of tiny particles of blood spray edited and out and moved forward and the area where it was originally cleaned up.



Nope you're seeing shadows.

You're the sceptic, not me.

No uturn, the trajectory adds up. The bullet was tumbling when it entered Connally and when it left his chest into his rib. Hence the squeeze on the bullet.

Exit wounds aren't always bigger. They can actually, be smaller. Proof of which Ive already posted.

You have Zapruder, who else?. More people saw a wound at the back of the head and the images I provided shows that to be true.

Live Mag? Do you not realise C.D Jackson was involved in the cover-up? He sends Richard Stolley to purchase the Zapruder original film and last copy. C. D Jackson was a former officer in the CIA.

They used an optical printer with an animation stand. Douglas Horne has talked to people with the know-how, to find out if this could be done in 1963 and the answer was yes. They're not changing the whole film, they're just hiding wounds on a frame and then making a new frame. To change the entire film would be an impossible feat in a couple of days.

It was done at Hawkeye Kodak lab in Rochester New York. This lab was doing special work for the CIA in the 60s.

Not necessarily it depends on the way the bullet exited the skull from the rear. and how it came out the right side of the head. The doctors also state the head wound was located in the parietal and occipital region. That both at the rear and right side of the head behind the ear.

Best way to think about it is, the Doctors claim the head wound is behind the right ear. The Zapruder film is showing a head wound in front of the right ear.

There is a U-turn near the right lung, not much but it moved a different direction to come out the throat. Far Fetched the bullet was tumbling two times. What more realistic there was a deflection from hitting the wrist then to the thigh. I believe it left the chest and was not tumbling, but I have to look this up again to confirm.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Best way to think about it is, the Doctors claim the head wound is behind the right ear. The Zapruder film is showing a head wound in front of the right ear.

This doctor?



This one too?



It was behind, over and in front of the ear. Its not as clear in the Zapruder film because of JFKs hair and the fact that his brain spilled forward out of his head (because of a shot from behind) making the wound look more to the front.



His whole scalp moves.



Ive just posted articles from video experts saying it wasn't altered. Why dont you believe them?

As for the people who saw the Zapruder film, by the time Life had it in Chicago, before New York (where it was apparently altered) roughly 40-50 people had seen a screening of the film in various locations, so there would be a lot of witnesses to All 4 copies were never together, except when Zapruder had them all together briefly. Garrison made loads of copies from the original for his trial.

And as for Horne, he makes no mention of the forward movement of the head so hes starting from a fallacy. He also says the headsnap has been altered and it actually went forward! lol.

He still wants you to buy his book though.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

This doctor?



This one too?



It was behind, over and in front of the ear. Its not as clear in the Zapruder film because of JFKs hair and the fact that his brain spilled forward out of his head (because of a shot from behind) making the wound look more to the front.



His whole scalp moves.



Ive just posted articles from video experts saying it wasn't altered. Why dont you believe them?

As for the people who saw the Zapruder film, by the time Life had it in Chicago, before New York (where it was apparently altered) roughly 40-50 people had seen a screening of the film in various locations, so there would be a lot of witnesses to All 4 copies were never together, except when Zapruder had them all together briefly. Garrison made loads of copies from the original for his trial.

And as for Horne, he makes no mention of the forward movement of the head so hes starting from a fallacy. He also says the headsnap has been altered and it actually went forward! lol.

He still wants you to buy his book though.

There no head wound behind the right ear in the Zapruder film. Doctors you show there place most of the hand at the rear, not in front of the ear. Why would the hairline block out the wound, that makes no sense.

40-50 people really? Name them all then. If that was even remotely true, you will have no problem finding their story online.

Garrison made copies of Zapruder altered film. The four films Zapruder had were removed from circulation in 1963.

They all moved slightly forward in the car when the driver slowed down the car. The Zapruder film is clearly missing many frames as of some of the movements of the people in a car are physically impossible. The camera was 18 frames a second., but in 1 to 2 frames you see Connelly move his head from the left to the right. Not possible to do in that time frame.

From what I see the head wound should be in the area with the blue dots.

Cheerful Spring

Dr McCellend and Dr Peters were shown these two images side by side.

This image is in the national JFK archive. The photo was taken during the autopsy of JFK.

That's the flap of skin that you see on the Zapruder film?




This a computer-generated image of the same thing with a hole at the rear. JFK researcher showed the doctors, the images. They said the computer-generated image is more accurate.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They used an optical printer with an animation stand.

How though? Details please.

To quote Lance Armstrong, extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence

You're not providing any evidence. "They used an optical printer" is not evidence. It makes you look stupid.

So tell us, how can an 1963 optical printer be used to edit original 8 mm Kodachrome II film?

Or are you just believing something without even knowing if its even possible?!

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

How though? Details please.

To quote Lance Armstrong, extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence

You're not providing any evidence. "They used an optical printer" is not evidence. It makes you look stupid.

So tell us, how can an 1963 optical printer be used to edit original 8 mm Kodachrome II film?

Or are you just believing something without even knowing if its even possible?!

You need to read the information in both links, to understand why people believe the Zapruder film is an altered film.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/zapruder-film-mystery.html


http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/ryan1.txt

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You need to read the information in both links, to understand why people believe the Zapruder film is an altered film.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/zapruder-film-mystery.html


http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/ryan1.txt

OK. Ive posted info from video experts on how its definitely not faked. Why don't you believe that expert?

Roland Zavadas research proved that we can pinpoint when the actual physical film was made (1961) and also where (Rochester) based on machine codes that were added to Kodachrome II. He can even confirm that Zapruder pressed pause by the presence of fogging on the film.

There are some facts, details.

You seem to believe that the 4 Zapruder films (original and 3 copies) and the Nix, Muchmiore movies were altered but can't explain how, and when asked just post huge volumes from other websites and 3 hour interviews not referencing any particular piece. ie you havent read of listened to them all yourself.

Another question, how was JFKs back and to the left head and body jerk altered, as Horne believes? Thats a huge edit.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

OK. Ive posted info from video experts on how its definitely not faked. Why don't you believe that expert?

Roland Zavada's research proved that we can pinpoint when the actual physical film was made (1961) and also where (Rochester) based on machine codes that were added to Kodachrome II. He can even confirm that Zapruder pressed pause by the presence of fogging on the film.

There are some facts, details.

You seem to believe that the 4 Zapruder films (original and 3 copies) and the Nix, Muchmiore movies were altered but can't explain how, and when asked just post huge volumes from other websites and 3 hour interviews not referencing any particular piece. ie you havent read of listened to them all yourself.

Another question, how was JFKs back and to the left head and body jerk altered, as Horne believes? Thats a huge edit.

If you read the first link, everything you asked is answered. You find out about the chain of custody and what happened to the Zapruder film. The evidence is given in the first link.

Roland Zavada's research also talked about in the first link.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you read the first link, everything you asked is answered. You find out about the chain of custody and what happened to the Zapruder film. The evidence is given in the first link.

Roland Zavada's research also talked about in the first link.

OK so you dont know, you dont understand, you have no theory even on how it could be done. You just believe someone else in a very gullible way.

So the Assassination Records Review Board hired Zavada as the film expert, he concluded it was genuine, Horne doesn't think Zavada is in on a cover and Horne (who isn't a film expert) refutes Zavadas (who is a film expert) conclusions.

"Richard Stolley’s recollection that the original film went to LIFE’s printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, for immediate processing, obviously requires reexamination".

Yeah, because it debunks the entire theory and Hornes life work.

Oh oh and, the money paid to Zapruder was "hush money". lol.

All so silly. Especially stood up against all this evidence. All of this fact.

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

OK so you dont know, you dont understand, you have no theory even on how it could be done. You just believe someone else in a very gullible way.

So the Assassination Records Review Board hired Zavada as the film expert, he concluded it was genuine, Horne doesn't think Zavada is in on a cover and Horne (who isn't a film expert) refutes Zavadas (who is a film expert) conclusions.

"Richard Stolley’s recollection that the original film went to LIFE’s printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, for immediate processing, obviously requires reexamination".

Yeah, because it debunks the entire theory and Hornes life work.

Oh oh and, the money paid to Zapruder was "hush money". lol.

All so silly. Especially stood up against all this evidence. All of this fact.

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

I believe it because the medical evidence is disputed by key eyewitnesses. If the Zapruder film was truly authentic original then everyone who has claimed the saw a head wound at the back of the head is mistaken. I simply don't believe that because the witnesses who saw Kennedy body were at two different locations in two different cities. That not real life so many people would question the medical evidence.

There no reason for the Two FBI agents at Bethesda to lie. The Doctors at Parkland they can't all be wrong about the location of the head wound? Is Dr Bosley wrong about the head wound? Clint hill wrong also? The nurses, X-ray techs, Morgues techs they are all lying or mistaken? None of these people is conspiracy theorists.

You did read the chain of custody for the Zapruder film and what happened at the NPIC. Read it again.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You did read the chain of custody for the Zapruder film and what happened at the NPIC. Read it again.

I read it. I start laughing at statements like "the Secret Service and the CIA, obviously working together on the project, must have rushed the 8 mm camera original film from Washington, D.C. to the “Hawkeye Plant” in Rochester by air",

"The obvious implications of the two NPIC Zapruder film events prior to the President’s funeral are noted below, in what I shall call a working hypothesis, explaining what I believe likely"

And so on. Waste of time.

There no mention of how this is possible at all if the film ended up in Life’s printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, for immediate processing. Which it did. That fact alone debunks the entire thing.

Its a silly theory.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I believe it because the medical evidence is disputed by key eyewitnesses. If the Zapruder film was truly authentic original then everyone who has claimed the saw a head wound at the back of the head is mistaken. I simply don't believe that because the witnesses who saw Kennedy body were at two different locations in two different cities. That not real life so many people would question the medical evidence.

There no reason for the Two FBI agents at Bethesda to lie. The Doctors at Parkland they can't all be wrong about the location of the head wound? Is Dr Bosley wrong about the head wound? Clint hill wrong also? The nurses, X-ray techs, Morgues techs they are all lying or mistaken? None of these people is conspiracy theorists.

So Zavada is a liar?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

So Zavada is a liar?

Zavada found anomalies in the Zapruder film he told the ARRB this in his report, then later he changed his mind.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Zavada found anomalies in the Zapruder film he told the ARRB this in his report, then later he changed his mind.

Explain.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

I read it. I start laughing at statements like "the Secret Service and the CIA, obviously working together on the project, must have rushed the 8 mm camera original film from Washington, D.C. to the “Hawkeye Plant” in Rochester by air",

"The obvious implications of the two NPIC Zapruder film events prior to the President’s funeral are noted below, in what I shall call a working hypothesis, explaining what I believe likely"

And so on. Waste of time.

There no mention of how this is possible at all if the film ended up in Life’s printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, for immediate processing. Which it did. That fact alone debunks the entire thing.

Its a silly theory.

It did not because Dino Brugioni said he worked with the original, not a copy on 23rd.

It was not in Chicago on 23th.

We know for a fact it did end up at NPIC because two different teams worked on doing briefing boards for government

Dino on Sat, the real Zapruder film. He prepared briefing boards with slides of each frame for the government, they are now missing.

Then on Sunday, a new team and Dino was not informed he was astonished by this had taken place, because he was the supervisor, New briefing boards were made and send out with slides of the altered film. These briefing boards are in the national archive. Dino said they're not the ones we made.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Explain.

Zavada anomalies listed herehttps://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/ and he wrote a new report then her later claimed this caused by the camera. I think he was under pressure to change his opinion.

Douglas Horne quote
Jamieson lab employees who processed the film told Douglas Horne, the Zapruder copies were not bracketed. The three purported "first generation" copies that exist today do exhibit exposure bracketing. Zavada is wrong on his conclusions, the films were altered

This is a Douglas Horne quote
Rollie Zavada was UNABLE to consistently replicate, in the field, the "full flush left" phenonmenon of intersprocket image penetration seen in the extant film; and furthermore, film shot in his test cameras exhibited "claw flare" that looks very, very different (i.e., much more pronounced) than the supposed "claw flare" seen in the extant film. Additionally, Rollie Zavada could not replicate, in field tests, any of the double images seen so often in the intersprocket area of the extant Zapruder film.

The Nal

More on Horne here

He thinks there were five shots to the head, three from the front, two from elsewhere.

Thats batshít crazy.

Then theres this absolute gem: “The very unpleasant and tentative possibility exists that limousine driver William Greer fired a fourth head shot into the President’s left temple with his revolver.”

Ffs. What a joke!

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I do believe him, his research is outstanding.

Tee hee.