Jump to content


Photo

Why does Monk refuse to identify how he saw the Real Zapruder film?

Propaganda Disinformation

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Billy Carr

Billy Carr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 March 2017 - 09:13 PM

I was recently listening to a Youtube video (there was virtually no video, just audio) from what must have been a podcast by Jim Fetzer. Jim had just hosted Jesse Ventura, and for the grand finale, the forum administrator, Greg "Monk" Burnham. The focus of the talk was the extant Zapruder film and how it differs from the one he viewed.

 

As Burnham goes through his spiel about the real or original Zapruder film, he states that he cannot disclose how he viewed the film. Here is the quote which I transcribed from the audio:

 

"Under the circumstances and conditions (that I am not going to go into) that I was viewing this film, and I will also say it wasn't just one single viewing, it was several viewings over several occasions over a number of years, and the part of it that at the time, I never realized that the details of this were going to become so important later in comparing to the extant film."

 

This begins around 14:22 into the video.

Which is at https://youtu.be/1WMOvsPm0Hk?t=14m22s

 

Now, I understand that we all have our own secrets and privacy concerns, but seeing that the disclosure could lead to the largest break in the Kennedy assassination since the A.P.B. on a white male at 12:44 pm on the day of the shooting, "'Attention all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately
thirty. Slender build, height five feet, ten inches. Weight one hundred sixty-five pounds. Reported to be armed with what is thought to be a thirty caliber rifle." This suspect's description in the A.P.B., by the way, came from an anonymous source, no matter what Bugliosi wrote (without a footnote) that this description came from Brennan, the not-so-star witness.

 

Anyway, I digress.

 

Come on Monk, where did you see the film? When? And Where? And who showed it to you? Your background indicates that you were a young man in a Catholic boarding school/seminary during the time leading up to the Zapruder film's revelation on national TV. Did you see it at school or a nearby college? Like UCLA? Did your relatives show it? A friend? Was your father a spy?

 

Any further information would be nice. Or at least tell us why you can't say. Break the doors down to the secrecy, please.

 

Thanks!



#2 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 15 March 2017 - 11:31 AM

My wife and I are in Palm Springs for the Indian Wells Tennis Tournament this week. I will respond when I return to San Diego. However, you may not be satisfied with my answers. So be it.

 

However, I will respond to this part before I return. You said:

 

"Now, I understand that we all have our own secrets and privacy concerns, but seeing that the disclosure could lead to the largest break in the Kennedy assassination since the A.P.B. on a white male at 12:44 pm on the day of the shooting..."

 

 

Rarely have I read a less accurate analysis of where we find ourselves in this matter. 


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#3 Billy Carr

Billy Carr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 03:23 AM

My wife and I are in Palm Springs for the Indian Wells Tennis Tournament this week. I will respond when I return to San Diego. However, you may not be satisfied with my answers. So be it.

 

However, I will respond to this part before I return. You said:

 

 

Rarely have I read a less accurate analysis of where we find ourselves in this matter. 

Thanks you, Greg!

 

And I meant the All-points-bulletin quip to be firmly a tongue-in-cheek way to say that the case has had some tall tales associated with it. If your viewing of an alternative Zapruder film contradicts the all-points-bulletin about a singular white male shooting the president with a rifle, then I say that the film should be tracked to its source. Oswald's arrest report has the time of 1:40 pm and the bald claim that "This man shot and killed President John F. Kennedy...." The Dallas Police got their man in about an hour. The D.A. and Capt. Fritz had the case "cinched." The Commie was going to fry.

 

But you offer an alternative to the lone assassin narrative?

 

From the way you describe the film, it's virtually the holy grail of JFK conspiracy lore. I can imagine that you do not relish the thought of being seen as a kook whose story is ridiculed and dismissed as fantasy. So it would seem prudent to provide the details I mentioned, if only for a future researcher to track down the source. If only to clear your name.

 

I recognize that you are likely between a rock and a hard place.

 

On the one hand is the best evidence of conspiracy in the assassination.

 

On the other hand is the reluctance to reveal the source, or that the source is destroyed.



#4 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 16 March 2017 - 05:44 PM

You are drawing several false equivalencies, but that is a separate matter.

 

I have no need to "clear my name" --nor have I been described as a "kook" so far--irrespective of my refusal to disclose the circumstances surrounding the viewings. And even if--unbeknownst to me--I have been the subject of such name-calling, it changes nothing. Those who resort to ad hominem generally do not persuade.

 

I have never expected anyone to "take my word for it" given the fact that I am unwilling to reveal more details of the circumstances. If the situation was reversed, I may find it difficult to accept, as well. So I don't expect others to necessarily give me the benefit of the doubt either. However, if the situation were reversed, and there was corroborating evidence that the "official" film record (the Zapruder film) had been tampered with, then I may find the account of the existence of an "other" film more credible. Indeed, I care not if anyone believes my account. That is of no consequence.

 

Moreover, the point is NOT that another film exists. Rather, the point is that the alteration of the original Zapruder film supports the conclusion that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy and that obstruction of justice took place through evidence tampering. The "other" film is not integral to that argument since it is not the sole source of support for the argument nor is it the best evidence. 

 

However, since the alteration of the extant Zapruder film has been demonstrated, independent of the revelation of the existence of an "other" film, you should familiarize yourself with that research, found here, before continuing. Pay special attention to the blur analysis and the tilting sign post. It will save a lot of time if you are sincere. If you are cognitively impaired, insincere, or otherwise complicit in the continuing cover-up, then no amount of information will suffice. 

 

As to the larger question, we have long ago established the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy independent of the existence of the "other" film. We have further established the existence of a cover up of both the original crime of murder as well as a conspiracy to cover up the cover up.

 

We need not pretend that we don't know what we do know.

 

A word to the wise.


  • Mark Jamieson likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#5 Billy Carr

Billy Carr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:23 AM

Greg, thanks for replying.

 

I am very familiar with the link you provided, and in fact I am typing this before I check the link, as I assume it is to Assassination Science, Costella's excellent work, and the related work by Lifton, Mantik, and Healey. I already mentioned that I was of course listening to your interview with Mr. Fetzer. Ok, let me check the link to make sure. Ok, yes, it's to Costella's site.

 

I have a few hundred MB of downloaded videos, photos, and source documents on my computer. Costella's work gets a few special places for reasons that will become obvious.

 

Let me start by saying this. There are parts of all of that work that are stronger than others. I believe that a lot of Costella's work will stand for a long time, if not for the duration of the ongoing investigation of the Kennedy murder. However, there are almost always ways to improve upon the works of those who went before us.

 

So while we are at the point, 53 years on, to be able to point to a fabricated Zapruder film, I would like to leave the door open to researchers who can corroborate Costella's work. You may be right in believing that Costella's analysis is untouchable, incontrovertible, and impeccable. But you know what? I cannot be sure.

 

Also, at some point, historians tend to rewrite history, re-analyze the analysis, and in many cases (even factual) things can be marginalized. Sometimes for good reasons. Sometimes for nefarious ones. This may happen to Costella's work in 20, 40 years. I think it's inevitable.

 

I recently emailed John Costella, and I asked him a few things. (If you need verification, it was on 11/20). I thanked him for his research, and I asked specifically if I was able to use it in a paper that I intend to write. I'm going to tackle a little aspect of the Zapruder film which is heretofore unexplored. And it will need a lot of accurate, previously accepted data. (Costella to the rescue!)

 

But that, Greg, is of course a complete side issue to the one I asked you about. Costella's work is all laid out plain and simple. Your reluctance to explain the circumstances around your viewing is not plain and is not simple. And I can't use it (directly) in a research paper.

 

To use a courtroom analogy, I can use Costella's work as an expert witness... your work is more like hearsay at the water cooler. Even if the hearsay corroborates the expert witness... it's still hearsay and refutable.

 

However, if the expert witness corroborates the hearsay, then we can start looking at the hearsay.

 

Unfortunately, we have no direct evidence of the "other" Zapruder film. Or at least not in public view. All of the witnesses of the "other" Zapruder film, the names of whom are listed on the link I list below, are secondary or tertiary witnesses of this "other" Zapruder film. It has no provenance, no chain of custody, no affidavit to verify its authenticity. (If it popped up on YouTube tomorrow, it would still suffer the problem of provenance and be subject to hoax claims, and rightly so.)

 

Well, so I did gather that you have said a few more things about it in the past. I might as well quote you verbatim for those who are watching the thread:

 

"The film I saw was shown for training purposes. I do not know "who" possessed [read:owned] the film that I saw, but I am sure it was NOT an individual." (from Ed. forum, 4/11/2011)

 

"The medium was definitely film--it was shown through a projector onto a screen. The quality was superb." (ibid.)

 

and more relevant things are at Greg's posting on 4/16/2011 at http://educationforu...-film/&page=2  which pretty much sums up Greg's knowledge of the film that he's going to put in writing.

 

I am glad to make your acquaintance, Greg. I am sorry to make this thread somewhat about you, but I felt that you should be asked the question for the record.

 

Thank you.



#6 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:03 AM

So while we are at the point, 53 years on, to be able to point to a fabricated Zapruder film, I would like to leave the door open to researchers who can corroborate Costella's work. You may be right in believing that Costella's analysis is untouchable, incontrovertible, and impeccable. But you know what? I cannot be sure.

 

 

I do not think anyone is infallible. However, certain principles in physics have stood the test of time and logic does not lose context. The motion blur anomalies within the film were discussed long before John came onto the scene. I was working on those subjects with Jack White, Rich DellaRosa, David Healey, David Mantik, Scott Myers and others since the mid 1990's. However, John brought a precise method of "measuring" the degree of blurring present and confirming--and in some cases refuting--what we and others had already postulated. He also reported additional findings all his own. Of course, as far as the blur anomalies are concerned, his attention to detail and scientific analysis serve the argument better than mere empirical observation--or the possibility that an "other" film exists--serves it for several reasons. Among those reasons are included the ability to test the hypothesis for oneself and a precisely detailed explanation of the methodology employed.

 

Since I have read your posts, I can conclude that more than likely you are not cognitively impaired. Therefore such impairment cannot explain why you say that you "cannot be sure" if Costella is correct. That is either disingenuous or intellectually dishonest.

 

These facts are simple:

 

All other things being equal, when a stationary, non-panning movie camera is focused on a stationary target then the target image will be clear (not blurred). However, if the target is moving while the camera is not panning (or not panning at the same rate as the target is moving), then the target will be blurred. If the rate of panning is essentially synched with the moving target's speed, then the target will remain clear, but the stationary objects in the foreground and background NECESSARILY will be blurred. The inverse is also true, namely, that when a target is stationary, but the camera continues or begins to pan (laterally, in this case) then all three--the target, the foreground and the background--will be blurred. And, lastly, if the camera is not panning, but all three--the stationary background and stationary foreground as well as the target (car)--remain clear (not blurred), then NECESSARILY the target car is also stationary

 

This last detail--where all three are not blurred--is observed in more than one frame in the Zapruder film. Yet we know that the Zapruder film never shows a stationary (read:stopped) target car. The clarity (lack of blur) of the car, background and foreground is virtually perfect, yet the car is still moving. This is not possible by any explanation known in physics--unless the film was altered.

 

When these simple principles are applied as a test of authenticity against the Zapruder film, the film fails miserably--on every count. This test alone proves that the film has been altered.

 

This is not a "Costella Theory." It is physics and it is demonstrable in every setting of which I am aware. Moreover, it can be replicated by anyone who cares to try and it is not dependent on the existence of any other film.

 

Before inquiring further please test these very easily replicable results for yourself. Such "tests" are without expense and can be very easily accomplished with minimal effort.

 

As far as the "other" film's existence is concerned, I strongly suggest that interested parties or researchers NOT take my word for it under the circumstances. It is not unreasonable to reject my account, even if for no other reason than to be arbitrary. I have offered no proof, insufficient details, and scanty evidence. However, I encourage these interested parties to conduct their own experiments regarding motion blur using their own cameras. Even a cell phone camera set on video mode could suffice. Of course, it would be better to use a Bell & Howell and Kodachrome (or similar film stock) if only to get as close to the original as possible. However, the laws of physics that govern blur will not depend on the type of camera or the type of film stock (digital or analog) utilized for the experiment.

 

Finally, even if I were to reveal the answers to your inquiry, it would NOT in any way effect the case at this time. The "tests" would still need to be conducted by interested parties and the observations of the inconsistencies within the Zapruder film would still need to be noted. Again, this is NOT about the "other" film. It is about the Zapruder film. You don't need me or my account. The Zapruder film impeaches itself.

 

As I said in a previous post: "If you are cognitively impaired, insincere, or otherwise complicit in the continuing cover-up, then no amount of information will suffice."


  • Mark Jamieson likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#7 Billy Carr

Billy Carr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:29 PM

Greg, that was a bit more details into the Costella evidence(**) than I was thinking about. I should say that I agree with Costella's analysis. It passes the gut feeling tests, and it does well in the physics aspects of the blurring. To respond otherwise, I would need to fabricate or hypothesize a means by which a future researcher could cast doubt on some of the specific, technical aspects of his work.

 

If I were to put myself into that mindset, seeking wildly for ways to tear down the blur analysis... looking for any tiny weakness... I think I could. If I was of that mind, and I had a prejudiced view of the work, I could fabricate something. I could indeed take a tiny crack in the blur analysis, swing a hammer, and open it up. This is the mindset of a full-blown, hardline fool, I might add.

 

But what I see in the JFK assassination research is the periodic foolish arguments that are difficult to squash. Why? because they are subjective, unprovable, and invented only for promoting a narrative. Costella's work is subject to this type of attack. And you know what? The ones promoting it, and believing it, and writing books about it never realize that their work is simply a farce.

 

I hate to make this point, but both "sides" of assassination research have their farcical narratives.

 

So let me say this. If I were to attack Costella's blur analysis, and in so doing gain me some friends over at you-know-who's newsgroup or wherever, then I would get a response. You or some other researcher would be quick to reduce my arguments to the ramblings of a fool. My guys support me, Costella's guys support him. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

To the outside observer, and especially to the "mentally handicapped," the issue becomes cloudier and cloudier. Do we believe Costella or the attackers who write all the mainstream narratives?

 

Mark my words. This will eventually happen (if it hasn't already) to Costella's work.

 

Didn't it already happen to Robert Frazier's work? Wasn't he something like the FBI's most prolific firearms identification expert... ever? But wait, haven't you read books by researchers who tear his WC testimony to shreds? The top, top, most experienced expert in that field? (I know, he was an involved party or partisan, but aside from that, he simply stands in my argument as an exemplar.)

 

So by extension, and by somewhat of a premonition of the future of JFK research, I believe that there could be a chink in Costella's work. I can guarantee you that someone will drive a wedge in it, legitimate or otherwise.

 

I am not talking about misgivings or even skepticism about the particulars. I think you know I am generalizing about how research gets clouded. And I am not complaining or whining about how the "other side" is full of ignorant fools who fabricate stuff. What I am doing is instead promoting the true research into the assassination. My solution to the "other side's" arguments against Costella is to corroborate it with another scientific study.

 

I mentioned earlier that I am going to write a paper that uses Costella's work extensively. Rather than an "independent" study, it will be dependent on Costella's work. So if any of his calculations are wrong, then I will be able to "catch" his error. Or if any of my analysis is wrong, his work should contradict mine. So far, I have hundreds of data points that all say that Costella's work is right. So far, it appears to be 100%. No errors. Yea. :)

 

So I am pretty convinced. But that still doesn't rise to the level of irrefutable evidence. Why? Because Costella's work is just an analysis, it is not concrete evidence. It relies on measurements, photography, geometry, calculations, and conclusions. The only way to ensure that it stays convincing is to add to it, build upon it, and keep looking for any weak points.

 

And since you brought it up... I am sort of looking for a fellow researcher. I was sort of looking for someone on the "other side" of the issue to help me. But since this research is really side-agnostic, it should be open to anyone. If you know anyone who might be interested in a small to medium size project, I could use some help. And I am offering that to anyone reasonably capable, not just to Greg.

 

And so, to be clear, I previously said, "I cannot be sure," in which I was referring to whether Costella's work is "untouchable, incontrovertible, and impeccable." I chose my words carefully. If I was sure, then no future research should be able to either refute it or "tweak" it. I have read that Albert Einstein's work from 100 years ago is potentially needing a "tweak." Like this paper followed by this heretical one. However, that particular issue was debunked so many times in the following year that one reporter said that the latest debunking of the bad science was "like the sod planted atop their grave."

 

So while Einstein's theories have been scrutinized and the challenges rebuffed, we may see it refuted some day. They are, after all, just theories subject to proof. When will I ever be sure of his theories?

 

Thankfully, Costella's results are subject to proof. I intend to prove them right or wrong ... er, I mean probably right or wrong. In doing so, I believe it will make the work stronger.

 

(**Oh, and by the way, I like how you picked the blur analysis. I wouldn't consider the blur analysis the weak part of Costella's research. I had other aspects in mind. And with that, I'd be willing to attack the weaker aspects and leave the blur alone. That's the way an opponent thinks, or in this case, a fellow researcher.)



#8 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:53 PM

Good luck.

 

One of the reasons that I rarely, if ever, speak about the Zapruder film anymore, is that it is not very useful to do so, IMO.

 

When the internet was young and new, such discussions and analyses served a purpose because researchers were--for the first time--finally able to communicate and share research with each other over great distances.

 

And for the first time, we were equipped with analytical tools (computers and programs) that had never been available before. But that was over 20 years ago. A lot has been done since.

 

We have had all of the discussions and heated debates for over 2 decades beginning in the mid-1990's regarding the Zapruder film having been altered. (You are quite tardy to the rodeo on this one).

 

As far as John's work is concerned, even if he were dead wrong about every proof, except for even just one, the ultimate conclusion would yet prevail.

 

I chose the blur issue because it is a concept relatively easy to understand by lay persons and it is very easy to test.

 

Today, I find the subject of Zapruder film alteration to be divisive and unnecessary to the big picture.

 

Indeed, there is so much exculpatory evidence that vindicates Oswald and renders the official narrative moot without this additional evidence.  

 

Indeed, the first generation of researchers, Mark Lane, David Lifton, Harold Weisberg, Mae Brussell, Fletcher Prouty, to name just a few, did not initially focus on the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

 

Yet they still knew that there was a conspiracy based on the remainder of the evidence.

 

Indeed, even a sincere researcher who is of the belief that the Zapruder film is authentic, still concludes that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy because the preponderance of evidence indicates that fact.

 

So while you may feel that rehashing the whole "authenticity issue" will be productive to the big picture, I do not.

 

Having said that, you are welcome to publish your work on the subject here for review so long as it does not become a distraction.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#9 Billy Carr

Billy Carr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 02:35 AM

That sounds good to me.

 

I didn't mean to get onto the subject of Costella and his work, but it's funny you mentioned it... and here I sit with a project on the back burner that I'd like to finish.

 

I have two things I want to say right now about my project. Number one is that when I write the paper that goes along with the research, I quickly go off on a tangent. I am hyper-critical of one researcher in particular, and one which you know. I think my reason for going the scientific route is to avoid the unscientific foolishness that I mentioned previously. But if that person is a friend and a fellow researcher, and I attack that person, it makes me look the fool myself. My criticism is pretty severe.

 

The second issue is that I started the project with a thought something like this: "Hey, Billy, look at that anomaly on the Z-film. It shows that there is obvious tampering. It's as plain as day."

 

I was so smart.

 

Well... Maybe not so much.

 

After doing a few hours of preliminary research, I discovered I was a complete fool. My initial observation was wrong. And I jumped to a wrong conclusion based on a shred of evidence and a gut feeling. But at least this all happened internally and I corrected my thinking pretty quick.

 

These two issues are the flip sides of the same coin. There I am, investigating problems that should conclusively prove the Z-film is a fake. I am about to be the Internet Hero when I tell the world! But the science, aided by Costella's work, leads me to the opposite conclusion.

 

I think we owe it to ourselves to be extremely careful. I don't want to blab how the Z-film is fake and go about showing you the frames, writing an article about it, believing it for 30 years, only to be made a fool by a future researcher.

 

And that's the reason for my first issue. I have my beef against one researcher in particular because of the person's inadequate use of empirical evidence.

 

So I was surprised that my research showed what it did. But I was looking for the truth, not a "smoking gun" or an agenda. I like how it's been stated that the JFK researchers are no longer expecting a smoking gun when the NARA releases the last of the JFK records. But there's something about it that researchers grasp at straws, expecting that the latest observation is the key unlocking the assassination. (It has been, at various times, the dictabelt tapes, the Cuba connection, Oswald's lover, the confessed assassins, the medical evidence, the ballistics evidence, the autopsy, the Altgens photo, the Powell photo, the Ruby phone call records, the Air Force 1 recordings, the shells, the Rosco White papers, the timing of the shots, the acoustical evidence, the Z-film anomalies, the CIA accountant, the FBI cover-up.)

 

But I just want to be honest. That's my agenda. I like the way Costella presented his findings. He primarily dealt with facts, and then let it be. There's a lot to be said for the good, empirical, proven source data. Let's try this. How about findings and conclusions be based on solid, empirical research and not speculation and conjecture? How about that agenda? JFK researchers need more of the empirical and less of the subjective.

 

So I am going to have a hard time keeping my mouth shut about the first issue. I've probably already said enough. I don't know when I will complete my project. I could use some help producing pretty graphs and checking my work.

 

Thanks again.



#10 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 22 March 2017 - 09:26 AM

A few items strike me. First, I suggest that any honest broker should enter into a study of this nature with a blank slate in terms of pre-conceived notions. Second, once they have conducted sufficient work to reach a conclusion, I suggest that they then deliberately go back and earnestly attempt to debunk that conclusion. This exercise will inevitably reveal any flaws in the original, which can then be addressed. If the flaws are too grave, one must start over or abandon the project. However, if the flaws are correctable then the finished product is strengthened.

 

As for avoiding feeling foolish, I understand the desire, but would caution to not make this about you. In the end, it will not be important that "the fool" or "the genius" is remembered, nor should it be. The merit of his or her work, however, is another matter. That is the important part, not one's ego.

 

Lastly, you spoke of the futility of the "wild goose chase" (my wording) in which many researchers over the years have engaged. I submit that this behavior has been intentionally elicited by design of the co-conspirators to the cover-up. You may find my speech, Assimilating the Anguish, to be instructive in this regard. It was delivered at the Warren Commission Report Conference in Washington DC on the 50th anniversary of the release of that abominable report.

 



  • Mark Jamieson likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#11 Phil Dragoo

Phil Dragoo

    Founding Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts

Posted 23 March 2017 - 03:17 AM

v3lqas.jpg

 

Doug Horne in his Inside the ARRB Volume IV approximately pages 1100-1300 presents the Brugioni-McMahon Events I and II on Friday November 22 and Saturday November 23 at Hawkeyeworks in Rochester.

 

Zapruder rubbed elbows with Byrd the owner of the Confusatory and others in the right-wing world of Dallas hawks who would host Dulles and his hawking of The Art of Intelligence.

 

Mantik has developed the Harper Fragment into a ballistic forensic Rosetta Stone showing 1) an occipital entry; 2) a right forehead entry; 3) a right temple oblique wound.

 

We can see Jackie going for something on the trunk--and in every rear view the rear skull is blackened.

 

2801ipw.jpg

 

The stop or virtual stop seen by so many is not seen in the film, QED it has been edited, or altered.

 

33f3qc4.jpg

 

The shiny midnight blue becomes flat and unreflected; the foreground is obliterated by the limousine.

 

The Kodak expert Rollie Zavada served as defense of authenticity, but fails to explain the plethora of anomalies.

 

The simplest explanation is alteration.

 

Anomalies abound in these 'sixties lone nut assassinations.

 

James Earl Ray had no shot from the bathroom window of the boarding house until Memphis Sanitation cut the foiliage the following day.

 

Sirhan could not fire the fatal rear wound from in front any more than Lee could inflict the fatal frontal wound from behind.

 

To this day the intelligence establishment clings to its fairy tales even as Snowden as Goldstein is cursed in Two Minutes Hate

 

while providing the inconvenient truth that intelligence is bent to the covert purpose

 

Zapruder's alleged impromptu placement at Z-313 to capture the climactic crossfire in a clumsy orange marshmallow

 

His provision of cover perhaps for a 16mm running in the pergola behind

 

(It can't be that hard--Roger stood in the hatch he'd cut in our '63 Econoline when we paced SDS Days of Rage in Chicago October 8-11, 1969)

 

8 or 16, the Veg-O-Matics at Hawkeyeworks could separate the limousine and occupants from the foreground and background

 

removing the obvious clues seen by Brugioni et al yet leaving the dramatic mark of arrogant power

 

Power unafraid of detection and prosecution

 

Who will watch the watchmen?

 

Newman shows the way intelligence operates, how 34 insisted Dulles do Lumumba--or has CIA rewritten the trajectory--erased Dulles' primacy

 

And the fourth paragraph of 273--calls for that unity of the Castle insisted on by C.D. Jackson in his October 1952 speech for Ike

 

Psywar continues--Kennedy would not kiss the ring.  Trump refuses.

 

The power to keep the stopped limousine flowing can be used to collapse uncollapsible towers and ignite a binary helix of war

 

The Vietnam War fought over Kennedy's dead body.  Iraq and Afghanistan fought over the ruined souls of the dozens of bipartisan endorsers.

 

The curious lack of outrage at the obvious adulteration of the Zapruder film, less than over lipsyncing Beyoncé breaking the hearts of fans

 

Perhaps there exists a dark matte of assumption of forgery in the representation of the martyrdom of 43

 

Judging by the dissolution of the reputation of the intelligence establishment like Richard Harris' cake in the rain

 

prospects of recovery from the Mockingbird Matrix appear bright


  • Greg Burnham, Chuck Barlow and Mark Jamieson like this

#12 Chuck Barlow

Chuck Barlow

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • LocationFort Worth TX

Posted 23 March 2017 - 07:38 AM

"prospects of recovery from the Mockingbird Matrix appear bright"

 

Phil, are you saying that you believe that The Mighty Wurlitzer, even at max crescendo, is losing its ability to make us want to get up and dance?..... or .... are those pesky Russians influencing and clouding my judgement again?


  • Greg Burnham likes this

#13 Phil Dragoo

Phil Dragoo

    Founding Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts

Posted 24 March 2017 - 01:57 AM

2z4xt9v.jpg

 

Chuck, Hillary cheated Bernie out of the nomination, deleted 33,000 emails without blinking, had her husband put the fix in with the Attorney General, intimidated a compromised FBI director, stumbled from nap to nap leaving empty venues and enthusiastic pollsters, enjoyed the adulation of sixty thousand flying monkeys of the Fourth Estate not to mention the dirt vacuumed up by seventeen bloated snoop groups yet failed to seal the deal.

 

The mad-as-hell We the People smelled what was being spoon fed in their direction and waved it away.

 

The talking points still go out to hit the screens of the revisionists in the Ministry of Truth every dawn.

 

The made-up fairies in the Klieg lit chairs still read their teleprompter propaganda.

 

The old gray whore and the voice of Official Washington still go to press with authoritarian posture.

 

"This is all the news you're fit to have, Proles."

 

And yet there is more power in 140 characters or less from the man who would be president

 

rather than kiss their ring.

 

They had to push Susan Rice out to five sets on that Sunday of Benghazi damage control

 

the same chronic and habitual liar who now nags about lies and liars and lying

 

swooning with eyes raised to heaven, fanning her heaving breast.

 

In the spirit of e.e. cummings there is some [deleted] we will not eat.

 

Burned on Benghazi and Obamacare

 

and having another Suspicions Confirmed roll up in the report of Nunes

 

You can't make spying on citizens "incidental"

 

You can't make serial violation of the Fourth Amendment and intelligence law of no consequence

 

while continually shouting fire over a slight reddening of Senator Sphincter's face

 

We have been Fergusoned to death

 

The electric current can no longer move the frog's leg

 

The Mockingbird is dead, Jim

 

2lbnkog.jpg


  • Greg Burnham, Chuck Barlow and Mark Jamieson like this

#14 Chuck Barlow

Chuck Barlow

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • LocationFort Worth TX

Posted 25 March 2017 - 01:05 AM

Thanks Phil .... These are interesting times to say the least. They still try to confuse with massive doses of misinformation and disinformation to the point one doesn't know what to believe...... except that if it comes from the mainstream media , you can bet it's fake. My appologies to Mr. Carr for derailing his thread







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Propaganda Disinformation

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Web Work by: XmasZen.com