The Orange Blob That Develops on JFK's Head

[spooked911]

Poll question: The Orange Blob That Develops on JFK's Head

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/wound.html

How many think the Zapruder film shows a real head wound?

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2011/04/weirdest-thing-about-zapruder-film.html

What is weird to me about the head wound is that there is brown hair above it. It's not like part of his skull was blown away-- a skull flap tears away-- and there was brain underneath, it's like an orange blob just forms on the side of his head.

[zappaman]

1. I voted some other explanation

Obviously, the wound exposed the orange alien who infests many of our leaders.
They are watching...

[spooked911]

2. Okaaaaay...

would appreciate more responses, though

[LARED]

3. 'No, the film was altered to show a fake wound'

Does that mean you think it possible that Kennedy was not shot?

[jberryhill]

4. The amazing conundrum with the Z film fakery

Is that you have a bunch of folks who claim the film proves Oswald was not the shooter, and you have folks who claim it was altered to make it look like Oswald was.

I can't wait until spooked takes on the film of the Hindenburg disaster.

Spooked has demonstrated that:

1. The 9/11 videos are fake

2. The moon landing films and photos are fake

3. The Zapruder film is fake.

He's never seen a film, picture or video which is real.

[spooked911]

5. I'm not sure it is worth responding to this, but of course I have seen real/unaltered pics & videos

Even many of the 9/11 videos and pics are "real"-- sort of what you mean by fake. I just think the plane hit videos are fake.

The moon landing films and videos are "real", but don't depict what they purport to show.

Of course, the Zapruder film is what we are discussing here, and evidence has been presented for it being fake. Yet you ignore this evidence, and throw out a blanket accusation meant to disparage me.

[jberryhill]

6. Disparage you?

Disparage you?

You do a fine job of that on your own. The Apollo program was a very large group effort that included people I know. I, for one, am sick and tired of you acting hurt when you get the derision you richly merit for calling that a hoax.

No, spooked, you have not presented "evidence" that the z film was altered.

And when are you going to answer my question about the much more important issue of whether the aliens had him killed because he intended to break the galactic quarantine of earth?

[spooked911]

8. Yeah... so you know people who worked on the Apollo program, eh?

What a small world.

In nay case, I have presented evidence the Z film was altered. You just won't look at it or accept it. Not my fault.

It's ludicrous to think the Parkland doctors couldn't see a gaping bloody wound on the side on JFKs head. Not to mention the other issues I have posted about.

As far as the quarantine, I don't think he was killed becoz he wanted to break the quarantine but becoz maybe he wanted to kill the evil beings that the quarantine was built to keep in check.

Why don't you ask your NASA pals about the quarantine and see what they say? That might be interesting.

[jberryhill]

10. Small world?

The Apollo program involved the work of thousands of engineers and scientists. The likelihood of finding someone of a certain age with an advanced degree in engineering who DOESN'T know someone who worked on the Apollo program is pretty low.

The Parkland doctors DID see a huge gaping wound, btw, and I guess that's what makes your assertion otherwise confusing.....

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/16th_Issue/peters.html



Q. Would the rounded edge of this tube have caused the skin to become jagged like we see in this photo?

No, I think that would be the bullet coming out that did that. Dr. Perry would have made a real neat incision. His incisions are probably right at the edge of this wound. The wound wasn't quite that big, but you can see where he's enlarged it. He didn't have to enlarge the wound very much.

Q. Could you tell us what we are seeing in this photo?

Here, they got the thing covered up, you've probably seen pictures where the wound is turned back and you can see a huge hole there in the head. The parietal area is over the ear. The thing that was amazing to me when I saw the x-rays of President Kennedy's head was there was a huge hole in the back, but the fracture of the skull had extended forward even to include the cribaform plate where the eye rests on the skull.

Q. With the damage extending that far forward in the head, would you expect to see damage to the face in the other photos from the autopsy?

I believe the bullet that hit his head stopped his heart so quickly, and the heart was in shock and did not have the power to rush all the blood into that area that would have made his face black and blue over a period of time. He just died so quickly.

Q. Does this photo represent the same injuries you observed on the President at Parkland?

Yes. What they've done here is this flap has been pulled back. This is a loose flap of tissue that could be pulled down this way to cover the hole where the brain was, that's what I saw. If you could pull this flap of skin away, you'd see a huge hole in the head. A large amount of the brain is missing, and the cerebral cortex is sunken down there a little bit, whereas the brain would have almost touched the skull. A large amount of brain was missing back there, as if you would open the lid of a jar.

[spooked911]

13. there are contradictions to the official story even in your link

such as the idea that the bullet came from the front. But my key point is the Z film shows damage to the frontal part of the head-- in front of the ear-- not the side/back.

(warning, gruesome photos below)


Possibly the orange blob represents a flap from the skull blown forward, if the skull flap was big enough and in the right place. The problem is the autopsy photos are seemingly contradictory about the nature of his head wound and the skull flap.

Of course, there is the theory put forward by Twyman, that the initial head wound seen at Parkland was enlarged on route to Bethesda naval hospital. It's not clear to me which of these photos were taken at Parkland vs Bethesda.

[zappaman]

7. you have no evidence the Z film was faked

when will you realize that just because something "doesn't look right" to you, doesn't mean there is anything wrong?
Seek help.

[spooked911]

9. it's not about "not looking right" at all, dude

are you saying the Parkland doctors could not see that JFK's head was blown away on one side? Seriously?

[jberryhill]

11. No, and the Parkland doctors don't say that either

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-2.html#treatment

Dr. Carrico noted two wounds: a small bullet wound in the front lower neck, and an extensive wound in the President's head where a sizable portion of the skull was missing

[spooked911]

15. OK, let me be more specific.

Where exactly was this large head wound, and does it correspond exactly to where the orange blob is in the z film?

[zappaman]

12. This is ridiculous

Why would someone alter the film to show a headwound?
And what about the eyewitnesses who saw the same thing happen that the film portrays?
Also, the first doctors at Parkland have repeatedly said they were concentrated on saving his life. With Kennedy lying supine, and blood and a huge mass of brain tissue oozing from the wound, most could have had no precise knowledge about the extent of the wound.
Jesus, dude, do you really think you have come up with something that hasn't been gone over again and again and again?
Really, what would satisfy you?
Do you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong?
Not just this CT, but every other loony CT you so easily embrace?

[spooked911]

14. the idea is that they would alter it to make it look more like a shot from the rear

instead of a shot from the front.

I'm not sure what eyewitnesses specifically spoke about this orange blob on the front JFKs head. Please enlighten us.

I'm not saying this is new in terms of ass'n research, but I haven't seen it discussed here and I wanted to see what the OCTists would say.

What would satisfy me, to some extent, is you could admit there might have been a conspiracy involving the govt to kill JFK.


Yes, I think about being wrong all the time, not just about this, but other "CT"s. But I will ask questions until I get an answer that helps me resolve the issue in my mind.

Anything else?

[spooked911]

16. I found this list of witnesses

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm

Not surprisingly, there is quite a bit of variation, though in aggregate, they are consistent with a right side head wound. Only one or two say anything about the face though.

[jberryhill]

21. "in aggregate, they are consistent with a right side head wound"

Yes, so? That's consistent with the Zapruder film.

What, exactly, is your issue?

[zappaman]

17. hopeless n/t

[William Seger]

23. Has it ever occurred to you...

... that deciding to put a second shooter on the grassy knoll was an extremely stupid plot, considering the unnecessarily complicated and risky cover-up that it required? Why do you suppose "they" couldn't come up with something simple and safe?

Thanks to JFK "researchers," modern conspiracy theories can't simply be conspiracies; they have to preposterously risky and complicated hoaxes, involving all sorts of fake evidence and a massive cover-up. Who do you suppose is more to blame for that: Hollywood or TV?

[zappaman]

25. Both.

People see these wacky FICTIONAL plots and think it can be applied to the real world.

Here's an idea "they" could have used.
Hire a guy who is an expert marksmen with a great rifle and have him shoot JFK.
Then spirit him away.
"They" never thought of that?
Instead, they're gonna start grooming LHO to be a patsy even before JFK is president?
All the evidence points, and always will, to LHO.
People can't except that because BIG EVENTS need BIG EXPLANATIONS. No way in the CTers head could a punk like LHO kill JFK. NO WAY!!!

And I blame Mark Lane for the silly JFK CTers.

[spooked911]

30. oh please... read a decent book on the topic that isn't an OCT book

you're hopelessly naive about these issues. Or you pretend to be, not sure which.

[zappaman]

31. which one should I read, Spooked?

I've read BEST EVIDENCE, CROSSFIRE, RUSH TO JUDGEMENT, HIGH TREASON, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, and RECLAIMING HISTORY.
I was also at the first assassination conference in Dallas. While there I hung out with Gary Mack, Gus Russo, Cyril Wecht, and Robert Groden. I was working for a magazine and this tied in to the upcoming JFK movie. By the way, I interviewed Oliver Stone as well. Back then, I was convinced of a conspiracy. Not anymore.
Lemme guess, EVERY book you read about JFK is a CT book, right?
Ever read the Warren Commission Report?
No?
Then give RECLAIMING HISTORY a try.
Get back to us when you're done.
Or just keep telling us "it doesn't look right".
Sad.

ETA: those books were off the top of my head. I probably read a lot more...

[spooked911]

36. so you're pretending, I guess

thanks for telling us your history... enlightening, to be sure.

[zappaman]

38. pretending?

hardly.
I read and evaluated the evidence and came to the same conclusion that has stood for almost 50 years.
Guess I should just believe everything I read on the internet, like you, eh?
You better get back to your David Ickes, Spooked.

[spooked911]

40. sorry

but I have a hard time believing you've done that much research and been involved in this so long, but believe the lone gunman official story. Something doesn't add up here. Even a cursory glance into the JFK material pulls out astounding connections of Oswald with US intelligence, and all sorts of highly suspicious evidence. At minimum, I have a very hard time believing that you have no questions about the assassination.

[SDuderstadt]

41. It's called...

"convergence of evidence", dude.

You'd do well to study it.

[spooked911]

43. that's not what I'd call it

but I am not allowed to say what I'd call it here, so I must speak discreetly and indirectly.

Still, if one simply looks at the life of LHO, it screams patsy.

I don't see how one can get around that.

[zappaman]

46. really?

what exactly screams "patsy"?

[spooked911]

48. I thought you were the expert

I'm sure you can figure it out

[zappaman]

50. no, spooked

your words.
why can't you back them up?

[zappaman]

52. still waiting

for you evidence that LHO was a patsy.
I assume you are collating it?

[spooked911]

55. you've read it, if you read all those books

there's no point in me telling you here. Obviously your mind is "made up".

[SDuderstadt]

56. Like yours isn't, dude...

Everyone who takes you on here has a far better command of the facts than you do, Spooked.

[spooked911]

28. I think you don't understand how these things work

you seem to be working from a very naive premise.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Unintentional irony...

strikes again!

Too funny.

[William Seger]

34. Oh, I think I understand exactly how these things work

If all the evidence tells a different story than the one your imagination dreamed up, then either your imagination is wrong or all that evidence must have been faked. If you can't find any real evidence that confirms the story you prefer, then either that story is false or there was a massive cover-up. Not much guesswork involved in predicting which way conspiracists will go.

My "naive premise" is simply that if you want to assassinate a president or launch a false flag attack, then the only part of the plot that needs to be a hoax is who gets blamed. Every piece of faked evidence runs a huge risk of being exposed as a fake. Every extra detail necessary to pull off the hoax raises the probability that something will go wrong and expose the hoax. Every person you need to approach to participate in the cover-up is an opportunity to get busted before you even get your team together, and every person who does participate is an ongoing risk of exposure until they are all dead. Modern conspiracy theorists don't just assume that perps are evil; they assume that they are too stupid and/or insane to come up with simple and safe plots, but they have all the resources they need to fabricate whatever fake evidence they need, and they are so extraordinarily powerful that it's no problem to get all the key people to cooperate and then keep quiet forever, and they are unbelievably lucky that nothing in their unnecessarily complicated schemes goes wrong.

[jberryhill]

35. ah, but that's what they want you to think....

They do things that don't make sense, so that people like you will come along and say, "Well, that doesn't make sense."

So, saying the explanations don't make sense is playing right into their scheming hands.

The ONLY way the powers that be could have killed JFK is in broad daylight on a Dallas street with uncontrolled numbers and locations of witnesses and cameras.

Taking down the airplane that got him to Dallas by a "mechanical failure" would have just been too suspicious.

[spooked911]

37. This has nothing to do with my imagination

it has to do with conflicting evidence--- the wound in the medical photos vs the film.

Like most of what I post, it has to do with resolving conflicts in the evidence. Not "imagining" stuff, though I'm sure you like to (pretend to) think that.

As to your second point, it is complete nonsense, since either:

1) you have no direct idea how these people operate, and so you are just imagining what you think is the "simplest" explanation.

2) you do have direct knowledge of how covert operators work, but that would make you automatically evil and untrustworthy.

I prefer to look at the evidence.

[zappaman]

39. "I prefer to look at the evidence.'

The irony never ceases, does it?

[William Seger]

42. Umm, all the "conflicts in the evidence" you've claimed so far have been imaginary.

And that's because you apparently "prefer to look at the evidence" for only one reason: to find these imaginary anomalies so you can pretend that your conspiracy delusions are the result of rational investigation. But the game is exposed when you apparently have no interest at all in having these "conflicts in the evidence" resolved. When the evidence refuses to be tortured into confessing, you blithely declare it to be fake. When you can't find any real evidence to substantiate conclusions you're already reached, you declare that's because there was a massive cover-up. Your behavior speaks louder than your disclaimers: Evidence has nothing to do with your beliefs.

As for my second point, somehow I had a feeling that you wouldn't grasp it.

[spooked911]

44. Yeah, I'm a fucking conspiracy loonybird!!!!

Thanks for the psycho analysis!

Woo hoo-- just lock me away because the evidence doesn't make sense to me!!!

Riiiight.


And yet, if you look at this image, there is a massive orange blob over JFK's eyes, and nothing where his head wound was supposed to be:

[zappaman]

45. "Yeah, I'm a fucking conspiracy loonybird!!!!"

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[William Seger]

47. I think we established several years ago

... that you are among the least competent photo analysts on the planet. You apparently completely ignored the testimony that jberryhill copied for you, which explains what we are seeing. The Z film is consistent with that explanation and the autopsy photos and the X-rays, which is exactly why the "researchers" are compelled to declare them fake, too.

Shut 'er down, Clancy, she's pumping mud.

[spooked911]

49. I didn't ignore that testimony

it just didn't explain the orange blob on his face with a lack of apparent damage to the skull where the damage was supposed to be.

No one yet has explained that.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2011/04/weirdest-thing-about-zapruder-film.html

Is the orange blob to the left of, above or to the right of his ear here? It looks like to the right, to me.

Where is the damage to the skull where the pictures show it to be (i.e. above the ear)? I don't see any.



Feel free to tell me what I am missing here.

[SDuderstadt]

51. You're missing the fact that it is...

an extremely low resolution frame and it is nearly impossible to see things clearly accordingly.

Of course, I'm sure that Zapruder was "in on it", too.

[spooked911]

54. that's a dodge

the resolution is good enough to see where the blob is on his head

[SDuderstadt]

57. Dude...

then why is it only you that seems to have a problem with it?

[spooked911]

63. because OCTists have taken over this board and driven away

more reasonable, skeptical people.

Now, you just get all the reinforcement you want, for whatever crap position you hold.

[LARED]

64. Reasonable, skeptical people?

You mean like people that believe;

Nukes took down the towers.

The Earth is quarantined by Aliens.

Direct energy weapons destroyed the towers.

The towers were dustified.

Video footage of 9/11 was all faked or altered in some way.

The Pentagon was not hit by a commerical airliner.

No plane slammed inot the field at Shanksville.

The moon landing were faked.



You mean those resonable skeptics, right?

[spooked911]

65. they don't have to believe all that to be reasonable and skeptical

but good job of twisting my position!!!

[LARED]

66. How did I twist your positions? nt

[zappaman]

67. uh...

those ARE you positions.
believing the Earth is under alien quarantine is not reasonable.
if you believe it is, I suggest you seek help.

[spooked911]

72. Uh... I didn't say they had to believe all that.

Maybe logic is not you guys' strong suit after all.

[LARED]

75. Warning, warning level 5 irony alert. This is not a test. Repeat

This is not a test.

[spooked911]

77. my point still stands

thanks for playing though

[SDuderstadt]

71. Those ARE your positions...

dude.

How, specifically, did Lared "twist" them?

[SDuderstadt]

70. Driven away by what...

Spooked?

Facts and Logic? Hard questions that neither you nor they can answer? Being challenged on silly nonsense?

[spooked911]

79. Incalcitrant adherence to the official story

despite persistent posts showing the contrary

[SDuderstadt]

80. Dude...

if conspiracists were right, they could stand the heat.

[defendandprotect]

84. True -- and what I see is you having a conversation with "ignored" --

which I'd recommend to you! :evilgrin:

But, it's a dual problem, imo --

the "ignored's" here -- and I don't know if it's one or three your debating with -- ????

not only chase away people who would otherwise be interested in hearing what you are saying --

but they cause the 9/11 forum to be reviled in the mind of average DU'ers --

That's just imo --

Basically, therefore, few of them even come in to see what's going on -- !!

And it is that final complication which keeps other good posters on these subjects -- like

you -- away from the forum.

Some good new posters have come in and tried, but the fanaticism of the "ignored's" chases

anyone interested away --

I'd really prefer if no one responded directly to them -- they provide no information of

any value -- don't provide questions or challenges of any value -- it's just the same dumb

think over and over again!


:)

[defendandprotect]

86. "You can't wake up a man pretending to be asleep" --- !!!

You're wasting your time with a professional sleeper!!

[defendandprotect]

85. Agree -- they eliminated the backward movement -- and put the blob on front of his head -- !!

In fact, didn't we have witnesses -- I think, perhaps even from within the

motorcade, who say he was knocked so far back that his feet came up?

That would have been the final shot --

and actually, seems to have two simultaneous shots that hit him?

From opposite directions --

We also have to consider that there was a right temple wound -- and what

damage that would have done -- and certainly that didn't come from the REAR!!!!



:nuke:

[defendandprotect]

92. Since the film was in the possession of government/intelligence ....

and a private company -- LIFE Magazine -- strange enough as that was! --

but any alterations would have been done by CIA/FBI --


You're also being disingenuous in suggesting that "spooked" is alone presenting

challenges to these conspiracies --

Rather, "spooked" is bringing the reports of these investigations to us --

adding his own questions and observations to them -- and enabling us all the

opportunity to consider the investigations for ourselves.





1. The 9/11 videos are fake

2. The moon landing films and photos are fake

3. The Zapruder film is fake.




In fact, you are avoiding the reality of general challenges to 9/11 and the moon landing --

and now the Z film -- and the investigations by many of those issues -- in order to try to

suggest that "spooked" is doing anything more than bringing those investigations to our

attention. It's just more attacking the messenger -- try addressing the subject.

[chrisa]

18. That is the dumbest website I've ever seen. Sick.

You have to be kidding me. The "orange blob" is the exposed tissue, blood, and splatter.

Only a moron would think that somebody would somehow make a fake video of JFK getting shot in the head. Sorry.

[spooked911]

19. I guess you are new to JFK ass'n research--

lots of researchers think the video was altered. It's not a question of making a "fake movie" from scratch.

The problem is that the orange blob doesn't fit with the known head wounds. Get it?

[SDuderstadt]

20. Define "lots of researchers"...

dude.

[zappaman]

22. This should be good... n/t

[spooked911]

26. more than ten

how many do you want?

[SDuderstadt]

32. I wouldn't call that...

"lots", dude.

[chrisa]

24. I bet these "researchers" pull their facts out of their behind.

How does the "orange blob" not fit with known head wounds? It's pretty clear that section of his head was a bit warped from the bullet blowing it apart. The "orange" is the blood spray combined with the wound.

What a dumb website.

[spooked911]

27. the problem is there is an orange blob on the front of his head and over his face

whereas the damage to the skull is on the upper right side.

OK?

[chrisa]

33. That is the blood spray and tissue

These self-appointed "researchers," especially on that website, are full of it.

[defendandprotect]

89. Unlikely --

The president was knocked BACK and to his LEFT by the bullet which killed him --

which indicates a shot from the FRONT which would not create "tissue spray" out

of the front of his head --

In fact, all testimony is contrary to that -- with the motorcycle officer to the LEFT

and to the REAR of JFK having been SPRAYED WITH BRAIN TISSUE AND BLOOD from JFK's wound!

[defendandprotect]

88. The wounds were from the FRONT to the throat -- with no outlet --

and to the rear of JFK's back -- at the level of his right shoulder blade --

an entrance wound -- with no outlet -- and at a 45 degree DOWNWARD angle --

And a wound to his right temple -- as made clear by McDuff on video --

NONE of those wounds would create the organge BLOB on the front of his head --

And all of the wounds have been lied about by Warren Commission to suggest that

Oswald was the assassin.


The further testimony by doctors and nurses at Parkland make clear that there was

a huge hole in the right rear of the president head -- and that most of his brain

matter was gone -- according to Dr. Finck.


Additionally, both the slides presented by the FBI to "LIFE" Magazine --

and the Zapruder film have been altered to eliminate the backward thrust of JFK's

body by the final shot or shots.


If you're truly interested in the Zapruder Film I'd recommend James Fetzer on that

subject -- you'll find his observations on the internet.

[defendandprotect]

87. How anyone could not see that the film is altered is astonishing ....

not only as to the head wound but in many, many other ways --

How about crowds looking UP the street in anticipation -- as JFK is passing

by in front of them?

How about signs and lamp posts jumping around -- ?

Try James Fetzer on the Zapruder film --


And certainly the "orange blob" is there to HIDE the head wound --

[MrMickeysMom]

53. I'll never know, but some pretty interesting books claim it..

"The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" by Jim Fetzer is one of them.

More interesting is that when you listen to Mark Lane (original assassination researcher on the assassination) you'll find that the Warren Commission didn't call witnesses in front of them that could have weighed in on the actual photographs taken, but never shared from the autopsy.

There is so much misinformation and it is true that the film has been altered. How badly it is altered is a deeper question.

[zappaman]

58. LOL!

Yes, that book is full of "facts".

Do you really believe that the technology to alter the Zapruder film existed in 1963? Do you CTers think the conspirators were able to perpetrate a hoax so convincing that no one who knows a thing or two about film, questioned the film's authenticity?

Keep digging, guys. Being the photographic experts you are, you should be able to do what no one else has and break this case wide open!!!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MrMickeysMom]

59. How many of them can you cut and paste, Zap?

I don't mean anything presenting actual reference data, or the technology that is associated with cutting frames which has existed prior to 1963... No, no... I'm not referring to that...

What I mean is, how many of the little laughing guys can you cut and paste? It really does a good job of emphasizing your sources very well! Why limit them?

[zappaman]

60. Could do a lot more

Can you back up your assertion that the film was altered?
If so, get to it!
Somehow I doubt it.

[MrMickeysMom]

61. Somehow, you'd doubt anything...

... unless it came from your circle of friends here. I'm not a fan of circle jerks who have never-ending goal of throwing cold water on intelligent dialog on the murder of a president.

It's someone else's assertion that the film was altered. Many who have referenced books with footnotes and timelines of real investigative follow up

It's someone else's assertion that the Warren Commission did a lousy job of investigating the assassination of a president. They all have references. Some are more credible than others

It's someone else's assertion that there were few due processes from the time JFK was shot down to the time the Commission came out with its "findings".

I am interested in those assertions and if you don't care to read a book, that's your shortcoming, Spanky.

[zappaman]

62. read plenty

and your words- "intelligent dialog"-made me laugh.
the idea that the Z film and/or the body was altered certainly is the farthest from "intelligent" you can get.
so, is name calling, but if that's all you have, so be it.

[MrMickeysMom]

68. You read...

... "selectively", which is how you answer posts, as anyone following your "dialog" here can see.

I'm through with you.

[zappaman]

69. "I'm through with you."

Thanks!
now, get back to your "intelligent dialog" like explaining how all the evil doctors and some zany film experts using technology not yet invented changed the Z film and altered JFK's body.
:rofl:

[spooked911]

73. how do you define "intelligent"?

I suspect it means whatever the opposite of whatever you think or whatever positions you hold.

There are reasons to suspect the Z film was altered, as well as the head wounds enlarged. Of course, if you believe the OCT, the easiest way to reconcile those positions with yours is to say that they are dumb.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Explain how either could possibly have happened and...

you might have something.

Otherwise, it shouldn't surprise you that reasonable people regard both "theories" as absurd.

[William Seger]

76. The question is, are there any GOOD reasons to suspect the Z film was altered?

When you're proposing that something highly implausible happened, you need really GOOD reasons. Even one would do, if it's really good. Is what you've shown so far the best you've got?

[spooked911]

78. covering up the assassination of JFK by the actual assassin would be a good reason,

if that assassin was powerful and didn't want to be known, wouldn't you think?

[SDuderstadt]

81. Only if you ignore the mountains of evidence that...

Oswald did it, dude.

[William Seger]

82. I aked for " any GOOD reasons to suspect the Z film was altered"

... not reasons why your imaginary conspirators would alter it. I'm asking if you have anything that can stand up against the fact that people who are actually qualified to make expert evaluations and who have examined the ORIGINAL film say that the film has not been altered. So far, you've given some easily debunked nonsense about a head turning too fast, and you own remarkable inability to figure out what that "orange blob" is. The reason I ask is because ALL of the "Zapruder fakery evidence" that I'm aware of falls into the same two categories: easily debunked bullshit and personal incredulity. Uncle Fetzer was ostracized by the "JFK research community" because all of his "Zapruder fakery evidence" ranges from dubious to ridiculous and simply will not support such an implausible claim. (Which, by the way, is the same reason "no-planers" are generally ostracized from the "truth movement" mainstream.)

[defendandprotect]

90. As more and more researchers begin to look at the Zapruder film as being

altered, more and more of them are finding evidence of it --

Fetzer did a great job on it!!

Of course -- all of this should be unnecessary details --

When the assassination first happened there were CIA employees and others claiming

that Oswald worked for the CIA -- records of his military experiences seem to argue

that, as well.

Journalists immediately asked for official copies of Oswald's employment records --

his W2 Tax information, etal. They were denied.

But later the 1992 JFK Assassinations Classified Records Panel obviously did see these

records -- and they unanimously concluded that ...

"OSWALD WAS EMPLOYED BY THE CIA WORKING ON HIGH LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS AND

PROBABLY ALSO FOR THE FBI."

That info has been suppressed -- Gov. Tunnheim actually appeared in a History Channel

documenary where he states that conclusion --

Tunnheim repeats those words -- and the TEXT appears below as he speaks -- !!

Much of the latest, final information on the JFK assassination investigations was so

damaging to the rightwing that the History Channel was viciously attacked and forced to

cease from showing the documentaries.

[zappaman]

91. Like a fire hose filled with horse shit

just spraying all over the board

[defendandprotect]

83. Certainly it was altered -- but perhaps to HIDE the real wound ... ??

Was looking for Dr. Finck's quote on the wound --

doesn't he say something like "most of his brain is gone"?

Eventually, I'll find the quote - but also Jackie Kennedy made very clear to us

immediately that most of his skull was gone -- and she made that clear in her

testimony -- but after that she was obviously intimidated from repeating it again.


Didn't have a chance to look at your links -- back later!

:)