[quote="Mark Johansson
The same reason as James Files. They know to much and must therefore be silenced or be classified as fools.
Johansson[/quote] Hi Mark. You are referring to my question about the DP cop? If so, who was he, what was his story and how credible was it?
Bruce Brychek
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
dankbaar wrote:I do not know if Gordon Arnold's story is true. I tend to believe it, but the complete absence of any real photographic evidence, makes me doubt again.Wim Exactly my point! Arnold and Oliver have no photographic proof of their respective claims. On the contrary as for Oliver: the existing photographic evidence seems to discredit her story, for at the time she supposedly was of lesser weight than the babooshka lady appears to be in Zapruder's film and the pics. I re-iterate: why didn't Oliver get a dozen copies made of her once in a lifetime shot!? I have to review the Unsolved History doc, but I am almost certain that I heard Gary Mack say that the babooshka lady had her film developed which (supposedly) turned out 'no good' and then walked out 'into history' (or similar words - I'll look that up). Strange...
Mark
Mark
2 points:
1) Always talk directly to the source if you can. NEVER rely on what Mack
says.
2) Beverly is in numerous photos' , contrary to Gordon Arnold. Her height and posture is completly consistent to what what she looked like. She still has the shoes she wore that day, with the yellow paint on it from the fresh wet pavement painting. Let's assume the lady is NOT Beverly as Beverly says (for which she has no motive to lie about). Then this lady is, apart from Umbrella man and his acomplice, one of the very few persons, clearly visible in the Zapruder film, that has never come forward and has never been identified. Clearly you do not know yet the (very credible) story of how and by whom her film was confiscated.
1) Always talk directly to the source if you can. NEVER rely on what Mack
says.
2) Beverly is in numerous photos' , contrary to Gordon Arnold. Her height and posture is completly consistent to what what she looked like. She still has the shoes she wore that day, with the yellow paint on it from the fresh wet pavement painting. Let's assume the lady is NOT Beverly as Beverly says (for which she has no motive to lie about). Then this lady is, apart from Umbrella man and his acomplice, one of the very few persons, clearly visible in the Zapruder film, that has never come forward and has never been identified. Clearly you do not know yet the (very credible) story of how and by whom her film was confiscated.
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
dankbaar wrote:2 points:1) Always talk directly to the source if you can. NEVER rely on what Mack says. 2) Beverly is in numerous photos' , contrary to Gordon Arnold. Her height and posture is completly consistent to what what she looked like. She still has the shoes she wore that day, with the yellow paint on it from the fresh wet pavement painting. Let's assume the lady is NOT Beverly as Beverly says (for which she has no motive to lie about). Then this lady is, apart from Umbrella man and his acomplice, one of the very few persons, clearly visible in the Zapruder film, that has never come forward and has never been identified. Clearly you do not know yet the (very credible) story of how and by whom her film was confiscated.
re 1:
you sound pretty serious on that one, but I had guessed that already judging by your discussion with Gary that you shared with us.
re 2:
I have briefly read something on the confiscation of the film - can you give me a link to the best forum entry or other source on the subject please (gives me something to read for when the game starts - in about half an hour).
re 1:
you sound pretty serious on that one, but I had guessed that already judging by your discussion with Gary that you shared with us.
re 2:
I have briefly read something on the confiscation of the film - can you give me a link to the best forum entry or other source on the subject please (gives me something to read for when the game starts - in about half an hour).
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
dankbaar wrote:http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoliver.htm
Thanks Wim,
but how about this one:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oliver.htm
Seems to me that quite a number of claims by Oliver have been dismissed, crucial ones too!
Mark
Thanks Wim,
but how about this one:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oliver.htm
Seems to me that quite a number of claims by Oliver have been dismissed, crucial ones too!
Mark
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
dankbaar wrote:This is McAdams website. The greatest wizard (and liar) of this case. There are 2 columns, both with claims. Left attributed to Beverly Oliver, right claims by Mc Adams. What makes you think that all these claimes are correct? Wim
You got a point there, Wim.
But then again, both 'sides' claim, counterclaim and dismiss.
I have seen several copies of Zapruder's film, but they all look differently, with and without scratches, with and without the frames behind the road sign....it is hard to know what and what not to believe.
Take the 'muzzle flash' in the Nix film - it is being discussed like it is the absolute truth, but I'm telling you: if that was a muzzle flash, it must have been from an 8 inch canonball.
How about McAdams' claim at the bottom of that page, about the 4 pics she claimed she had from her 'own' film. Or that she claimes she was running while filming. Has anyone ever tried to discredit McA's counterclaims or dismissals? I take it you have, as you are pretty outspoken about his credibility. Be assured, after having watched you on SBS6, I tend to believe everything you tell us about the case. Still, we all need to be critical if not sceptical about everything that is being claimed and dismissed here. I still consider myself as being naive (but then again, aren't we all?) in this specific case, so I want to digest all pros and cons. Not that I'm not convinced it was a conspiracy. So hopefully you'll bear with me and have patience with me.
Thanks,
Mark
You got a point there, Wim.
But then again, both 'sides' claim, counterclaim and dismiss.
I have seen several copies of Zapruder's film, but they all look differently, with and without scratches, with and without the frames behind the road sign....it is hard to know what and what not to believe.
Take the 'muzzle flash' in the Nix film - it is being discussed like it is the absolute truth, but I'm telling you: if that was a muzzle flash, it must have been from an 8 inch canonball.
How about McAdams' claim at the bottom of that page, about the 4 pics she claimed she had from her 'own' film. Or that she claimes she was running while filming. Has anyone ever tried to discredit McA's counterclaims or dismissals? I take it you have, as you are pretty outspoken about his credibility. Be assured, after having watched you on SBS6, I tend to believe everything you tell us about the case. Still, we all need to be critical if not sceptical about everything that is being claimed and dismissed here. I still consider myself as being naive (but then again, aren't we all?) in this specific case, so I want to digest all pros and cons. Not that I'm not convinced it was a conspiracy. So hopefully you'll bear with me and have patience with me.
Thanks,
Mark
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Cannon Flash?
Mark de Rooij wrote:Take the 'muzzle flash' in the Nix film - it is being discussed like it is the absolute truth, but I'm telling you: if that was a muzzle flash, it must have been from an 8 inch canonball.
This is a misstatement (deliberate?) & an inaccurate characterization of the recent discussion of the Nix film. I made the point there that the film shows not the muzzle flash per se, but instead the refraction of the light generated by the muzzle flash which is not actually filmed because it is off screen to the left when Jimmy causes it.
To suggest that this refraction of the muzzle flash is the actual flash of a cannon firing is to obfuscate the analysis & to attempt to ridicule the analysis. Is Mr. de Rooji an innocent newbie as he postures, or is something else at play here?
Jim
This is a misstatement (deliberate?) & an inaccurate characterization of the recent discussion of the Nix film. I made the point there that the film shows not the muzzle flash per se, but instead the refraction of the light generated by the muzzle flash which is not actually filmed because it is off screen to the left when Jimmy causes it.
To suggest that this refraction of the muzzle flash is the actual flash of a cannon firing is to obfuscate the analysis & to attempt to ridicule the analysis. Is Mr. de Rooji an innocent newbie as he postures, or is something else at play here?
Jim
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Cannon Flash?
Jim Thompson wrote:Mark de Rooij wrote:Take the 'muzzle flash' in the Nix film - it is being discussed like it is the absolute truth, but I'm telling you: if that was a muzzle flash, it must have been from an 8 inch canonball.This is a misstatement (deliberate?) & an inaccurate characterization of the recent discussion of the Nix film. I made the point there that the film shows not the muzzle flash per se, but instead the refraction of the light generated by the muzzle flash which is not actually filmed because it is off screen to the left when Jimmy causes it.To suggest that this refraction of the muzzle flash is the actual flash of a cannon firing is to obfuscate the analysis & to attempt to ridicule the analysis. Is Mr. de Rooji an innocent newbie as he postures, or is something else at play here? Jim
Don't worry: I AM a newbie. Born in 1960 in the Netherlands, got interested in the case in 1975, visited Dealey Plaza on 11/22/79, read about 10 books on the subject, recorded and watched a dozen documentaries, was thrilled by Stone's JFK and then put it to rest.....until last month when I watched Wim Dankbaar's superb documentary (or actually Peter R. de Vries' documentary, prompted and co-hosted by Wim). That got me interested again. By the limited number of posts as well as the relative ignorance of most of them you can tell I do not posture as a newbie. I'm just using this forum as a crash course, while at the same time I do wonder about some of the postings by others. The theories developed around the supposed flash in the Nix film are too far fetched IMHO. Just check frames 212 thru 218 of the Zapruder film: they are badly scrathed - before too long someone is going to claim those scratches are alpha particles. My point being: is the copy of the Nix film a certified first generation copy that is authentic and not dented or scratched or enhanced or retouched? I do believe Oswald's pics holding the gun and the pamphlet are fake, just as you can tell the pic in which Ruby kills Oswald is retouched (the gun is poorly enhanced), which goes to show that anyone can scratch or tamper with photographic evidence, nowadays even more easily with the help of a PC. So, to answer the question: I tend to believe a lot of uncorroborated claims, but the flash is just one too many, so I think the thought is ridiculous. I'm not being hostile over this, just venting my opinion. If it really were an actual image of a flash in the picture, it would have to have the same 'grainy' character as the rest of the objects - which it does not.
Don't worry: I AM a newbie. Born in 1960 in the Netherlands, got interested in the case in 1975, visited Dealey Plaza on 11/22/79, read about 10 books on the subject, recorded and watched a dozen documentaries, was thrilled by Stone's JFK and then put it to rest.....until last month when I watched Wim Dankbaar's superb documentary (or actually Peter R. de Vries' documentary, prompted and co-hosted by Wim). That got me interested again. By the limited number of posts as well as the relative ignorance of most of them you can tell I do not posture as a newbie. I'm just using this forum as a crash course, while at the same time I do wonder about some of the postings by others. The theories developed around the supposed flash in the Nix film are too far fetched IMHO. Just check frames 212 thru 218 of the Zapruder film: they are badly scrathed - before too long someone is going to claim those scratches are alpha particles. My point being: is the copy of the Nix film a certified first generation copy that is authentic and not dented or scratched or enhanced or retouched? I do believe Oswald's pics holding the gun and the pamphlet are fake, just as you can tell the pic in which Ruby kills Oswald is retouched (the gun is poorly enhanced), which goes to show that anyone can scratch or tamper with photographic evidence, nowadays even more easily with the help of a PC. So, to answer the question: I tend to believe a lot of uncorroborated claims, but the flash is just one too many, so I think the thought is ridiculous. I'm not being hostile over this, just venting my opinion. If it really were an actual image of a flash in the picture, it would have to have the same 'grainy' character as the rest of the objects - which it does not.