RSS

Category Archives: JFK

Michael T. Griffith: Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder film

Michael T. Griffith: Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder film

Richard Charnin
June 19, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

The following is a summary of Griffith’s key points in his 1997 essay.
http://johnfitzgeraldkennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm

GRIFFITH’S KEY POINTS

What follows are some of the indications that the Zapruder film has been altered. By “altered” I mean that certain frames have been removed and that others are composites. Why was the film altered? To remove episodes and images that clearly showed there were more than three shots (at least one from the front) and therefore that there were multiple gunmen involved in the shooting.

The Limo Stop
* Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down drastically for a second or two. This event is not seen in the Zapruder film; in fact, the limousine never comes close to performing this action in the current film.

Impossible timings
* In Z353-356 we see Malcolm Summers diving to the ground. Summers is to the right of James Altgens. In Z353 Summers’ left leg is extended most of the way out. But, in the very next frame, Z354, amazingly, the foreleg is bent markedly backward. Can anyone flex their foreleg to that degree so quickly? In 1/18th of a second?

* Another seemingly impossible action in the Zapruder film is the extremely rapid and precise movement of Charles Brehm’s son in Z277-287. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less.

JFK reaction
* Several witnesses said Kennedy was knocked visibly forward by a shot to the head, and Dan Rather reported seeing this event when he viewed the film the day after the shooting. No such motion of the head is now visible in the film, only the split-second forward movement from Z312-313, which no one could have noticed.

* Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I’m sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER’S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy “PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD” in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film.

* Special Agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, said the final shot made Kennedy “fall forward and to his left.”

* William Newman, who was standing on the Elm Street sidewalk right in front of the grassy knoll and who had one of the best views of the shooting, tried to tell New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that JFK was knocked forward and to the left as if struck by a baseball bat, but Garrison wouldn’t believe him because the event wasn’t in the film.

I believe the above is good evidence that the original Zapruder film showed Kennedy being knocked rapidly forward. How do defenders of the film’s authenticity explain this testimony?

The head snap
*The violent, dramatic backward head snap in Z313-323, which for so many years was thought to be concrete proof of a shot from the front, actually constitutes further evidence of alteration. It has been established that no bullet striking the front of the skull could have caused the backward head snap. However, no bullet striking from behind could have caused this motion either. Warren Commission supporters have put forth two theories to explain how a bullet striking from behind might have caused the head snap, the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Both theories are untenable.

So if neither a bullet from the front nor a bullet from behind could have caused the head snap, what caused it? So how can we explain it? Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics, suggests that what we now see as the head snap was originally a much slower motion and was actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.

Visual anomalies
* Seemingly impossible inconsistencies occur in the streaking of background figures in relation to the camera’s movement. Mathematician Daryll Weatherly’s vector analysis of image streaking constitutes powerful evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

* A white spot on the grass behind the limousine is seen to behave in an unnatural manner. When the spot’s width is measured in relation to the camera’s tracking, the spot should be at its smallest when the image is at the left edge of the frame. But it doesn’t do this. On some occasions, the spot’s width is two to three times what it should be.

* The head turn of the driver, William Greer, from Z315-317 is too fast–it seems to be well beyond human capability. His head turns about 165 degrees in six frames, or in only 1/3rd of a second.

Blood and brain splatter to the left rear
* At least four witnesses saw blood and brain from Kennedy’s skull blow out toward the rear of the limousine. Blood and brain splattered onto the left side of the follow-up car’s windshield and onto the driver’s arm. A considerable amount of blood and brain also splattered onto the two patrolmen who were riding to the limousine’s left rear. At least one of those witnesses specified that the brain matter blew out from the back of the skull, and dozens of witnesses, including doctors and nurses, saw a large hole in the right rear part of President Kennedy’s head. In the Zapruder film no blood or brain is seen to spray backward. (It cannot be said that the right frontal explosion of blood and brain, which is itself suspect, caused all the blood splattering. In the Zapruder film the right-frontal spray blows mainly forward, and also up and toward the camera, and quickly dissipates–in fact it dissipates in no more than three frames. This effusion of spray could not have caused all of the blood splattering that occurred.)

Right-rear head exit wound
*Kinney’s description of a large, blown-out right-rear exit wound matches the reports given by numerous Parkland doctors and nurses and by several witnesses at the autopsy. Also, his account of particulate matter exploding out the back of the skull and landing on his windshield and left arm agrees with Patrolman Bobby Hargis’s report that the head shot sent blood and brain flying toward him so fast that when it struck him he initially thought he himself had been hit and that the debris got all over his motorcycle and uniform (in an interview he gave a few years ago, Hargis described the head shot as an “explosion”). Hargis, of course, was riding to the left rear of the limousine.

*Another example is the account of surveyor Chester Breneman, who was allowed to study enlargements of Zapruder frames to aid him in determining locations and distances. Breneman insisted that on some of the frames he saw a blob of blood and brain blow out from the back of Kennedy’s head. No such event is visible on the current film. (As mentioned, some witnesses in the plaza likewise saw blood and brain blown backward.)

One frame right-frontal explosion
* The bloody spray from the right-frontal explosion that is seen in the film blows upward, forward, and also toward the camera, and is really clearly visible for only one frame, and dissipates in two to three frames–or in no more than 1/6th of a second. Yet, in films of two ballistics tests the resulting spray is visible for multiple frames. In other words, the right-frontal effusion in the Zapruder film seems to disappear too quickly, with unnatural speed.

More anomalies
* There is a “remarkably symmetric” plus sign at the center of Elm Street in Z028 (Z28). This might have been used as a register mark for aligning the film when it was being copied by those who altered the film.

* There are magnification anomalies in the film for which there appears to be no credible natural or innocent explanation. One clear example of this is the measured width between the two posts on the back side of the Stemmons Freeway sign from Z312-318. This distance increases by over 12 percent in only six frames. Yet, from Z191-207 the interval remains constant.

Location of start of film
*Abraham Zapruder told CBS News that he began filming as soon as the President’s limousine turned onto Elm Street from Houston Street, as one would logically expect him to have done. But the present Zapruder film begins with the limousine already on Elm Street at Z133. On the day after the assassination, Dan Rather of CBS News watched what was quite possibly an earlier version of the film. Rather reported that in the film he watched that day the limousine “made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street.” Again, no such event is now seen in the film.

Why forge the rapid head snap?
Before I conclude, I would like to address two questions that have been raised by those who deny alteration: Why would the forgers, who were presumably trying to conceal or remove evidence of multiple gunmen and of shots from the front, produce an altered film that included the rapid backward head snap seen in the current film? And, why would the forgers have produced a film that contained indications of more than three shots? My answer to both of these objections is twofold:

One, they do not explain the evidence of alteration. If there is scientific proof of alteration, then these philosophical objections must be rejected.

Two, I do not believe the forgers were at all satisfied with the results of their tampering. I think they had to create the backward head snap because they had to remove images that were even more unacceptable and problematic.

We must keep in mind that the Zapruder film was suppressed from public view for over a decade. In short, I believe the forgers concluded that even after all of their editing the film was still unacceptable, and that this is why the film was suppressed for so long.

Extensive editing
A strong case can now be made for extensive editing of the Zapruder film. In fact, the conclusion seems inescapable–the film was deliberately altered. No other explanation is in the same league, in terms of explanatory power, for the myriad of anomalous characteristics that are seen everywhere in this case. Many frames were excised, some individual frames were extensively altered, others were changed only enough to fill in for missing frames, and others were left alone. . . .

Too many anomalies to dismiss
Even if some of the apparent technical anomalies in the Zapruder film can be explained, strong indications of tampering would still remain. To put it another way, if opponents of alteration are able to explain the absence of background streaking in certain frames, the magnification anomalies, the odd behavior of the white spot, and other seeming difficulties, would this establish the film’s authenticity? No.
Do we dismiss..
1-the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped or slowed drastically?
2-the witnesses who saw blood and brain blown visibly to the rear?
3-the fact that the backward head snap is physically impossible according to everything we know about physics and the human body?
4-the fact that Zapruder said he filmed the motorcade from the time it turned onto Elm Street?
5-the fact that Brehm’s son is positioned behind his father one moment but half a second later is standing calmly clapping at his side?
6-the fact that the 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the last shot at Z358 and that this placement matches the testimony of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens regarding the explosive head shot?

Questions
The numerous indications of alteration in the Zapruder film naturally raise some disturbing questions. The answer to the question of why the film was altered is fairly apparent–to conceal obvious evidence of a frontal shot, of multiple gunmen, and of more than three hits. But, who performed the alteration? Whoever they were, they were very well connected (so as to gain access to the film) and had at their disposal considerable technical expertise. It would seem self-evident that those who altered the Zapruder film were either working with or following orders from the men who were responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

Doug Horne (Chief ARRB Analyst for Military Records)

The following post contains a link to an essay by Doug Horne  and to a video on the Z-film chain of custody.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/jfk-assassination-mathematical-proof-that-the-zapruder-film-was-altered/
Horne interviews Dino Brugioni (a photo interpretation expert) who viewed the original Zapruder film on the weekend following the assassination. http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
Horne writes:
“As discussed earlier in this paper, Dino Brugioni opined during his July 9, 2011 interview with the author that the head explosion seen today in the extant Zapruder film is markedly different from what he saw on 11/23/63, when he worked with what he is certain was the camera-original film. The head explosion he recalls was much bigger than the one seen today in frame 313 of the extant film (going “three or four feet into the air”); was a “white cloud” that did not exhibit any of the pink or red color seen in frame 313 today; and was of such a duration that he is quite sure that in the film he viewed in 1963, there were many more frames than just one graphically depicting the fatal head shot on the film he viewed in 1963. Mr. Brugioni cannot, and does not, accept frame 313 of the extant Zapruder film as an accurate or complete representation of the fatal head shot he saw in the camera-original Zapruder film on the Saturday evening following President Kennedy’s assassination”.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 19, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: ,

Oswald in the Doorway: Why is the preponderance of the evidence dismissed?

Oswald in the Doorway: Why is the preponderance of the evidence dismissed?

Richard Charnin
May 30, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Why is it so important for the naysayers to insist that LHO was not in front? Is it to maintain a sliver of doubt that maybe Oswald did actually run from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor as the Warren Commission wants us all to believe?

The answer is simple. It would finally close the book on the framing of Oswald. The Parlor game would be over. JFK researchers would have to change the focus of their analysis. There would no longer be any doubt. It would be 100% proof of the BIG LIE.

One might say that it’s a moot point since the evidence is clear that Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the shooting – but may have gone up to the second floor lunchroom. So why the big fuss? Well, only a fool takes anything in the Warren Report seriously. It sure makes you wonder.

These are facts that no one has discussed. Namely the testimony of Lovelady and Frazier that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier and Sarah Stanton. If you believe their testimony, then it must be Oswald on the TOP level (the first floor entrance).

There is ZERO evidence that Lovelady was Doorman. ALL of the evidence (including the pixel analysis of Doorman’s shirt) points to Oswald as Doorman standing on the first floor (TOP level) while LOVELADY WAS STANDING IN FRONT A FEW STEPS BELOW FRAZIER who was standing to the left of Oswald on the TOP level.

The testimony of Frazier and Lovelady has been hidden in plain sight. It is proof that LHO was standing at the entrance to the Doorway since Lovelady was standing on the STEPS in front of Frazier; IT’S THE CLINCHER. HOW COME THIS HAS NOT BEEN A POINT OF DEBATE IN 51 YEARS?

THIS IS ABOUT CLOSING THE BOOK ON ALL THESE LIES:
1) OSWALD SHOT JFK FROM THE 6 FLOOR OF THE TSBD
2) HID THE MANNLICHER-CARCANO,
3) RAN FROM THE 6TH TO THE 2ND FLOOR,
4) BOUGHT A COKE,
5) WAS NOT BREATHING HARD WHEN SEEN BY TRULY AND BAKER,
6) AND DID ALL THIS IN 75-90 SECONDS.

REALLY?

The naysayers have yet to explain the following.

-Oswald (LHO) told Fritz he was “out front with Bill Shelley”.
-Why would Oswald lie when he had Shelley as an alibi?
-Fritz’s notes were not made public until 1997. Why not?

-Lovelady and Frazier both testified multiple times that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier – not on the first floor where Doorman was standing.

-In their initial 11/22/63 testimony, Roy Truly and Marrion Baker did not say they encountered Oswald in the lunchroom on the second floor.
-TSBD witnesses said LHO always ate lunch in the Domino room on the first floor.
-LHO was seen on the first floor a few minutes before and after the 12:30 shooting.
-It’s a 10 second walk from the Domino room to the TSBD entrance.

-Witnesses were intimidated, ignored or testimony altered.
-Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that she saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25 – but was never interviewed by the Warren Commission.

-Doorman’s V-neck open shirt was that of Oswald – not Lovelady.
-Pixel analysis of the shirt is scientific proof that Doorman was not Lovelady.

-Lovelady died at 41 in Jan. 1979 during the HSCA from complications due to a heart attack. He was never interviewed by the HSCA. The probability of a 41 year old white male dying from a heart attack in 1979 were approximately 1 in 10,000.

-Since Oswald was on the first floor, one must assume he would watch the motorcade.
-The process of witness elimination indicates that Oswald was “Prayer Man” with hands folded watching the motorcade on the first floor.

-The Altgens 6 photo printed in the 11/22 Oakland Times differs from the Groden version. The figure standing in front (who had to be Lovelady according to the testimony of Lovelady and Frazier) was whited out.

This is the “evidence” naysayers claim that proves Lovelady was Doorman.
1) “Doorman looks like Lovelady”.
But Doorman also “looks” like Oswald. And they disregard the obvious: Doorman is wearing Oswald’s shirt. http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/02/newseum-displays-oswalds-shirt-proof.html

2) No one testified that they saw Oswald out front.
But would they be allowed to give the testimony? Witnesses were ignored, intimidated and testimonies altered. Oswald was the designated patsy – come hell or high water.
http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html

3) There is no evidence that Altgens 6 was altered.
But note the differences between the early Oakland Tribune photo and later Groden version. A memo from FBI official Cartha DeLoach indicates that Altgens 6 could have been altered shortly after the assassination.The Zapruder film and the Oswald backyard photos were also once believed to be authentic.
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-cartha-deloach-fbi-memorandum-and.html

Related Posts Indicating that Oswald was Doorman:

JFK: Oswald on the Top Level; Lovelady on the Steps 2 JFK: Judyth Baker’s analysis of the shirt proves Oswald is Doorman 3 JFK: To Believe Oswald was NOT standing in front of the TSBD you must believe  4 JFK: Oswald was “Out with Bill Shelley in Front” 5  JFK: Oswald in the Doorway – an Opinion Survey 6- Evidence Oswald was on the first floor minutes before the shooting

Oswald on the first floor of the TSBD watching the motorcade:
https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11202578_10204293270752101_3880872768881082301_n.jpg?oh=cf1cf186c261d928d687facbf2cb7443&oe=55ED1841

 
2 Comments

Posted by on May 30, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: ,

JFK: Evidence Oswald was on the 1st floor minutes before the shooting

JFK: Evidence Oswald was on the 1st floor minutes before the shooting

Richard Charnin
May 24, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

This post is largely based on Gil Jesus’ excellent analysis.
http://www.giljesus.com/alibi.html

Oswald’s whereabouts between 11:45am and 12:25pm is documented by 4 different witnesses who claimed to have seen him on the first floor. According to Dallas Homicide Captain Will Fritz, Oswald told him that he was on the first floor in the “Domino Room” at the time of the assassination having his lunch. Fritz testified: “I asked him what part of the building at the time the President was shot. He said he was having lunch at about this time on the first floor.” But it was not until 1997 that Fritz’s notes of his interview of Oswald were released in which Oswald said that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”.

The “Domino Room” was a recreation room on the first floor where the employees would take their breaks. The lunchroom was on the second floor, but many of the warehouse employees used the first floor “Domino Room” to eat lunch and play dominoes. TSBD witness testimony was unanimous: Oswald ALWAYS ate his lunch in the Domino room-which was on the same floor as the entrance to the TSBD.

No less than 4 witnesses reported seeing Oswald on the first floor between 11:45 am and 12:15 pm.

1. Charles Givens told the FBI that he saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the Domino room at 11:50 am. Givens testified that when he saw Oswald reading, it was usually “right at lunch time” – and Oswald always ate lunch in the Domino Room.

2. William Shelley gave testimony supporting Oswald being in the first floor Domino Room at 11:50.

3. Janitor Eddie Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor at about noon.

These sightings of Oswald on the first floor between 11:45 and 12:00 give credibility to Givens’ original account of seeing Oswald reading the newspaper in the Domino Room at 11:50 am. They also imply that Givens, under tremendous pressure, changed his story to not seeing Oswald at all that day.

4. Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that after she left the TSBD, she caught a glimpse of someone she thought was Oswald on the first floor. FBI notes indicated that she claimed to have seen Oswald “a few minutes before 12:15. But in her original statement she indicated that she left the building at 12:25, a fact that she repeated in a March 1964 affidavit.

If Arnold left the building at 12:25 pm to watch the parade and saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the first floor “standing between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse”, he could not have been the killer of President Kennedy. It also means that the FBI lied in its report on the time that she claimed to have seen him. They needed Oswald in the sixth floor window at 12:25, so they changed the time to a few minutes before 12:15, rather than a few minutes after 12:25, in order to give Oswald time to get to the 6th floor.  Arnold was never called as a witness by the Warren Commission.

The sightings of Oswald on the first floor by these four witnesses BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER Arnold Rowland saw a man on the sixth floor with a rifle, make it IMPOSSIBLE for Oswald to have been that man.

At least six witnesses claimed they saw Oswald on the first floor.

Did Officer Baker and TSBD manager Roy Truly encounter Oswald on the 2nd floor? Roy Truly told Will Fritz on the day of the assassination that he saw Oswald near the storage room on the first floor as he went inside with officer Marrion Baker.
http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-coke-incident-fritzs-notes-and-the-limo-stop/
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-lunchroom-encounter-that-never-was.html
Baker made no mention in his 11/22/63 affidavit of encountering a man in the 2nd floor lunchroom as he made his way up the stairs. Why didn’t the WC question Baker about the affidavit in which he stated that he saw a man who did not match Oswald’s appearance on the third or fourth floor walking away from the stairwell? Roy Truly said the man worked at the TSBD. There was no mention of encountering anyone in the 2nd floor lunchroom. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0426-001.gif

Occhus Campbell, Vice-President of the TSBD, informed the NY Herald Tribune on 11/23/63 that shortly following the assassination, Oswald was seen on the ground (first) floor near the storage room.

During questioning by FBI agent James W. Bookhout, Oswald claimed that he saw two “Negro employees” in the Domino Room. One he recognized as “Junior”; the other was a shorter man whose name he did not recall. The “Junior” he referred to was James “Junior” Jarman; the other man was Harold Norman.

In his WC testimony, Jarman admitted being in the Domino Room at the time Oswald said he was, but denied seeing Oswald. He said that after descending from the sixth floor he went to the first floor to wash up. He then picked up his lunch in the Domino Room and went upstairs to the second floor to buy a soda from the machine. He returned to the “Domino Room” where he ate a part of his sandwich while standing, then walked around on the first floor eating his sandwich and drinking his soda.

Harold Norman also ate his lunch in the Domino Room. Although he admitted that there was someone else there with him, he “could not remember who ate in the domino room with me”. Norman’s lack of memory of who had lunch with him on the day the President of the United States was assassinated is strange. He remembered that after eating his lunch, he stood on the sidewalk with Danny Arce. He recalled seeing Roy Truly and TSBD Vice President O.V. Campbell and Billy Lovelady outside as well. He said that he returned to the building with James Jarman. He remembered coming out of the building after the shooting and seeing Howard Brennan. He remembered being interviewed by an FBI agent named Kreutzer on November 26th.

Harold Norman could remember all of these details, but not who he had lunch with in the “Domino Room”. Could the other person in the Domino Room have been someone other than Oswald? The FBI never investigated or determined who that person was.

If Oswald had been on the sixth floor prior to 12:15, as the Commission believed, it was a remarkable coincidence that out of all of the employees of the TSBD, Oswald was able to pick out two who were together as he claimed, on the same floor as he claimed, in the same room as he claimed and at the same time as he claimed.

These co-workers of Oswald all testified that Oswald ate his lunch in the first floor Domino Room. Givens went so far to say that Oswald always ate lunch there. Williams and Jarman gave testimony that proved that Oswald’s leaving the building after lunch was not out of the ordinary.

The Doors of Perception, by William Kelly, is a comprehensive analysis of the Truly and Baker movements: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-doors-of-perception-why-oswald-is_14.html

Covering up the evidence: http://ahabit.com/witness/

Was ‘Prayer Man’ Lee Harvey Oswald?
http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-on-tsbd-front-steps

Prayer Man’s location, at the top of the steps, suggests that he is unlikely to have been a passer–by. He is more likely to have been someone who worked inside the TSBD building, as were the fourteen witnesses known to have been standing in the doorway during the assassination. All of the TSBD white, male, manual workers, except for Oswald, were accounted for. A process of elimination indicates that Prayer Man may have been Oswald.

Related Posts: 1 JFK: Oswald on the Top Level; Lovelady on the Steps 2 JFK: Judyth Baker’s analysis of the shirt proves Oswald is Doorman 3 JFK: To Believe Oswald was NOT standing in front of the TSBD you must believe  4 JFK: Oswald was “Out with Bill Shelley in Front” 5  JFK: Oswald in the Doorway – an Opinion Survey

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 24, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: ,

JFK: Oswald in the Doorway – An Opinion Survey

Richard Charnin

April 5, 2015
Updated: May 8

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

The purpose of the 20 questions in this post is to gauge the OPINIONS of readers as to whether or not they believe that Oswald was”Doorman” standing on the first floor (Top level) of the entrance to the Texas Schoolbook Depository at the time of the assassination. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald was Doorman. The best way to gauge the opinions of those who may or may not agree is to compare the YES or NO answers to mine.

On May 5, I posted the survey on McAdams JFK site which is a disinformationist hang-out. As of May 8, there are 182 views and 37 posts in the thread. Not ONE individual has taken the survey. What are they afraid of? That the “litmus test” would reveal the implausibility of their belief that LHO was not Doorman?https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/9rar6nNazGg

The replies from the poster Mr.X are given below. His responses were evasive. Although I specifically asked for a YES or NO answer to each question, he failed to do so. This was not a court trial.

1: Assume Oswald was in front of the TSBD at the exact time of the assassination. If so, do you believe that’s why Det. Fritz’s notes (Oswald said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”) were hidden for 30 years? Yes or No?
X. Not solid proof of anything.
RC. I did not ask for proof, just an opinion – assuming the hypothetical that Oswald was in front of the TSBD.

2: In his WC testimony, Lovelady was asked to point to himself  in the Altgens6 photo by placing a DARK arrow in the DARK area. The head of  the arrow appears to be pointing to Doorman who was standing on the TOP level. Frazier also placed an arrow pointing to Doorman. However, both Lovelady and Frazier stated multiple times under oath that Lovelady was standing in FRONT on the STEPS – not on the TOP level. Do you find this suspicious? Yes or No?
X. Why don’t you provide us with the picture so we can decide for ourselves what it “appears” to show?
RC. The picture is the Altgens 6 photo in the original post linked to above.

3: If a photo, video, document or witness testimony had to be altered or fabricated to convict Oswald, do you suppose it would have been? Yes or No?
X. That is definitely a possibility.
RC. Of course it is a possibility, but do YOU think the evidence would have been altered or fabricated? YES or NO?

4: If a witness could confirm that Oswald was standing out front, would he/she be allowed to so testify? Yes or No?
X. What witness are you talking about? Or is this hypothetical?
RC. ANY witness. It is a hypothetical. I am just asking for your opinion.

5: If a witness could confirm that Oswald was standing out front and was allowed to testify, would he/she be asked the question? Yes or No?
X. Same as above.
RC. ANY witness. It is a hypothetical. I am just asking for your opinion.

6: If a witness was a participant in the conspiracy to make LHO the patsy and saw him out front, would he/she say that he was? Yes or No?
X.This is speculative psychology. What is the point?
RC. No psychology. It is a hypothetical. I am just asking for your opinion.

7: Neither Lovelady, Shelley or others were asked directly if Oswald was out front. Would it have been a logical question to ask. Yes or No?
X. If they considered it a possibility, they should have asked.
RC. Of course it was POSSIBLE. Therefore your answer should be YES.

8: Oswald told Will Fritz that he was OUT FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY at 12:30. Oswald was seen at 12:31 in the 2nd floor lunchroom by officer Baker and Roy Truly holding a coke. He did not show shortness of breath. The Warren Commission concluded that he ran from the 6th to the 2nd floor in 75-90 seconds. It’s a 10 second walk from the first floor entrance to the 2nd floor lunchroom. Do you believe that Oswald told the truth to Fritz, since a) he already had an alibi (Bill Shelley, who was not asked by the WC if LHO was out front) and b) he was seen by Truly and Baker at 12:31. Yes or No?
X. It is possible that Oswald was out front, but no photograph yet discovered can prove this.
RC. Yes, it is possible – see Altgens6. But do you THINK LHO told the truth to Fritz? YES or NO.

9: Lovelady died in Jan. 1979 (during the HSCA investigation) from “complications” due to a heart attack. The probability of a 41 year old white male dying from a heart attack was approximately 1 in 10,000.  Lovelady did not testify at the HSCA. Do you believe he should have been called? Yes or No?
X. I don’t understand the question. Was Lovelady an important witness? Would they have called Lovelady to testify at the HSCA? How many other TSBD witnesses did they call? ZERO. They didn’t seem too concerned with that end of the case at that point.
RC. But he was an important witness. Do you THINK he should have been called? YES or NO?

10: Many JFK researchers who believe that Oswald was framed insist that he is not in the Altgens6 photo and no one testified seeing LHO out front. They say that Doorman “looks like” Lovelady. But is that a sufficient response? Doorman also “looks like” Oswald and Doorman’s open long-sleeve shirt (with a V-neck tee) is different from the one Lovelady was wearing. Yes or No?
X. There is not enough visual evidence to conclusively use the shirt as a source of identification.
RC. Is it a sufficient response to just say “it looks like” Lovelady? YES or NO.

11: Is it just a coincidence that the TSBD witnesses are not clearly shown in Altgens 6? Yes or No?
X. What do you mean “not clearly shown?” How about giving us photographic examples?
RC. “Not clearly shown” means one cannot discern the identity of the witnesses.

12 Do you believe the Oswald backyard photos were fakes? Yes or No
X.They seem fairly consistent to me, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were altered. It is a possibility.
RC. They have been proven fakes. But do YOU think they were? YES or No?

13: Do you believe the Z-film was altered? Yes or No?
X. Definitely a possibility.
RC. It has been proven as altered. But do YOU think it was? YES or No?

14: Is there at least a possibility that Oswald is Doorman? Yes or No?
X. I don’t believe Oswald was Doorman, but there is not enough evidence to prove it. So,I would have to say “I don’t know.”
RC. “I don’t know” means YES, it is possibile that LHO is Doorman.

15: Do you believe Carolyn Arnold, a secretary at the TSBD, was mistaken in her statement that Oswald was on the first (i.e. ground) floor of the TSBD at 12:25pm? Yes or No?
X. She could have been mistaken. Happens all the time.
RC. But she could have been right. What is your best OPINION?

16: Do you consider it odd that Arnold was not interviewed by the Warren Commission? Yes or No?
X. A lot of potentially valuable witnesses were not interviewed by the Warren Commission.
RC. But Arnold was not just ANY witness. She was CRITICAL since she claimed Oswald was on the first floor – not the 6th – FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE SHOOTING.

17: At the 2 minute mark of this video, a balding figure who looks like Billy Lovelady appears at the lower right of the screen. He is facing the TSBD and wearing a checkered shirt buttoned to the collar. No tee shirt is visible. It was NOT the shirt that Doorman was wearing. Do you agree that it appears to be Lovelady? Yes or No? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XNHtUDEDAI
X. It does appear to be Lovelady.
RC. Your answer is YES. His closed shirt proves that he cannot be Doorman.

18: In the Altgens6 photo, Doorman is wearing a long-sleeve shirt open to reveal his tee shirt. An FBI photo of Lovelady taken 2/29/64 shows him wearing a short-sleeve striped shirt that he supposedly wore on 11/22/63. Given the discrepancy, does the fact that Doorman is wearing a long-sleeve shirt seem odd to you? Yes or No?
X. Not enough visual evidence.
RC. But is it ODD that the FBI claimed Lovelady wore a short-sleeve shirt and the Altgens6 photo showed Doorman wearing a long-sleeve shirt? YES or NO.

19. Naysayers claim that Lovelady must be Doorman because not one TSBD employee identified Oswald out front. The FBI concluded within a few hours of the assassination that Oswald, a deranged communist Lone Nut, killed JFK. Could the FBI have inhibited Warren Commission TSBD witnesses from testifying that they saw Oswald in front of the TSBD? YES or NO
X. What is the point of speculating in this way?
RC. Simply this: Do you believe the WC/FBI would allow testimony clearing Oswald?

20: Lovelady and Frazier both testified multiple times that Lovelady was standing on the STEPS in front of Frazier who was standing on the TOP level (the first floor). Since Doorman was also standing on the TOP level, do you agree that their joint testimony is powerful evidence that Lovelady could not be Doorman? Yes or No?
X. Maybe they moved around?
RC. No. The Altgens6 photo was taken at 12:30 – the EXACT time of the shots.

My answers vs. those of Mr.X:
1. YES. Did not ask for proof, just opinion.
2. YES. The Altgens6 photo is included in the post.
3. YES. A photo,video or document that proved Oswald was innocent would have been altered,destroyed or hidden.
4. NO. Evades the question (any witness)
5. NO. Evades question
6. NO. Evades question
7. YES. Evades question.
8. YES. Not asking for proof, just opinion.
9. YES. Simple question.
10 NO. Evades the fact.
11.NO. Altgens6 is altered. You have the photo, not an example.
12.YES.The backyard photos are proven fakes.
13.YES. Evades the question.
14.YES. Evades. Of course it is possible.
15.NO. Evades: Do you believe Arnold was mistaken?
16.NO. Evades.The WC would not call her since it destroys their case.
17.YES. I agree. It does appear to be Lovelady in the video.
18 YES. Evades. Doorman was wearing a long-sleeve shirt.
19.YES. No speculation. What is your opinion?
20.YES. Evades the question which is about the Altgens6 photo.

Oswald in the Doorway deniers also claim that there was not enough time to alter Altgens6. That is a canard.There was a window of opportunity. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/22/jfk-the-cartha-deloach-fbi-memorandum-and-the-altgens6/

Note this GIF appeared in the original post:

The shirt Oswald was wearing in police custody is open in a V to reveal his Tee shirt – just like that of Doorman in the Altgens 6 photo.
https://www.google.com/search?q=oswald+shirt+in+custody&num=100&rlz=1CAACAC_enUS524US524&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=rn0mVYDcA8W4ggT20YLwBA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoBA&biw=1093&bih=526

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bea_l1BJbWPx2Ju-QxedB3_cui6fCSFF7AE_iutBWGc/pub

 
8 Comments

Posted by on April 5, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , ,

John McAdams on Philip Stahl’s review of “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

John McAdams on Philip Stahl’s review of “Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Feb.24, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Philip Stahl is a Physicist/Mathematician/JFK Researcher, a prolific writer on many subjects. He just wrote a very positive review of my book:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

John McAdams, the notorious JFK disinformationist, posted the following comment on Stahl’s review:
“No academic appointment. No job as a scientist with any reputable organization. Usually, “peer review” means reviewed by a bonafide expert for a scholarly journal. Here is what I can find on Stahl: Mr. Stahl has been an atheist for over 25 years and has written dozens of articles on atheism in major newspapers. He’s also engaged in numerous one-on-one debates with priests, ministers. He lives in Colorado and enjoys hiking, computer chess, writing science fiction and GO. And this was published on his blog, not in any reputable journal. Not even in a reputable popular outlet” https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/rcGX-ZxJKKQ
……………………………………………………………..

McAdams’ post is graphic proof that Warren Commission apologists do not do their homework, have an agenda to spread disinformation and are not interested in the truth. McAdams omits Stahl’s accomplishments and completely ignores the content of his review. And you wonder why McAdams was fired from Marquette? His post is a pure hatchet job. Classic McAdams. Who cares if Stahl is an atheist? So was Einstein. But this is the kind of garbage we have come to expect from McAdams. He is very predictable.

Stahl has written extensively on JFK: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/a-physicist-mathematician-astronomer-reviews-reclaiming-science-the-jfk-conspiracy/

On his blog, Stahl notes that he has specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed the first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools and has written twelve books – the most recent: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions; and earlier, BEYOND ATHEISM, BEYOND GOD; Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions'; ‘Physics Notes for Advanced Level’ Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space; Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and ‘A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy’ which details the background of his development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.

Here are some of Stahl’s books that John McAdams ignores. He never read them. McAdams has plenty of time to read them now that he is no longer teaching. But he won’t because he knows he is incapable of understanding physics and math. What do you expect from a disinformationist? http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/stahlpa

Stahl posted on McAdams a long time ago:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/13-pages-on-conspiracy-industry-and.html

“Then there is Jack Dickey’s article which mainly extols one of the top disinformationists around, Prof. John McAdams. According to Dickey’s piece, based on talking to McAdams, he is a “debunker”. Just like the guys that debunk UFOs John sees his job as debunking conspiracy theories, and hence being a proper apologist (like Vince Bugliosi) for the Warren balderdash.

Long before there was Twitter, Facebook or Blogs, there was something called Usenet where entities known as “newsgroups” sprang up to encourage debate and discussion on any number of issues, topics. I had observed McAdams putdowns in the (un-moderated) newsgroup alt. conspiracy.jfk for some months before actually engaging in a one on one exchange with him. This was concerning my REAL FAQ that I had published in the newsgroup as an antidote to a pro-lone nut FAQ by frequent poster John Locke.

In one particular confrontation, McAdams complained about my reference to Jackie “climbing over the limo trunk” in an effort to retrieve part of JFK’s blown out skull fragment (later inferred to be the Harper bone fragment retrieved by William Harper). He insisted she wasn’t “climbing over anything” to which I then said, Ok, she’s moving across it to the rear – which shows a frontal shot”. He tried to “debunk” this but a picture says a thousand words. And in my FAQ Part 5 readers can see the image for themselves.

I added more kapow to my response citing her Warren Commission Testimony (from Volume Five of the special hearings) where she says:

“You know, then, there were pictures later of me climbing out the back, but I don’t remember that at all.”

And from her secret testimony (excised from original version), op. cit., p. 16:
“I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.”

But once again, McAdams disputed my sources and said Jackie also must have been mistaken, as there was no time at which she climbed across the trunk. SO much for John’s “debunking” which is largely a matter of denying reality.

Perhaps the best information ever assembled on John McAdams (nee, “Paul Nolan”) was put together by Jim Hargrove. The basic thrust is to answer questions concerning McAdams and his background because it so much seems to fit the sort of CIA assets described in the CIA document 1035-960 wherein it specifies under subsection (3b) the objective: “to employ propaganda assets to negate and refute the attacks of the critics”. While TIME author Dickey waxes on about, oh no, move along, no CIA here with McAdams, he never does cite the CIA document that legitimized the role for assets including in Usenet newsgroups.

Hence, when McAdams blabs: “These people think the CIA cares about them. It does not!”

One is led to ask, ‘Oh really? Then how account for the CIA document that explicitly states in one primary objective: “To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics”.

How can this be reconciled with a guy who “just likes to brawl”? Well, if brawling consumes more time than useful communication about facts (like Jackie’s limo trunk action) and files (like Oswald’s 201-289248 CI/SIG) than one can say the objective has been achieved.

If McAdams has been a real CIA propaganda asset, it makes sense one of his first obligations would be to neutralize any outlets for serious JFK assassination discussion he doesn’t control (like his moderated newsgroup). Thus his intrusions into the un-moderated group shed definite light on his intentions. Consider, for example, this McAdams post from (John McAdams) Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700:

“You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme to make this group a shambles. And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret. I have publicly announced it. I have made it perfectly obvious. I have rubbed you buffs’ noses in it. It’s blatantly obviously to everybody.”
.John

Hmmmmmm……sounds like a fuckin’ CIA asset to me.

Now, let’s clear our heads and think about this a bit: Would a normal everyday professor of Political Science be doing these things? Would he be bragging about leaving a Usenet newsgroup a “shambles”? It doesn’t add up. Bill Hargrove, in his “McAdams FAQ” provides the Charter Policy written by McAdams himself for his own moderated group. Reading its first paragraph sheds a lot of light:

CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY
This group will be for the purpose of providing an area for serious discussion and research of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The group will be moderated to prevent the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued alt.conspiracy.jfk and made it nearly useless as a vehicle for intelligent research. Questions surrounding JFK’s death have made this one of the most talked about and controversial issues of our generation. This will be the one usenet group which deals seriously with this importanttopic.

But as Hargrove observes:
“One supposes that since the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued the alt.conspiracy.jfk group were and are part of McAdams freely admitted plans to turn the group into a shambles, the moderated group can only be seen as his personal vehicle for selective manipulation of content”

Which is totally logical, and again, it comports with CIA doc. 1035-960! Hargrove then quotes McAdams from a letter written to The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
“(Dr) Gary Aguilar accused me on the politics forum of being A CIA sponsored disinformationist because I was once the Marquette Official representative of the I.C.P.S.R. an utterly unspooky social science data archive.”

In truth, The ICPSR is housed in the Institute for Social Research, or ISR which itself has been documented as recipient of “spook” (e.g. CIA) research grants. They also have a webpage: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/

Which the interested reader can explore for himself. My own take is that it could easily be a CIA (Clandestine Operations) front for psy-ops intelligence operations which could easily include anti-conspiracy propaganda. We already know that the founder of American Propaganda – Edward Bernays – was steeped in the social sciences and firmly believed the public was too irrational to entrust to its own thought and conclusions and therefore had to be manipulated toward specific directions. In his own words: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”

What better way to do that than from a networked academic consortium – interwoven into all the social sciences – with access to a central data clearinghouse that’s amassed everything from the latest frequency of teen pregnancies, to homicides by race or gender, or assorted other historical arcania. It’s literally a propagandist’s dream.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 24, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , ,

A Physicist/ Mathematician/ Astronomer reviews “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Feb. 15, 2015
Updated: Feb.22, 2015
JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

A Physicist/ Mathematician/ Astronomer reviews Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

Philip Stahl is a prolific writer who posts daily on a variety of scientific, political and other subjects. He has specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed the first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools and has written twelve books – the most recent: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions; and earlier, BEYOND ATHEISM, BEYOND GOD; Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions'; ‘Physics Notes for Advanced Level' Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space; Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and ‘A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy’ which details the background of his development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/jfk-mathematicianphysicist-philip-stahl-brain-space-blog/

Trolls and Disinformationists
1- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/top-ten-ways-to-test-conspiracy-claims.html
2- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/hyper-skepticism-of-conspiracy-phobics.html
3- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/beware-conspiracy-theorists-no-beware.html
4- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/13-pages-on-conspiracy-industry-and.html
5- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/killing-kennedy-what-it-got-wrong-pt-2.html

6- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ny-times-reviewer-jill-abramson.html
7- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/author-philip-shenon-is-he-idiot-or-dupe.html
8- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/even-liberals-can-be-victims-of.html
9- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-still.html
10- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-second-assassination-today-fifty.html

11- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/bob-schieffer-not-worthy-to-be-called.html
12- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-trust-oliver-stone-over-bob.html
13- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html
14- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/glenn-garvin-fact-dont-matter-in-jfk.html
15- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/be-still-my-heart-oreilly-does-jfk.html

16- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession.html
17- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_29.html
18- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_30.html
19- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-have-we-learned-this-past-week.html
20- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/oreillys-lies-in-killing-kennedy-show.html

21- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/john-macadams-tries-to-rip-my-review-of.html
22- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/educating-australian-bloke-on-basic.html

Stahl responds to frequently asked questions on the assassination:
1- Oswald’s Background:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk.html
2- Oswald’s Sheep-Dipping:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_10.html
3- Garrison Investigation:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_12.html
4a- Warren Commission:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_13.html:
4b- Warren Commission:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_14.html
5- Bullets, Wounds:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_15.html

6- Oswald’s Rifle and The WC Rifle Tests:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html
7- HSCA Investigation:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html
8- Nix and Zapruder Films and the Evidence Therein:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_20.html
9- Earlier Plots, Designated Assassins, Oswald Double:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_21.html
10- Media Complicity in Coverup, Gerald Posner, Vince Bugliosi:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_22.html

Miscellaneous:
1- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html
2- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html
3- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html
4- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-and-national-security-state-1.html
5- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-and-national-security-state-2.html
6- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/12/yes-americans-deserve-to-know-what-cia.html
7- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/dallas-city-with-death-wish-in-its-eye.html
8- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ike-jfk-also-hostage-to-national.html
9- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/secret-service-scandalnot-first.html
10- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/stephen-kings-new-scifi-tale-fun-but.html
11. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/02/was-zapruder-film-tampered-with.html
————————————————————————————-

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 13, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , ,

JFK Lone Nutters and Trolls: A compendium of lies, stupidity and ignorance

JFK Lone Nutters and Trolls: A compendium of lies, stupidity and ignorance

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

It is very easy to spot a JFK disinformationist/troll. They all use variations of the same Lone Nutter playbook to deceive readers and divert discussions. They ignore facts, avoid the scientific method and apply logical fallacies. This post is a work in progress which illustrates these points. Note that I have blocked a dozen Facebook trolls who are not included in the following list.

John McAdams
Falsified the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses on the source of the shots. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/
McAdams was also wrong in attempting to debunk the relevance of witness deaths provided by JFK researchers Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Craig Roberts, etc. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

Dale Myers
He has created three fictional accounts which he claims are scientific proofs:
1- With Malice a fraudulent attempt to prove that Oswald killed Tippit.
2- A bogus animation to prove the impossible Magic Bullet Theory.
3- An article disputing HSCA acoustic experts who proved a Grassy Knoll shooter.

Myers is easily proven to be a fraud on all three counts: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/jfk-debunking-emmy-award-winning-researcher-dale-myers/

1- According to FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill who attended the autopsy, the magic bullet entered JFK’s back 5.5” below the collar and did not exit!
2- Oswald could not have shot Tippit at 1:16pm as the Warren Commission claimed. Why?Tippit was declared dead in the hospital at 1:16pm! All of the eyewitnesses heard shots no later than 1:06pm. Oswald was seen outside his apartment at 1:04pm, 0.9 miles from the shooting.
3- Based on gunshots recorded on a dictabelt at the assassination, acoustic experts calculated a ZERO probability that six shots would coincidentally syncronize with the Zapruder film:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html

Ed Cage
This Lone Nutter is relentless. He asks the same idiotic questions over and over even though they have been answered. But he ignores the evidence which proves his idiocy. For example, the magic bullet: Cage refuses to consider that FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill attended the autopy and claimed that the so-called “magic bullet” NEVER EXITED. Cage writes regarding the Dale Myers cartoon: “I have been to DP 18 to 20x with stepladder, measuring tool, camera and a wooden rifle with a scope. If you watched the first 4 min of the video I posted narrated by Peter Jennings it should make sense. If you are still doubtful let me ask you … Where do you think the ce399 exit from JFK’s throat went?”
FBI O’Neill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMzhKy-O4T4
FBI Sibert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNZBfPkbPk

Zachary Jendro
He claims that in the Altgens6 photo, the black man in front of Doorman raised his arm showing the same pattern shirt as Doorman. What are the odds? Jendro will go to any (arms) length to try and debunk Judyth Baker’s pixelation analysis of Doorman’s shirt which proved he was Oswald: http://judythvarybakertruth.blogspot.com/2015/01/zachary-jendro-maybe-judyth-needs-to.html
The pixelation analysis: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Project.Innocent.Lee.Harvey.Oswald/permalink/1388580938105429/

Jendro cannot refute the Warren Commission testimony of both Lovelady and Frazier that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier. Frazier testified that he was on the top level (first floor entrance) standing next to Sarah Stanton. Lovelady has to be the cutout figure in front.Therefore, by a simple process of elimination Oswald is Doorman standing on the top level. Judyth Baker’s pixel analysis is therefore confirmed: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/10851/

Mike Davinroy
This charlatan posted on Facebook about a year ago. He failed to debunk my witness death analysis. Now he is on Amazon posting a “review” of my book which just reveals his ignorance. He calls my book “Lipstick on a Pig” and wrote: “As much as I admire serious assassination researchers and personally believe it’s theoretically conceivable that there was some type of limited assassination conspiracy (although I know of no defensible evidence pointing to such) – this type of nonsense only hurts the cause of honest conspiracy research.”
A rational reader replied: You’re saying you admire serious researchers and “honest conspiracy research,” yet know of no evidence to support a conspiracy. So who are these “serious” researchers you admire? Bugliosi? McAdams? Posner?http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Science-Conspiracy-mathematical-disinformation/dp/1502715996/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414159047&sr=1-1&keywords=Reclaiming+Science:The+JFK+Conspiracy&tag=amazonsearchshop-20

John Iacoletti
His claim to fame is his firm belief that heart attacks and cancers cannot be induced. He also does not comprehend that I was conservative in tripling the national homicide rate from 0.000084 to 0.000253 to calculate the probability of 34 official JFK-related homicides among 1400 witnesses from 1964-78. The conservative probability is 1 in 13000 trillion. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=74

Note: the 34 official homicides were grossly understated. Official ruled accidents, suicides and heart attacks exceeded their mathematical expectation. Therefore, the difference between the official and expected numbers were most likely homicides. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/jfk-exposing-another-disinformationist-on-facebook/

Carmine Savastano
Carmine claims that the official, ruled causes of 100+ JFK-related witness deaths are not verifiable. But he goes even further: he states the deaths caused by homicide, accident, suicide, heart attack and sudden cancer are NOT suspicious. He demands that I post references to all the coroner’s reports. I told him that since he wants proof, he should just get them himself. This charlatan is transparent and completely illogical – a classic troll.

He is effectively calling JFK researchers who proceeded me incompetent in their books and articles on convenient JFK-related witness deaths: Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Richard E. Sprague, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura, John Simkin and Craig Roberts, etc… Carmine is parroting his mentor John McAdams. But his comments are even more out of touch than McAdams.

Mark Ulrik
Mark is another Facebook troll from Denmark who tried to discredit my work a year ago. He showed up again, this time on Amazon where he gave my book a one-star review just like Davinroy. He calls it “junk Science” but like all the others, reveals his mathematical ignorance. Mark claims that surveys of Dealey Plaza witnesses as to the source of the shots is like weather forecasting. Mark is too brain-damaged to realize that witnesses testified as to what they heard, not what they expected to hear. Mark does not comprehend that a survey is not a prediction: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

Lance Upperton
Has dedicated a web site in which he disparages anyone who believes that Oswald was Doorman standing at the entrance to the TSBD. It’s been six months since I first asked Lance to answer simple YES or NO questions on this topic. He refuses to do so with the lame excuse that the questions contain assumptions. But it is not a test. It is merely designed to ascertain his beliefs. Here are the questions: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/

Kyle Gizas
Kyle claims that the statistical analysis of witness deaths is equivalent to a pre-election poll in which respondents are asked who they will vote for. This is like the laughable Mark Ulrik (above) comparing witness surveys of what DID HAPPEN to weather forecasting to predict what MIGHT HAPPEN. Kyle is too dense to understand that the dead witnesses were not polled and asked to predict their cause of death: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/9978/

Last, but not least, another brilliant unnamed Lone Nutter wrote on another forum this retarded statement (paraphrased): Even though the probability of the unnatural deaths is ONE in 100,000 TRILLION, it was still possible! Sorry, I don’t have the link to this insanity.

Stay tuned. This post will be updated with additional examples of JFK trolling insanity.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 800 other followers