Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

for those that would like to persue Zapruder film alteration possibilities here's a link:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncos ... index.html

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:55 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=779#p779

M. Ulrik penned:



*Ray Mitcham wrote:

(If you disagree with the approximate distance of 6" between the shadows then please provide your evidence.)*



I think it's less than 6", but it doesn't matter much either way.

*********

doesn't matter? Of course you can prove that, correct? So, where's your evidence, champ?

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:37 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=778#p778

Ray Mitcham wrote:

Sorry for the delay been away on business.



To help you.



In C133c the sun is at higher than in C133A. This is shown by the shadows of the overhead cables on the stair post.

If I need any help with this, I'll let you know. (Or maybe not.)

Ray Mitcham wrote:

The shadows of fixed objects in C133C, show that the azimuth of the sun is 250˚ - 5˚ (Warren Commission said the camera was pointing 70˚ North, and sun is approx 5˚ right of camera.)

You're confusing the HSCA with the WC and East with North. It seems the 5˚ right of camera is your own estimate. OK, let's go with that.

Ray Mitcham wrote:

The shadow of the cables on the stair-post in C133A are approx 6” higher than in C133C.



To achieve, this the sun must have moved 5˚ West. i.e. Azimuth of 250˚, and several degrees lower in the sky.



(See NASA Solar Position Calculator site- http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html



insert “Dallas” 30 March 1963. 15.27.26

Note Azimuth (245˚) and Sun Elevation. (31.88˚)



Then insert time as 15.52.05. Azimuth (250˚) and Elevation (27.53)



Results show that the sun moved 5˚ West and the elevation sank from 31.88˚ to 27.53˚.

The WC deduced that 31 March was the likely date, so I'm not sure why you picked the day before (not that it makes much of a difference).



I don't know why, but I seem to be getting slightly different figures:



Azimuth 245˚ (Elevation 39.43˚) corresponds to 15:28:41.

Azimuth 250˚ (Elevation 34.45˚) corresponds to 15:54:17.



What does this tell us? That the sun would have been directly behind the camera (and Oswald's shadow directly behind him) 25 or 26 minutes after the first photo was taken. This is obviously not what we see in the photos, so thank you for proving that it took significant less than 25 minutes to take all three.



As for the vertical movement of the cable shadows on the stair post, you still haven't told us how you got from 6 inches to an angular movement of several degrees. Let's say the distance between the cables and the post was 10 yards. At that distance, 6 inches would correspond to an angular movement of only about 3/4 of a degree.

Ray Mitcham wrote:

Oswald is standing in roughly the same place in both photos.



As the elevation of the sun in C133A is 3.72˚ lower than in C133C, then his shadow should be shorter than in C133A.



It isn't. It is longer.

Feel free to prove that Oswald's shadow is longer in 133C. (You can't, of course.)

Ray Mitcham wrote:

If the sun moved 5˚ West, then the shadow of the stair-post would have disappeared behind the stair-post



It doesn't.

But the sun probably moved less than one degree to the West. You proved that yourself.

Ray Mitcham wrote:

If the photos were taken from the same position, the shadows of Oswald in all three photos are askew. Oswald's shadow in C133A should be less acute (i.e closer to the line of his body) than in C133B and C133A.



It isn't.

See above.

Ray Mitcham wrote:

(If you disagree with the approximate distance of 6" between the shadows then please provide your evidence.)

I think it's less than 6", but it doesn't matter much either way.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:43 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=777#p777

Patrick opined:



Your point cannot be established unless you show the films have been altered and Mr Zavada, who knows I would think, a lot more about film alteration than you Ben, states the Zapruder film is an in camera original which means there was no limo stop. Period.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... d/3672031/

*******

interesting, I'll forward the USToday article to see if Dr. John Costella has comment. For the record, Mr. Zavada made no comment to me about Zapruder film content, in fact he freely admitted film content is not his area of expertise, 8mm film material composition and its physical make up/properties is!



And with the full understanding 8mm film is NOT a Hollywood presentation.theatrical release format, why would anyone conclude or presume to conclude Rollie Zavada had sufficient knowledge to comment on the black art of special effects cinematography?

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:36 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=776#p776

Don't worry, Ray.... I'm sure Patrick will pull from his arsenal of excuses that Marina was color blind and also confused with numbers in English.

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:45 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=775#p775

Patrick C.

The bullet exited JFK and it did NOT strike the spine. It therefore did NOT travel in a straight line and or it passed between the two transverse processes.

"It didn't travel in a straight line". Hmmm.... please tell us, Patrick ,do you think it travelled in a curved line or changed direction by hitting something solid which deflected this high velocity bullet?

Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:56 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=774#p774

You said they heard the bangs from inside the sixth floor and were startled. I was just pointing out that they would have been startled wherever in Dealey Plaza the shots came from.

Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:48 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=773#p773

Patrick said "Marina took the pictures and she maintains that to this day. It is a non issue."



She remembered taking them with a camera which she held up to her eye. It was an Imperial reflex which you don't.

She said it was a black camera. It wasn't -it was grey.



And you believe her?

Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:44 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=772#p772

Ray Mitcham stated, "If you can prove the photos are fake, then it proves a conspiracy."



True enough, Ray... But there's also a good possibility someone suggested to Oswald that he pose for those pictures for the exact purpose of linking him to the assassination (and naturally gave him a different reason).



I'm sure Patrick will gripe, "No one knew JFK would be coming to Dallas 8 months later," which is completely immaterial. In all likelihood they were setting up a number of patsies in various major cities JFK would eventually visit. And how more obvious could it be if those pictures were taken just 10 days prior to Nov 22nd?

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:17 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=771#p771

Patrick asserted, "Marina took the pictures and she maintains that to this day. It is a non issue."



Marina said she only took one photo when there were actually four. And an issue doesn't become an "non-issue" on your say-so, Patrick, or did you think otherwise?

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:51 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=770#p770