Sandy Hook/JFK #36 (w/ Gary King):
The late John Judge speaking from the knoll in 2009.
Bill Newman describes his eyewitness account of the assassination.
Historic clips of JFK addressing the nation on civil rights and the Cuban missile crisis.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim & Gary,
ReplyDeleteHave a look at this YouTube video. Hole in right rear of JFK's head clearly visible in final frames (456 and 466) of Zapruder film.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5BJyzf5z3dQ
The blow-out, however, is far more obvious in frames 374 and 375 than in those later frames.
DeleteJohn Judge was very much a "piece of work," wasn't he?
ReplyDeleteHis amazing research on the (MKUltra-tinged) truth behind the Jonestown massacre was the finest of its kind, back in the day.
But when he became enmeshed in attempting to "peel the onion" of 9/11, he really ran off the rails -- allying himself with perhaps the first, high-profile "survivors" group (which included some obvious CRISIS ACTORS) and then becoming a positively rabid defender of the execrably spurious REAL-PASSENGER-JET-AT-THE-PENTAGON hoax!
I'm not sure how "good buddies" the late Mr. Judge was with the comparably problematic Robert Groden, but if that was the case... it sure wouldn't surprise me.
Great comment, Thanks
DeleteSparkie said :"Have a look at this YouTube video. Hole in right rear of JFK's head clearly visible in final frames (456 and 466) of Zapruder film.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5BJyzf5z3dQ "
This just in:
the Zapruder film has been shown to be heavily tampered with, if not an outright fraud - if you know that, why would you believe that any part of it, including alleged holes in someones ear, is genuine?
Regards, onebornfree
Because we know from multiple sources--medical and eyewitness, including six or eight physicians at Parkland Hospital, and Clint Hill, who was the first to report a fist-sized hole at the back of his head--that he had a fist-sized hole at the back of his head, which can even be seen in frames 374 and 375. This is an example of the shallow thinking of OBF, who never considers that there are many sources of information about these questions and where he is willing to dismiss it all--here and in 9/11--on the basis of a failure to understand the role of medical and eyewitness reports in JFK and of the vast range of different photos and films which present the same demolition sequence in 9/11.
DeleteJ.Fetzer said : " This is an example of the shallow thinking of OBF, "
Delete"False in one, false in all - falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" :
"A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter. The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28F%29
Regards, onebornfree.
Jim Jim Jim Jim Jim, we are talking about the outright sham know as the JFK show produced by the politicians who had six or eight or a dozen physicians in their pockets.Tell him what he is to say, and he'll be singing along. They are worth as much as your eyewitness. I don't want to be mean. It's just as obvious as the morning dew.
ReplyDeleteThe Zapruder film is NOT a "sacred text". It is NOT the "inerrant word of G-d".
ReplyDelete(Robert Groden and company notwithstanding...)
As Dr. Fetzer and his brilliant associates demonstrated in their powerfully iconoclastic book The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, the film (as it was eventually shown to the Warren Comission and much later the public) is a rather crude (by modern standards) FORGERY -- whose primary reason for covert alteration was to CONCEAL THE HALTING OF THE PRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE!
All the rest of the messy doctoring done to the film, which led to decades and decades of argy-bargy (among WC critics AND defenders) over trajectories/impacts/wounds etc. turns out to have only been a distracting and confusing side-show.
Obviously tampered evidence of utterly suspect provenance (and that includes the 9/11 "live" TV coverage, too, folks) CANNOT be relied upon.
What's crucial to understand is that the ORIGINAL version of the film clearly showed the BLATANT COMPLICITY OF THE SECRET SERVICE -- ergo, INSIDE JOB!
Not Russia. Not Cuba. Not the Mafia. And certainly not some lone nut!
Andy Tyne said :' Obviously tampered evidence of utterly suspect provenance (and that includes the 9/11 "live" TV coverage, too, folks) CANNOT be relied upon."
ReplyDeleteExactly, Andy.
More importantly [?], if it could be demonstrated in court that that film was heavily tampered with, then it would not even be admissible as evidence ! [unless to prove FBI complicity- assuming they are the org. who edited it :-) ]
As the legal saying says: "False in one, false in all" , a legal concept that Mr Fetzer appears to be entirely unaware of :-).
Regards, onebornfree.
So we have ourselves a lawyer here...The diverse video evidence from the day is rubbish, with bad sun angles and inside jokes. Then next, the premise has turned out to be the already well known show format with the lead actor playing himself. Are you saying the video takers were not aware Jfk was doing a stunt?
Delete
DeleteWhy are you dodging the questions? I"ll put it in capitals in case you are shortsighted. DID THE PHOTOGRAPHERS IN DEALEY PLAZA KNOW THEY WERE FILMING A SHOW? I'll put in capitals every question you dodge from now on to mobilize you a bit.
just like the physicians didn't and Oswald and the fella who allegedly shot him. They all were caught in a reality show. I have doubts about the 911 cast and may consider of the news people to have been fooled.I don't see how it could be done with the JFK show. Zapruder film was tampered with for they could not convincingly make the scene of JFK death look real in the limited time they had at Dealey Plaza.
DeleteNot that it should be worthy of very much of our time and consideration, but what do the frequent visitors to this site think is the most apt description of the all-too-frequent commenter "apsterian"?
ReplyDelete1. Pointless Troll
2. Sunstinian Shill
3. Israel-firster Poseur
4. CIA Hack
5. MI6 Misdirector
6. Sincere Seeker of Truth
Since apsterian completely dodged my inquiry into his possible "Christian Identity" beliefs/guise, I suspect his handlers/tutors didn't prepare him very well for his current assignment. ;)
#1. Apsterian working for the CIA or MI6, LOL
DeleteA CIA or MI6 agent wouldn't be such a OBVIOUS troll, they are more subtle.
DeleteI think he's a confused truth seeker. When you begin with a literal translation of the bible, it fucks up your thinking. I'm serious.
DeleteYou know that did concern me about John Judge that he believed a plane hit the Pentagon; which as we know is physically impossible to fly it that low. That hurt his credibility to people I tried to introduce John Judge to. It does not negate his work on Jonestown or JFK though; it is just a sore point. And Judge himself said words to the effect that all conspiracies are not created equal. it is nice to see the troll/spook Apsterian posts not here. Thank goodness for whoever is editing them out.
ReplyDeleteJ.Fetzer said : " This is an example of the shallow thinking of OBF, "
ReplyDeleteOnce more with feeling :-) :
"False in one, false in all - falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" :
"A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter. The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28F%29
Regards, onebornfree.
Andy Tyme said : "Not that it should be worthy of very much of our time and consideration, but what do the frequent visitors to this site think is the most apt description of the all-too-frequent commenter "apsterian"?"
ReplyDeleteTo me, he appears to be somebody who is too stupid to understand that repetitive rudeness is counterproductive to his underlying "message" .
However wrong I think that that message might be, he has a right to his opinions, but he refuses to just state his case and leave out the constant name-calling/insults.
If he did not insult everyone here on a post by post basis he could probably continue to post his "message" here- instead, he seem's convinced that ongoing ad hominems and attempted character assassinations such as "you're a jew" or "your just a jew supported" [or whatever] are actually some sort of genuinely logical argument, most likely because he has nothing else to bring to the table other than those "arguments".
All in all, he's just another pathetic fool who blames the rest of the world , and a particular race, for his own miserable failings,inabilities and lack of talent, instead of taking responsibility for his own life and his place in it to date, and just "owning up".
A loser, basically
Regards, onebornfree.