You say it started with the Buck film, where Buck took the stairs and wasn't on the elevator, so we see Oswald getting off the elevator. Why didn't they stay with Buck? What reason was there to piece in a clip from another event? Didn't Buck keep his camera on? The whole implication was that we were looking at one continuous event.
And I'll remind you that I am the one who started this whole discussion. I'm the one who first made the observation, not you. And I have never seen anyone else point it out before. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THEY SPLICED TOGETHER TWO DIFFERENT FOOTAGES AND PRESENTED THEM AS ONE FOOTAGE. The vast majority of people, upon seeing it the first time, are NOT going to register on it. They ARE going to be bamboozled. And, bamboozling them was the whole idea.
So, let's get to motive. Why did they do it? Why didn't they just stick with the Buck film? Why did they splice in clips from another film? What were they trying to gain?
We see news footages all the time. This was just a guy being led through a building. Why was it necessary to splice together totally different footages just to convey that he was being led through the building? Why not just show it the way it was? Why were they giving so much painstaking attention to it? What exactly were they trying to accomplish?
It amounts to a bait and switch. And they were willing to do that just to show him being led through the building. And if they were willing to do that just to show him being led through the building, what were they willing to do to manage and control public perceptions of the really crucial aspects of the whole thing?
Here is the very first sentence I wrote in regard to this:
"It's important to remember that the footage of Oswald being led through the Dallas PD is a patchwork of clips made to look like one intact, continuous footage."
That is what I said out of the gate, and now Backass is finally admitting it. He's admitting it AS IF he's telling me something I don't know. When I said that different cameramen would have recorded the same thing, with no difference in Oswald's shirt, I meant: if they were recording the same event. But, they were not recording the same event. THAT WAS MY POINT. But, the makers of the film were content to con the vast majority of the viewing audience about it.
Let's say we got 100 people to watch the film for the first time. And of course we tell them nothing. And after it was over, we asked them if there was anything unusual about it. Did they notice anything unusual about how the film was made? How many of them would point out what we are talking about? How many people would point out that they spliced together pieces of different and disparate footages and presented it as one continuous footage?
The vast majority are not going to notice it. They are not going to pick it up. It is going to go over their heads. They are going to be bamboozled, as they were intended to be bamboozled.
And one of the things that bamboozles and mesmerizes them is the narrator, his mesmerizing voice:
"In Dallas Police headquarters, Lee Oswald is booked for the slaying of Officer Tippit. Tight-lipped, bruised from his battle with his captors, he is led through a gauntlet of newsmen, and the world gets its first look at Lee Harvey Oswald, suspected police killer."
When you hear that, it's delivered smoothly, it sounds almost like poetry, and it pulls you into the deception. You don't dwell on the fact that they are jostling back and forth between different footages.
And let's remember where this trek through the building led. It led to the Squad room where Oswald had his historic and momentous encounter with Lovelady, WHO WASN'T EVEN THERE!
So, when they monkeyed with the footage of the procession- cutting and splicing and weaving and sewing- they were just warming up. They took the manipulation, the lying, up to a whole new level when they got to that Squad room. Oh, how handy it is to be able to remove frames. Take the first frame in the Squad room.
That's the very first thing we see when we get in there. Notice that the big cop- and therefore Oswald- are already past Lovelady. But, how did they get past him? They were two astride, and it was a very narrow lane. How did they get around him? Did they step over him? Did they jump over him? Did they detour around him? How did they do it? Lovelady's legs would have been sticking out, right in their way. How did they negotiate this road block? We don't know. They don't show us. They're already at the back of the room by the time we get in there, and we don't know how they got past him.
Notice something else. Notice that at this point, we are seeing Lovelady in profile. He isn't turned towards them. He's just staring straight ahead at the wall in front of him. He is subsequently going to start swinging around to his right to view them. But, supposedly, he saw them as they were coming into the room. He knew who they were. He had to recognize Oswald immediately. He worked with the guy! So, he would have fixed on Oswald IMMEDIATELY and stayed fixed on him. So, why isn't he fixed on him here?
I'll spell this out for you, Backes, since you're dumber than dirt. LOVELADY IS LOOKING STRAIGHT AHEAD. I'll draw a line to show you his line of sight:
You can see that that is where his head, which contains his eyes, is aimed. And don't try to tell me that his head was that way but his eyes were straining over to his right to watch Oswald. Forget it! Nobody would do it that way. He would definitely turn his whole head, not just his eyes.
So, why did they show it in such an obviously phony way? It's because it's hard to get it right. LOVELADY WASN'T THERE. This was very advanced work. In the procession, they were just combining different clips from different footages, making them look like one film. That's simple. But here, they were merging two frames - not into one film but into one frame. They implanted Lovelady into the very same frame with the others. Think of how hard it was to get his position and angle right, to coordinate and integrate the two things.
Think of the first thing they did as Basic Algebra. This is like Calculus!
And even though it is glaringly obvious that Lovelady wasn't there, most people don't notice it. I have to be honest here: I believe I was the very first one to notice it, and that was 48 years after the assassination. And I'm not saying that to brag.
Why didn't most people notice it? It's because they're Americans, and they were brought up to believe that in America, we don't do shit like this. It's something that Nazis and Stalinists would do and did do, but not red-blooded, apple-pie-eating, mother-loving, flag-waving Americans. This is the USA. We don't do shit like that here.
Well, we do do shit like that here and worse. We kill Presidents here when we don't like them and want to get rid of them.
So yes, Backes; they took totally disparate footages of different events and spliced them together and then overlaid the whole thing with a warm, soothing, eloquent voice to make it go down easy. But, it is not OK that they did that. And it was just a warm-up to the real manipulation, which was the selling of Lovelady in the Squad room.
And that was done for one reason and one reason only: to sell the idea of Lovelady in a plaid shirt. He didn't wear one. He wore a striped shirt that was short-sleeved. This is what he wore:
When they made the mistake of revealing that, and when Harold Weisberg started screaming bloody murder about it, they had to go into the movie business in order to save the day. But, it didn't work. And bloodied jackasses like Backass can't make it work. He'll defend it to his dying day because he's a God-damned, bloodied Kennedy-killer and a very stupid man. But, the fact is: this is a smoking gun. This is checkmate.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.