Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Today, OIC Chairman Larry Rivera sent around a 50 page paper on the work of Beverly Brunson. Beverly was a JFK researcher, and she was a strong advocate of film and photo alteration. She wrote extensively on Zapruder film alteration, in particular. 

The paper is too long for me to post outright, but I am going to ask Larry for a link that I can post, and I will certainly do that as soon as I get it.

But right now, I want to make a very important point. There are a lot of people who recognize Zapruder film alteration. It may be that majority of Oswald defenders recognize it. But, they need to recognize something else:

Once you recognize any one image alteration from the JFK assassination, logic demands that you consider that other images had to be altered as well. That's because once the killers had the mindset to alter images, they were never going to limit it to just one. If you have that mindset, you are going to apply to all the images. And I do mean all. And it's not that I am saying that every image was altered. But, I am saying that every image that fell into government hands was checked to see if it needed altering. Not every image contained a revelation about the hidden truth. If it didn't, they could use it, as is. But, every image and film wound up in government hands, and you can be sure the government went through them and made decisions about what was needed to be done. 

But strategically, it was an all or none situation. If they altered the Zapruder film, then they surely weighed every film and image in the same light. 

And the result was that many images got altered. Zapruder, Moorman, Altgens, and the autopsy photos are probably the most frequently cited. But, there is no doubt that Martin, Hughes, and the DPD footage got altered over the Lovelady issue alone, and they each contain fake Loveladys. Towner got altered with the Woman and Baby and with the blackening of the doorway- but that's not an exhaustive list by any means. In Dorman, they put the pedestal in under Toni and her Mom- very easy thing to do.

They are not towering over the people in front of them, and they would be if they were atop the pedestal. 

 In Bell, they used foliage from the tree to obscure the doorway. 

In Weaver, they used a black disc to obscure Oswald's head. 

Can you, or can you not see that there is a black disc there.

In Betzner, they just cropped out the doorway.

There is no way that was the width of Betzner's camera field. He was back a ways from the Towners, and his camera captured much more than that. Why would he take the picture if it didn't? He didn't know the Towners. Why would he want to take a picture of them? It was a much wider picture, and it included the doorway.

In Nix, they had to lower the hairline in back of George Hickey because of the phony Hickey they put in the Altgens photo.

And now, I am going to make an announcement I have never made before. This is brand-new. I have said that in the Altgens photo, the image of the fat-headed George Hickey was added to cover something. Maybe the real Hickey was smiling; who knows. But next to him in the picture, is a man in a Fedora hat.

You see the Fedora Man within the enclosure. I am not saying that he was added to the photo too. There is no way for him to be that tall in the picture. He is too high up. Where do you think he was standing? I'll tell you: Nowhwere!  If you go to Dealey Plaza and try to duplicate his image in an Altgens replica, you won't succeed. I believe he was added to the photo to make Fathead look less conspicuous. Look how wide his head is. Compare it to Kinney the driver, who was much closer to the camera. Fathead doesn't even look like Hickey.

And, as you can see, Hickey had a higher hairline in back.

The JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in the history of Man. I sincerely believe that. They criminally corrupted every image they could get their hands on, and I don't know of any that they didn't get their hands on. They certainly were very efficient at rounding up the images after the assassination. But, think about how it is today, where many cell phones double as cameras. 

If you witness something horrible, and authorities demand your camera or phone, are you going to hand it over like all those people did in 1963? Please say you won't.  When the time comes, be strong. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.