Wednesday, August 31, 2016

What a mean, rotten dog you are, Backes. My post got a little bamboozled, but I have fixed it. And here it is: you can read it again. 

Backass, I did crop that photo, and the reason I did was to put it alongside Jackie from the Zapruder film and the Moorman photo. You don't need to see their feet to know that these women were in motion; Jackie in the Zapruder frame (center) and the woman in red on the right.  



The astute observer can tell that the woman in red is walking and talking on the phone. It's no problem. Her whole body language tells you that she is doing that.




The reason I cropped it is because it was in a collage with Jackie, and I was mostly interested in showing her hair being tossled.



We don't need to see her feet to know that she was moving, and that's true of both Jackie and the woman in red. The woman in red's legs are in stride position, and the very fact that she is holding her bag so high tells you that she is walking. She's holding it that way to stabilize it. It's less awkward to hold it up when you're walking. Your arm is like a pendulum, and you don't want that bag swinging at the bottom of it.  The higher you hold it, the less interference it provides. But, if she was standing still, she would let the bag dangle, of course. How fast is she walking? I don't know, but perhaps 4 miles an hour. And likewise, we don't need to see the feet of this woman below to see that she is walking. 



Backes, why do you have to be such an idiot all the time, in every response that you make? Why? WHY? WHY? 







So, what did Arthur Schlesinger think when he heard Jackie Kennedy tell him that there were 5 shots and that one of them went through the freeway sign and one of them hit her husband in the throat? And that he was struck on the right side of his head close to his eye? I can tell exactly what he thought.

He thought: "The government says that Oswald did all the shooting himself alone from the Book Depository Building, and they have also made it clear that all good, loyal, and patriotic Americans are expected to believe and accept it without question. I am a good, loyal, and patriotic American, so I shall believe and accept it. So, I will assume that Jackie is mistaken and confused. But, I'm still going to be nice to her."

That is what he thought, and that is what I hate about what is involved in being a "good American." 

The official story of the JFK assassination hit the American people like a wave; like a tsunami. And the higher up you were in the social order, the more you had to gain by supporting it, because you got credit and respect for that. And likewise, the more you had to lose if you disputed it. But, in addition to that, the fact was that Arthur Schlesinger, like so many others, wanted to believe the official story. On a very personal level, he wanted to believe it. Because: what was the alternative? That the government is lying because they actually killed Kennedy themselves? But, if that's true, then it means that America, as we know it, doesn't exist, and our reality is really a living nightmare. Who wants to believe that? Isn't it more comforting to believe the official story?

He didn't necessarily have to think it through as explicitly as that either. Subliminally, he may have figured it out as much as he needed to.    

So, Arthur Schlesinger knew which way the wind was blowing, and he surrendered to it. He surrendered his mind to what the government was saying, and not just the government, but to what the whole established order was saying. It was what all the institutions of civilization were saying, to believe, believe, believe. Resisting it was unthinkable. He didn't have the courage, the independence, and the strength to even visit it mentally. It was a forbidden place. It was a social offense to even breathe it. And no one as steeped in the pomp and circumstance of American officialdom, in all its glory, as Arthur Schlessinger was, could possibly do it. 


But, the thing is: he worked for John F. Kennedy. He was part of the Kennedy White House. He was "Special Assistant to the President" and he attended Cabinet meetings. So, where was his loyalty to John F. Kennedy?  What happened to it? The tsunami rolled over it. The tsumani decimated everything, including his judgment.  
Have you read this statement of Jackie Kennedy about what happened?


So, let's count the revelations. She said that 1) the freeway sign took a bullet (so they replaced it?) 2) that JFK was hit in the throat, which means a shot from the front 3) that JFK was hit in the right side of his head, which means a shot from the Grassy Knoll. "Just above his right eye" she said. 4) she confirmed the big blow-out wound in the back of his head, 5) she confirmed that her crawl on the back of the limo was not to get away, to escape, but rather, to retrieve a piece of JFK's skull, and 6) she claimed she heard 5 shots, and none of them were from behind where the Book Depository was. 

How can anyone disregard all that when she was there in the limo with JFK? She was sitting right next to him.

The evil that lurks in the American system, the way it operates, the way it processes information, is chilling to think about. Political correctness lords over every aspect of American life. And, political correctness deemed the JFK assassination to be the work of one man, Lee Harvey Oswald, from the beginning, and accepting it was an order. The vile way our national mind works disgusts me. 
The HSCA was a joke. It may have started with good intentions, but they were quickly dashed. Behind the scene, powerful forces were using their influence to make sure that the right people were put in control of it, people loyal to the government, people who would NEVER hold the government responsible for the killing no matter what the evidence showed. 

You know how the Warren Commission was slated to find Oswald guilty before it even started. You heard that WC lawyer write recently that they wondered, at first, whether Oswald really acted alone. Not whether Oswald did it or not, not whether he might possibly be innocent, but whether he acted alone. 

And then at the end, when it was all said and done, what did they rest their case on? The dictabelt recording? THE DICTABELT RECORDING???? Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and they fussed about the dictabelt recording?

And, the only reason they did that (fuss about the dictabelt recording) is because they knew that if they found EXACTLY the same as the Warren Commission did, it would look like a whitewash. Well, it was a whitewash, and all they did was tweak the Warren Commission findings. And nobody took it seriously. Did any branch of law enforcement go looking for the guy brandishing the weapon heard on the dictabelt? Hell no.  

I posted that letter from Vince Salandria last night, and the most telling thing in it was his comment that anyone assigned to the HSCA was someone who could be counted on NOT to incriminate the government. Not any branch of the government, not any agency within the government, not any bureau, not any official. Robert Blakey? He was just as corrupt as any of the Warren Commissioners. Did he and does he believe his own shit? That the Mafia put Oswald up to doing it? The Mafia got the parade route changed, did they? The Mafia had complete control of the US media, did they? And, the Mafia chose Oswald because he was the best sniper in the world, was he? 

Some people are calling for yet another government investigation, but why? Why should it be any different? We don't need another government investigation because the facts are plain as day: Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the murder, so he was innocent. I think it should go right to making some arrests: George HW Bush, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, to name three. These people aren't going to live forever, and it would be nice to get them before they relinquish this mortal coil. 

Government can never honestly investigate itself. When government is the guilty party (as in the JFK assassination), it's like asking the wolf to guard the hen house. 

And the same is true of the mainstream media. Could CBS or NBC or ABC honestly investigate the JFK assassination when they were accessories after the fact in his murder? 
I just discovered something. Babushka Lady was shooting diagonally at the Kennedys towards the east (to her right) before she shot diagonally at them towards the west (to her left). 




The crux of it is that she couldn't see through Charles Brehm. So, she angled to her right to shoot them when they were approaching, and then she angled to her left to shoot them when they were diverging. But, why did she stand behind Charles Brehm at all? She could have easily taken a spot right on Elm Street, right on the curb. By standing behind Brehm, she missed out on viewing the limo when it was in front of him. She could have stood on either side of him, easily. There was plenty of room. So, why didn't she? 

How about: because it was a Kill Zone, and she knew it? She didn't want to get too close. 

There are numerous images of Babushka Lady, all conveniently from behind so that we can't see her face, but with just the one single exception. But notice that besides showing her face, it shows her scarf undone. In all the other images of Babushka Lady, her scarf is wrapped tightly, shugly around her head. And I mean images from before this one, and images from after this one. So, what's the explanation? 



There is no explanation, at least no explanation from November 22, 1963. The explanation is that the center image in the collage is bogus. It is FAKE, FAKE, FAKE, FAKE, FAKE! They (the FBI) made that to show a face that was too old and mislead any snooping toms who might try to find her.

Now, why would they do that? It's because they were lying sacks of shit in saying that she never came forward. She not only came forward (to the FBI) after the assassination, it's likely she was involved in the plot beforehand. 

The bogus image of Babushka Lady, which shows her face, is the smoking gun that proves that authorities have been lying through their teeth about her from Day 1. She was sent there to capture the kill on film. 

So, this woman below was NOT the Babushka Lady, and she was NOT there. They slipped her into the photo afterwards. 


And, they had to make room for her, which took some doctoring.

Look at the man behind her. How come he's got three legs?








Jason Young 
Ralph! great job on the piano playing and song. And hats off to anyone who takes the time to seek the truth. I feel the only justice JFK will ever have will be people like you and I researching the discrepancies of the Warren commission report . I do want to point out though that lovelady in the lineup has a notch in his hairline and so does doorman. The picture is way screwed up like you said. Question and I will admit I breezed through you documentary because I am going through alot of research myself. Are you saying they superimposed the face of lovelady on Oswald's body or that the face of doorman is infact Oswald's face. If you think its Oswald's face I have to disagree. His far head has lovelady written all over it. Lovelady's face was longer too although they look similar. How about that mauser that turned into a carcano? They didnt guess it was a mauser, they knew it was by the stamp on the barrel. Only later on they said they thought it was and it was a bad guess lol I agree Oswald was set up but not sure if he was a player somewhere in the mix and kept in the dark about taking the fall.
Ralph Cinque 
Thank you for your complements, Jason. Regarding the hairlines, Doorman's is a spot-on match to an earlier image of Lovelady from the 1950s. They moved over the top of Young Lovelady's face to turn Oswald into Lovelady. So yes, they moved over Lovelady's face but only partially. It's similar to what they did with the Backyard photos, where they moved over Oswald's face, except that they grabbed a smaller piece. Most of Doorman's facial features are a match to Oswald, including eyes, nose, ear, mouth and chin. So, he is definitely Oswald. But, he has Young Lovelady's hairline, and the whole shape of the top of the head is that of Young Lovelady.


Tuesday, August 30, 2016

I received this very nice letter from OIC senior member Vincent Salandria last evening, which I am publishing now. I have redacted it for reasons that I won't reveal. My main purpose in publishing it is show the unconditional support that I get from Vince Salandria. There is no one in the JFK world whom I hold in higher respect and regard than Vince, and having his approval and support means a lot to me. It keeps me going.  




 Dear Ralph,

        Thank you, Ralph, and I understand what you mean.  We want everyone to accept the point  of view, the truth of which our organization has proven beyond certainty, that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository when the C.I.A. designated sharpshooters fired on and killed President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.
         Once it was established that Oswald was photographed in the doorway at the time of the killing it necessarily followed that only the enormous power of the U.S. national security state could have  framed him as the patsy to cover the U,S. coup. That is what the JFK assassination was: a US coup. 
         I do not know the man that you asked about.  I  have never exchanged a word with him. I can only tell you that no one who could ever support the claim that the JFK assassination as a coup would ever have been permitted by the guilty U.S. government to work for the HSCA or any other federal investigation. But, I do know that a careful look at the evidence will lead any rational observer to conclude that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting. And that gives me hope this man will reach that conclusion, if he hasn't reached it already. 

       And if I can be helpful in any way, I am entirely at your disposal.
       It comes down to historical truth which has been established  by your group's fine work, the Oswald Innocence Campaign, and the historically crucial scholarship  of James Douglass, "JFK and the Unspeakable," and David Talbot's "The Devil's Chessboard."  That truth is that the JFK assassination was a U.S. military-intelligence coup d'├ętat.
         The great work that you and Larry Rivera have done within the OIC has paved the way for any objective scholar of the Kennedy assassination to know, to a certainty that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway. That is his alibi. He had to be somewhere, and that is where he was. He was framed for killing President Kennedy so that the U.S. national security state could establish its global military hegemony.
          Ralph, if you see fit, I, of course, grant you permission to forward this letter.

          Respectively and fondly yours,
          Vince Salandria
Backes, how many times do I have to tell you that we used both, digital and Tri-X.

Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both

Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both

Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both

Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both, Both

We shot two rolls of Tri-X film, one on 13th and the other on the 20th of November. Both were taken to Holland Photo Lab in Austin, who developed them and then transferred the images to a disc. Here are the two discs.



These below are all Tri-X images. I have two rolls of it. We did it over and over and over again. This is 4 of about 80 images. 









Why do you have to be so stupid, Backes? I bet you are the only person involved in this struggle who doubts that I used Tri-X film. I doubt that a single one of your JFK friends supports you in this stupid, ridiculous contention that I didn't use Tri-X film.  
Backass, I did crop that photo, and the reason I did was to put it alongside Jackie from the Zapruder film and the Moorman photo. 



But, you can still tell that she is walking and talking on the phone. It's no problem. Her whole body language tells you that she is doing that.


The reason I cropped it is because it was in a collage with Jackie, and I was mostly interested in showing her hair being tossled.



We don't need to see her feet to know that she was moving, and that's true of both Jackie and the woman in red. The woman in red's legs are in stride position, and the very fact that she is holding her bag so high tells you that she's walking. She's holding it that way to stabilize it. It's less awkward to do it that way when you're walking. How fast is she walking? I don't know, but perhaps 4 miles an hour. And likewise, we don't need to see the feet of the woman below to see that she is walking. 



Backes, why do you have to be such an idiot all the time, in every response that you make? Why? WHY? WHY? 





Monday, August 29, 2016

Another ridiculous Backesism: 

"This insistence that the Moorman photograph was shot on the perpendicular is just nonsense." 

No, Backes. I'm NOT saying it was shot on the perpendicular. I'm saying that it was shot on a diagonal from the southeast. 



That is a film frame of Babushka Lady taking the Moorman photo on a diagonal. And, I have been saying that repeatedly for over one year. 

Then, he confuses two separate issues: whether the camera is centered on the subject AND whether the camera is being held level. He says that unless you use a tripod, that the chances of the camera being off center are large. No, Backes, the tripod has nothing to do with that. The tripod holds the camera level, and it also keeps it from moving when you press the shutter. But, it has nothing to do with the centering.

God, you're such an idiot. 

And what I said, Backes is that if the Moorman photo was taken with the photographer facing Elm Street squarely (being perpendicular) that the line of the limo would be parallel with the bottom of the picture. But, it's not.



And that's what tells us that the above photo was taken on a diagonal. 

And, I have only talked about this issue of perpendicular in relation to the Moorman photo. I never raised the issue concerning Zapruder and his film. So, what are you raising it for?

Then, Backes has the audacity to claim that he has the knowledge that Jean Hill was deliberately turned and facing her boyfriend, BJ Martin when JFK rode by. That is bull shit! Jean Hill wrote a book, The Last Dissenting Witness, and nowhere in it does she claim that she was looking at her boyfriend when the President rode by. I've listened to many of her interviews, and never did she say that at that moment, she was turned and looking at him, her boyfriend. 




So, where did he get it from? And think about it behaviorally. Regardless of how fond she was of her boyfriend, she could see him most any time. This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the President of the United States and his glamorous wife up close, and she decided to forego it to make eyes at her boyfriend? And what's ridiculous about it is that she's not only looking that way, but her whole body is turned that way. She could have left her body alone and just shifted her eyes to look at her boyfriend. Or, if necessary, she could have moved her eyes and turned her head a little. There was certainly no need to move and reorient her whole body. He wasn't that far away. 

And think about the story that goes along with it. She said, in her book, that as the President approached, she spoke to him. She said:

"Mr. President, look this way. We want to take your picture." 


So, she's talking to the President and say that while she's looking at her boyfriend? 

That is ridiculous. She never claimed that, and there is no reason to think she ever did that. Nobody would. Backes is just a fool; a lying fool.

And then, he puts up a frame from Nix where it appears that Elm Street is rising to the west. But, they messed with that film, and Nix complained about it. He said he never tilted the camera that much. And in Mary Moorman's case, she was standing there poised and ready, and there is no reason to think she couldn't take a picture properly. People do it all the time, including amateurs. 





The idea that Mary Moorman wouldn't have captured that accurately is ridiculous. There is no excuse for the lack of descent in the Moorman photo. 

Backes, you're stupid. You were born stupid; you live stupid; and without a doubt, the last thing you say before Nature rids the world of your rotten presence will be something stupid. 
"And now he lies claiming he was never confused, that he never said a still photograph shows motion." Joseph Backshit

No, Backes. I did say that a still photograph can show motion. It's not that the photo moves but that it SHOWS motion, a person who is in motion, that we can tell that the person in it was moving at the time it was taken. 

And in the photo below, even without her legs showing, where one was off the ground, we can still tell that she was in motion:



So, how can we tell that she is in motion? Because she is obviously walking along talking on the phone? Is that not good enough? Then how about the fact that that that is not a stationary pose? If she were stationary, why would she hold the bag up? She's doing it as she walks because the swinging of her arms would make controlling the bag difficult at full arm's length. By shortening the fulcrum, she has greater control. But, if she were standing still, she would lower her arm and just let the bag dangle in her hand. People don't expend energy for no reason. There would be no need to hold the bag up if she were standing still. Any, if you look closely, you can see that her left thigh is in front of her right, as seen in walking.



It's very obvious that she is in stride, that she is walking, and I don't need to see what her feet are doing to know it. This cropped image still provides enough information to tell me that she is in a state of motion. 

You are such a fucking idiot. 
Backes needs the image in the photo to actually move in front of his eyes before he will recognize motion: 

"You can stare at these still photographs of yours for years Ralph and the subject(s) in them are never going to move."

Yeah, I know, Backes. But, the question- the only question- is whether you can tell whether a subject was in a state of motion when the picture was taken. And the answer is yes.

We don't have to see Michael Jordan dunk the ball in the basket to know that he was in a state of motion when the picture below was taken. 


That is the point, and it is the only point. Bringing the issue of "whole" and "complete" into it is just a distraction. That's not what we were talking about. It's whether the subject was moving at the split-second that the photo was taken. Can you tell whether a person in a photograph was at rest or in motion at the instant that the picture was taken? That's it. Period. Nothing else. That's the only thing we were discussing.  The shit you are spewing now is just a deliberate attempt to evade and confuse the issue. Not even the few friends you've got are buying it.  
Spewed Backshit: 

"He wants to see movement in a still photograph."


"And he still thinks you can capture and see MOTION in a STILL PHOTOGRAPH."



And don't bother deleting them, Backes, because I did a screen save. That's what you wrote. Repeatedly. And then when I showed you photographs of people who were obviously in motion, that's when you start spewing about the whole motion, the complete motion, etc. It's pure revisionism. 

What a lying mudderpluck you are. Whole and complete were NEVER the issue. The issue was whether one could tell in a photograph whether someone was moving, and you denied it. 

And now, you're trying to lie your way out of it. You are so unscrupulous, duplicitous, and diabolical, you reveal your gross dishonesty, which goes along with your gross stupidity. Really, you are just plain gross.  


I tell you, this clip of "Lovelady" is really freaky. He is immaterial. He's like a ghost. He turns his face, and it goes right through the head of the woman in curlers.

And, it's weird that both the woman in curlers and the woman in the white scarf are so stiff and stationary throughout the clip. It continues for 7 seconds, and that's a long time to be so still, especially in such a situation. What the Hell were they looking at? What the Hell were they waiting for? What the Hell were they doing there?

This clip is FAKE. It is is FAKE, FAKE, FAKE! It didn't even surface until 1966, three years after the assassination. For three years, nobody noticed Lovelady in that film amidst all the swirl of controversy about who was the Man in the Doorway? And, the clip was said to be from the Martin film, except that you don't see it in the Martin film. Not in any version of the Martin film does it appear.

I had contact with the Sixth Floor Museum proprietor Gary Mack about this, and he told me that he knows of no version of the Jack Martin film that actually contains this clip. Therefore, why should we believe that it came from there? Just because they tell us that? It isn't even qualitatively the same as the Martin film. I can tell you that the above clip is the clearest, sharpest, most vibrant clip of any from the whole JFK assassination. In contrast, the Martin film is about the worst, qualitatively.


I'll tell you what happened: JFK Authors Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg were both making a racket about Oswald in the doorway in their respective books, both of which came out in 1966. And, it was shortly after that and in response to it that this clip suddenly appeared. No one had noticed it before. No one had mentioned it before. Apparently, no one had seen it before. The guy in it playing Lovelady doesn't even look like Lovelady. He has vastly different features. 



Compare the shape of the head, the ears, the nose, and the neck. They are vastly different. No way are they both the same man.

And what is the story of this frame? Who is the old guy in the Fedora hat and what he is doing there? What is he waiting for? Who is the old woman in the scarf on the right side? What's her story? 


That is supposed to be Bonnie Ray Williams in the brown shirt on the left, except that it was 15 minutes after the shooting, and Williams was still being detained inside the building at the time. "They wouldn't let anyone out" Williams said. And the white guy front and center is supposed to be Danny Arce, except here is Danny's actual coloring. He's hispanic, not white. 



Obviously, it's not the real Danny Arce in the clip either. It is just a phony thing from start to finish. And what makes it worse is that Lovelady wasn't even there at the time. He left the front of the building right away with Bill Shelley. They walked to the railway area with a throng of others. And then they reentered the building through the back door, never returning to the front. By 12:45, Billy Lovelady was inside the building guarding the freight elevator, as per Roy Truly's order. He was not outside milling around in front. 

This Lovelady clip is an unspeakable fraud. It is truly an outrage. And it was all done to hide the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting of President Kennedy.


Here's the Tri-X film again, cropped and close:



It says 400 TX. 400 is the speed, and TX is short for Tri-X. 

It is probably true that there is only one idiot in all the world who doubts this, and that idiot is Joseph Backes.


stevemg...@yahoo.com 

Question: Why would Oswald use an unreliable rifle (it tended to jam,
wasn't real accurate) that had been sitting in the garage for two months?
He didn't maintain it (according to Marina), hadn't practiced with it
(Sports Drome claims excepted), and had to take it apart in a risky
maneuver to smuggle it into the building.

He didn't know with any certainty when JFK would pass in front of him, he
couldn't count on his co-workers not being around at whatever time that
would be, he couldn't be sure he'd have the privacy needed to assemble the
rifle and wait for JFK to pass by, and he couldn't be sure he wouldn't be
spotted (as he was) and exposed (which he wasn't).

Look at all of the risks involved in this plan: Unreliable rifle, not
tested or used for months, taken apart, questionable accuracy, timing of
when JFK could be there, privacy, exposure...so many things had to go
right and so many could go wrong.

Why not use the revolver? Wait on the street and approach JFK and shoot
him as he passes by. It's a suicide mission whether he uses the rifle or
the revolver. And the revolver tactic has so many fewer chances of
failure. 

Ralph Cinque: That is a rather strange admission coming from a lonenutter. I guess Steve didn't get the memo that you're not supposed to point out things like that. And there are a lot more strange aspects to it than he mentioned. How could Ruth Paine have not seen the rifle wrapped in the colorful blanket when it was sitting in plain view in her small garage for two months? Her husband Michael kept running into it every time he visited, causing him to speculate in different ways about what it could be. Was it a military shovel? Was it tent poles for camping? He wondered. But, he never contemplated a rifle. However, Ruth claimed never to have seen it at all. And, it was her garage. She lived there. Michael didn't. 

If Oswald entered the TSBD with a rifle wrapped in a makeshift bag made of shipping paper, why didn't anybody see him with it? And I mean, of course, besides Frazier. Jack Dougherty saw Oswald the moment he walked in through the back door. So, why didn't he see it? Why didn't anybody else in that crowded building report seeing Oswald carrying an awkward package? 

Indeed, how could Oswald have made the assumption that the 6th floor would be all his? And worse than that, how did he go up there and set up the Sniper's Nest and retrieve his rifle and assemble it using a dime for a screwdriver when Bonnie Ray Williams was up there the whole time eating his fried chicken and drinking his Dr. Pepper? And Williams stayed put there until he heard his friends James Jarman and Harold Norman arrive on the 5th floor below him. Then he left to join them. But, that was VERY late, just scant minutes before the motorcade arrived. So, how, logistically speaking, could Oswald have done his prep work? 

The whole story has no legs. It is so outlandish, so preposterous, and so outrageous, that only a fool could believe it. And the only thing holding it up is the brute force power of the State and its iron-grip control of the US media. But, even that isn't going to sustain it. It's coming down, just like the Towers.  
Truth is rising, and it can't be stopped. The journal Europhysics News, the magazine of the European physics community, has published an article by physics professor Steven Jones and civil engineering professor Robert Korol which critiques NIST's claims about how and why the Twin Towers and Building 7 fell on 9/11.  

I have read the article, and it is technical, but it is not beyond the grasp of any intelligent reader. I provide the link to it below.  It thoroughly demolishes the false claims and outright lies of NIST. 

We are approaching the 15th anniversary of 9/11. Let no one doubt that there will be a day of reckoning. Public awareness of and demand for 9/11 truth is growing and shall continue to grow. There will be a day of reckoning for what the real 9/11 perpetrators did. No one escapes justice. No escapes their past. There will be a reckoning. 

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf


It's qualification time; qualification time for Backie. 

Now, it's that a single photograph can't record the ENTIRE motion of a subject, for which you would need a series of photographs. 

I'm pretty sure I already knew that if a person was walking across America, it would take more than one photograph to record it. The question all along, you dumb pluck, was whether we could tell if someone was IN MOTION from looking at a photo, whether she is MOVING. I never said that you could see the whole Nutcracker Suite ballet in one photo; just that you could see from a photo that ballet dancing is going on. 



So, his latest ploy is nothing but a retraction in disguise. He used the word ENTIRE to put the convoy in reverse and back it up, back it up, back it up. He also went with the word WHOLE. 

"The whole motion cannot be photographed in one still image." 

It never was a question of whether you could capture the whole motion in a photo. It was a question of whether you could tell from a single photograph whether a person was in motion. That's what we were talking about, and that's what we are talking about, you evasive, excuse-making, a-hole. I can just imagine the "dog ate my homework" excuses that came out of you. 

And get ready: this disgusting pig has got one more qualifier to complete his save:

"The swing of a fist in a boxing glove swung at Muhammad Ali, his reaction, the other boxer missing Ali, the whole movement of the two men can cannot be completely captured in one still image."

Oh, I get it. Moving can be captured in a photo, but it just can't be completely captured.  But, who ever said that the running of a marathon could be captured completely in one photo? But, you can tell that people are running it from one photo, and that's all we were talking about. 




"A single, still photograph taken at sunset is not the entire process of the sun setting, jackass."


Except that it's the movement of the Earth that causes that effect, not the movement of the sun. The sun doesn't actually set, jackass. 

All I ever said is that the state of being in motion- telling whether the subject is moving- could be determined from a photo, not that the entirety of her motion could be captured in a single photo. And why does anyone even need to state such an obvious thing, that the entire play can't be captured in a single photo, as if we didn't know that? We really needed you to tell us that, Backes? You had to put that in writing, did you? 

Backes, you are stupid, and your stupidity reigns whether you are at rest or in motion. The depth of your stupidity is truly staggering. It's really unbelievable that anybody could be that stupid.