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. 

The incredibly stupid and unbelievably brash Joseph Backes keeps saying over and over that it is impossible to capture motion in a photograph. He thinks this woman below could be standing still. Notice that you can see that one foot is off the ground; she is mid-stride. The idea that she is standing still like that- on one foot- is truly preposterous. I can't think of anything more stupid in the annals of stupidity than what Backes said. 

Her foot is off the ground, Backes; she's walking.

Her foot is off the ground, Backes; she's walking.

Her foot is off the ground, Backes; she's walking

Her food is off the ground, Backes; she's walking.

You are the dumbest mudder-plucker who ever lived. 

That is Babe Ruth hitting a home run. He is obviously in motion, and so is the ball. How could he possibly not be in motion? He's not posing for a picture. He's doing something. 

Can we see that these guys are in motion, or shall we assume that they are frozen that way? 

Here are dancers dancing, dancing being a motion. You don't have to see "blur" in a photo to know that there is motion going on. You can infer the motion even if the photo is sharp as a tack. 

They are definitely in motion. Notice the woman with her foot raised high in the air. She isn't static. She's moving.

 Static or moving? Can you tell?

Backes, you are the stupidest mudderplucker to ever walk the face of the Earth. You are so totally brainless and incompetent, I suspect that you're incapable of doing anything, that you're literally helpless. 

Oh, and by the way, true to form, he still denies that I used Tri-X film. 

Let's look further at the issue of whether Babushka Lady was wearing a disguise. I say she was. 

First, this is NOT Babushka Lady. It is another woman, and she wasn't there. There weren't two Babushka Ladies on lower Elm Street that day, for crying out loud. 

That lady is much older than the Babushka Lady. She's at least 10 years older. And you can see that her image was implanted there because she is too small. The FBI made this precisely to mislead about BL's identity. Do you realize that this is the ONLY image we supposedly have of BL's face? In every other image, she is always turned away. But in this one, we've got a straight-on shot of her kisser. Accident? Hell no. They did this on purpose to mislead us, so that if anybody looks for her, they'll be looking for the wrong person. That woman is NOT Babushka Lady, and neither is Beverly Arnold.  Babushka Lady was not a woman in her 50s, and neither was she a 17 year old girl. Stop the nonsense. 

So, forget about the image of Old Babushka; it's off the table. There are many other pictures of Babushka Lady, that presumably are real, but there are none of her face.  Did it just turn out that way? Or, can you believe as I do, that if somebody did capture her face, that the FBI got hold of it, and they destroyed it. They did NOT want us to see her face. They did not want us to get a good look at her.  They just gave us a phony image showing her face. But, for the real Babushka, it is just too damn freaky that her face was never caught on camera. She was caught numerous times from numerous directions but never her face? Except for the phony one? What a crock o' shit. 

We have a color photo of the real Babushka Lady, the Skaggs photo, and it shows that her scarf was purple.

That conflicts with what Beverly Arnold says, but hey: Beverly Arnold is not the Babushka Lady. She is just a person who thrust herself into the JFK story and turned it into a cottage industry.

Now get out your glasses: this is the closest thing we have to seeing the face of Babushka Lady:

There isn't much to see there, but I think we can safely say that she is not a 17 year old girl, and she's not a woman in her late 50s, like the old one. And notice that her scarf is undone below, and it's the only such picture in a sea of others in which her scarf is wrapped tightly. This woman below is OLD. How old?  She could even be 60.  Easily. And Hell's Bells, she'd still be 5 years younger than I am.  

On the right, look how jowly she is. That is not a young face. The face on the left is much younger but certainly not a teenage girl. She could be late 30s to early 40s. And that is the absolute limit for her as to age because her skin looks smooth and her face tight. But again, she is DEFINITELY not a 17 year old girl.

Now, for goodness sake, does that look like a 17 year old girl? Look at the girth on her, for crying out loud. 

Now, was Babushka Lady in on it, the plot? I STRONGLY suspect she was. It's my working conclusion that she was. Consider:

How come BL was so fearless? How come she didn't get down like the others? She doesn't look the least bit afraid. She looks pretty relaxed there, in her body language. Was it because she knew that JFK was the only target, and he was long gone? 

The Dallas Police did put appeals in the newspapers and on radio asking her to come in. What are the chances that she didn't hear about them? I rate them at zero. Not 1 in 100. Not 1 in a 1000. But zero. And that's because even if she didn't see or hear the appeals, somebody she knew must have. And you can't tell me that she didn't tell people in her life that she went to Dealey Plaza and took photos in the Kill Zone.  Because if that's the case, then she was definitely in on it. So, it is completely untenable that she just disappeared into the ether.  

But, the most telling thing of all is the fact that we know now, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Moorman photo was taken on a diagonal angle from the southeast, and that is exactly where Babushka Lady was with a camera in her hands.

Babushka Lady is the only person who could have taken the Moorman photo. There are no other candidates. It's her picture. And if they got her picture, it means that they got her. 

alt.assassination.jfk ›

Lovelady or LHO 1 post by 1 author

claviger

JFK: Who was in the Book Depository doorway?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/jfk-who-was-in-the-book-depository-doorway/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-gross-comparison.jpg

Ralph Cinque:

It isn't even debatable any more. It's Oswald in the doorway. His face; his build; his clothes; even his stance. And people outside of JFK-land have no trouble seeing it when you show it to them. In other words, if they don't have a preconceived bias (meaning, a closed mind) they can see it. And it is going to tear down the whole official story. 

And the truth about it is really unspeakably evil and ugly because they knew it was Oswald. It's not as though they made an honest mistake and thought it was Lovelady. They knew very well that it is Oswald. They doctored the image to hide the fact that it is Oswald. Then, they engaged in making phony film clips of a phony Lovelady, placing him in places he wasn't just to convey the idea that he wore a long-sleeved plaid shirt. (Doorman's shirt isn't even plaid.) This isn't about a mistake; it's about a dastardly Machiavellian plot to lie and deceive and con in multiple ways. And it's been going on non-stop ever since November 22, 1963. They have known all along that the biggest threat to the official story of the JFK assassination is Oswald in the doorway. And they're right; it is the biggest threat. The Day of Reckoning is coming. The whole Establishment is guilty of the cover-up, but as of now, I can think of a handful of people who were involved on the very day in the commission of the crime in or the framing of Oswald who are still alive. 

Below is the blogpost in which I posted all the Zapruder frames in which Jackie moves away from JFK, separating herself from him out of being startled by what happened and reacting to his head snap. Then, she goes back to him and is caressing him closely. But, what I realize now is that you can actually use the vertical scroll bar on the right and drag it down fast and, in effect, watch it like a movie.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/08/i-figured-that-backes-would-be-one.html

So, there is no doubt that she does this; you can see it with your own eyes. 

Of course, Backes continues to deny it, but he denies a lot of things. He denies that I know John Armstrong. He thinks I fabricate emails from John and publish them here. He denies that I used Tri-X film in Dealey Plaza at the Altgens reenactment in 2012. It wasn't even my film. The photographer got it. Two rolls of it.  I even showed the film where it says it on the film. And, I didn't even notice it myself. I called the photo lab in Austin that developed it- Holland Photo Imaging:

http://www.hollandphoto.com/html/


And they told me that if some asshole is disputing that you used Tri-X film, just take a picture of it because it's written on every frame. I know this is hard to read, but what it says is:
KODAK 400TX

TX is for TriX, and 400 is the speed. It comes in different speeds.

But, Backes has seen this before, yet, he still refuses to admit that I used Tri-X film. Why? It's because he is a childish buffoon. 

The Moorman photo wasn't taken by Mary Moorman, and it wasn't taken at Zapruder 315. And, it's hardly surprising because they got it wrong for the other films as well. There is no capture of the Moorman photo in the Nix film, so ANYTHING you claim for that film is automatically wrong. And in Muchmore they got it wrong, picking a frame in which the motorcycles are too far advanced against the limo. Look, the motorcycle cops are past the wheel of the limo.

Look how far they are. They are well past it. In Moorman, they are behind it, and we can see the wheel.

Again: forward:

Now, back:

forward:

back:

Get it? Of course, the "back" came first due to the direction they were going. The proper frame matching Moorman in Muchmore is 38.

You see that the Kennedys are a perfect match to Moorman, and so are the motorcycle cops. 

Although they tried to take out BJ Martin, he was there, and this is how he was configured:

God, did they ever do a hell of a lot to that photo. 

But, as for Zapruder, these images just don't match. 

I'll explain something that shouldn't need explaining, but I'll do it anyway. On the left, as we look at the picture, we are content to conclude that Jackie is stable, that she is not moving, that she is attending to JFK, focusing on him. She is leaning, but she still looks stable. She doesn't look like she is going anywhere. She doesn't look like she is falling. She does not look like she is in a turbulent state. But, on the right, she looks very much like she is in a turbulent state. She does not look stable. On the left, she looks like she could remain in that position indefinitely, for as long as she wanted. But, on the right, we know, instinctively, that she is on the move, that she is NOT going to remain in that position, that it's about to change because she is moving, and she is definitely and absolutely in a state of flux. She is leaning way too much to be able to maintain that position. And, we know for a fact that she does not maintain it. And look how far her elbow is from the seatback. 

On the left, her elbow is much closer. But, on the right, she is on her way. She is on the move. Remember, JFK has already been shot. That happened two frames ago. And, the reaction is instantaneous- like lifting your finger off a hot stove. You do it without thinking. She was jolted. She was stunned. And we're seeing her reaction to it, vividly. 

And remember this analysis doesn't stand alone. I already determined from Muchmore that the matching frame to Moorman occurs before the fatal head shot. The position of the motorcycle cops tells us.

So, this Zapruder analysis merely confirms it, that the Moorman photo was taken before the fatal head shot.

This turned out to be a very productive post, and it only exists because Joseph Backes opened his big fat mouth. And that is the only use these guys have: to provoke me to write and publish more. Everyone needs a purpose in life, and that's theirs. 

Oh really, bpunk? Well, so far, in like 6 minutes, 6 people have agreed with me that Babushka Lady's wardrobe was inappropriate for the conditions and was most likely a disguise.