Wrone Lies About Zapruder Film Alteration.

***Ben Holmes*** · 09-19-2016, 01:47 PM

It's long been my contention that when people find it necessary to lie to 'prove' their theory, that perhaps their time would be better spent finding a better theory that doesn't need lies to support it.

An excellent example can be found in David Wrone's book on the Zapruder film. An otherwise excellent book, Wrone's misrepresentations of those he disagrees with are rather obvious and mind-boggling. I'll illustrate with just four paragraphs below, interspersed with my comments:

David Wrone Wrote:Twyman provides five primary conclusions concerning the Zapruder film. First, he says, it was altered, or forged in his terminology, by having frames spliced out. He fails to explain precisely which frames were removed and how removal would have been detected. The reader is left to accept his assertion as fact. Nor does he explain exactly what evidence the conspirators removed, which is also left to the reader to surmise.

Twyman gives precise examples of where frames were removed... see page 165, as merely one example, where he specifies that frames were removed between frame 302 and 303... along with how it was detected.

David Wrone Wrote:Second, he contradicts himself. At one point, he states he could not decide whether 'JFK was first hit either just before or after he passed behind the freeway sign.' But he also states, 'When he emerged from behind the sign, he had already been hit.'

This is just silly. Twyman clearly states that he cannot decide whether JFK was first hit either just before, or just after he passed behind the sign. The Warren Commission believed that JFK was hit after he was hidden by the sign, there's persuasive evidence that he was hit before that point. It matters rather little at which point you believe he was hit ... For neither is contradicted by his statement of fact that when JFK emerged from behind the sign, he had already been hit. Wrone finds contradictions where there simply are none. This doesn't bode well for Wrone's ability to reason from the evidence.

David Wrone Wrote:Third, he draws upon the 'sworn testimony' of allegedly credible eyewitnesses to back up his claim that the Zapruder film shows JFK's limousine came to a 'virtually complete stop.' Those witnesses, however, are never identified, and the film does not support his claim.

An outright lie here... at no point does Twyman state that eyewitnesses state that the Zapruder Film shows a limousine stop – quite the opposite, in fact. He quite clearly states on page 118: "The Zapruder film, when projected on a screen, does not show the limousine slowing down or stopping, contrary to the sworn statements of credible eyewitnesses."

Wrone also claims that these "witnesses, however, are never identified" – but anyone who reads pages 129-132, conveniently titled "EYEWITNESSES: LIMOUSINE SLOWS ALMOST TO A STOP", would perhaps wonder at Wrone's accuracy here. Wrone simply lied. Not only were a number of credible eyewitnesses specifically named, their applicable WC testimony was QUOTED!

Note also that Twyman called them "credible" eyewitnesses... let's examine who he quoted:

Roy Truly – TBSD manager
Marion Baker – Dallas Policeman
Earle Brown – Dallas Policeman
D.V. Harkness – Dallas Policeman
Bobby Hargis – Dallas Policeman
Ralph Yarborough – United States Senator

Sounds like Twyman was merely telling the truth when he stated that "credible eyewitnesses" gave the sworn testimony that he quoted.

David Wrone Wrote:Fourth, he charges that the allegedly altered film hides the blowout at the rear of JFK's head described by doctors and nurses. In fact, there was no rear-side blowout, as I note elsewhere. Medical authorities mistook for a gunshot hole a flap of skin with bone and bloody matter attached that was thrown back over the head on a hinge of skin.

No "rear-side blowout"? While Parkland medical authorities might be argued to have not accurately described what they saw, the same cannot be said for an autopsy lasting in excess of four hours... and they describe a wound that certainly can be described as a "rear-side blowout". (interestingly, a topic that Patrick has recently been caught lying about...)

("The Zapruder Film" by David R. Wrone, pg 129)

Does anyone want to defend Wrone?

Patrick C · 09-20-2016, 07:38 PM

(09-19-2016, 01:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: It's long been my contention that when people find it necessary to lie to 'prove' their theory, that perhaps their time would be better spent finding a better theory that doesn't need lies to support it.

An excellent example can be found in David Wrone's book on the Zapruder film. An otherwise excellent book, Wrone's misrepresentations of those he disagrees with are rather obvious and mind-boggling. I'll illustrate with just four paragraphs below, interspersed with my comments:

David Wrone Wrote:Twyman provides five primary conclusions concerning the Zapruder film. First, he says, it was altered, or forged in his terminology, by having frames spliced out. He fails to explain precisely which frames were removed and how removal would have been detected. The reader is left to accept his assertion as fact. Nor does he explain exactly what evidence the conspirators removed, which is also left to the reader to surmise.

Twyman gives precise examples of where frames were removed... see page 165, as merely one example, where he specifies that frames were removed between frame 302 and 303... along with how it was detected.

David Wrone Wrote:Second, he contradicts himself. At one point, he states he could not decide whether 'JFK was first hit either just before or after he passed behind the freeway sign.' But he also states, 'When he emerged from behind the sign, he had already been hit.'

This is just silly. Twyman clearly states that he cannot decide whether JFK was first hit either just before, or just after he passed behind the sign. The Warren Commission believed that JFK was hit after he was hidden by the sign, there's persuasive evidence that he was hit before that point. It matters rather little at which point you believe he was hit ... For neither is contradicted by his statement of fact that when JFK emerged from behind the sign, he had already been hit. Wrone finds contradictions where there simply are none. This doesn't bode well for Wrone's ability to reason from the evidence.

David Wrone Wrote:Third, he draws upon the 'sworn testimony' of allegedly credible eyewitnesses to back up his claim that the Zapruder film shows JFK's limousine came to a 'virtually complete stop.' Those witnesses, however, are never identified, and the film does not support his claim.

An outright lie here... at no point does Twyman state that eyewitnesses state that the Zapruder Film shows a limousine stop – quite the opposite, in fact. He quite clearly states on page 118: "The Zapruder film, when projected on a screen, does not show the limousine slowing down or stopping, contrary to the sworn statements of credible eyewitnesses."

Wrone also claims that these "witnesses, however, are never identified" – but anyone who reads pages 129-132, conveniently titled "EYEWITNESSES: LIMOUSINE SLOWS ALMOST TO A STOP", would perhaps wonder at Wrone's accuracy here. Wrone simply lied. Not only were a number of credible eyewitnesses specifically named, their applicable WC testimony was QUOTED!

Note also that Twyman called them "credible" eyewitnesses... let's examine who he quoted:

Roy Truly – TBSD manager

Marion Baker – Dallas Policeman

Earle Brown – Dallas Policeman

D.V. Harkness – Dallas Policeman

Bobby Hargis – Dallas Policeman

Ralph Yarborough – United States Senator

Sounds like Twyman was merely telling the truth when he stated that "credible eyewitnesses" gave the sworn testimony that he quoted.

David Wrone Wrote:Fourth, he charges that the allegedly altered film hides the blowout at the rear of JFK's head described by doctors and nurses. In fact, there was no rear-side blowout, as I note elsewhere. Medical authorities mistook for a gunshot hole a flap of skin with bone and bloody matter attached that was thrown back over the head on a hinge of skin.

No "rear-side blowout"? While Parkland medical authorities might be argued to have not accurately described what they saw, the same cannot be said for an autopsy lasting in excess of four hours... and they describe a wound that certainly can be described as a "rear-side blowout". (interestingly, a topic that Patrick has recently been caught lying about...)

("The Zapruder Film" by David R. Wrone, pg 129)

Does anyone want to defend Wrone?

What I will say is Noel Twyman's book is an absolute pile of CRAP....and should have been entiteld Bloody Tripe.....

Amazon.com one star for effort review.....my review here:

"As this book has now been released on Kindle, I am delighted to see that the bookseller who is asking $460 + for this pile of rubbish will likely never get his asking price.

Now to the book - I purchased a hard back copy of the book on a trip to the US when it first came out. Its a very polished publication in appearance only. The content is worthy of very little serious consideration and it is disturbing to read such positive reviews of the work.

Zapruder film alteration is central to this books message.

First of all the fact is that the Zapruder film is one of biggest reasons why a large majority of the general public believe Kennedy was shot from the front! Clearly forgers would have desired the exact opposite. Of course people who study ballistics and wound ballistics understand that real bodies barely move when struck by bullets and do not move in the way that Hollywood would have us believe.

David Wrone a renowned expert on the Zapruder film has stated that the film has not been tampered with - and as far as I know he believes in a conspiracy. Robert Groden - an extremely Pro Conspiracy propagandist also believes that the Zapruder film has not been altered.

Clearly as Zapruder and his partner Irwin Schwartz had the film in their possession to the point when the first 3 copies were made - this RULES out any possible opportunity to change the film. And also note that the Nix film matches perfectly the Zapruder film where the capture the same time line. And it goes without saying that altering the Zapruder film RISKING the chance that another film could have been taken on that day - which would then SHOW that the Z film had been altered would draw massive attention to the problem and put any conspirators under the spot light.

Its worth reading to understand how not to write a book on the JFK case."

***Ben Holmes*** · 09-20-2016, 08:20 PM

(09-20-2016, 07:38 PM)Patrick C Wrote: What I will say is Noel Twyman's book is an absolute pile of CRAP....and should have been entiteld Bloody Tripe.....

Amazon.com one star for effort review.....my review here:

Quote:As this book has now been released on Kindle, I am delighted to see that the bookseller who is asking $460 + for this pile of rubbish will likely never get his asking price.

Now to the book - I purchased a hard back copy of the book on a trip to the US when it first came out. Its a very polished publication in appearance only. The content is worthy of very little serious consideration and it is disturbing to read such positive reviews of the work.

Zapruder film alteration is central to this books message.

First of all the fact is that the Zapruder film is one of biggest reasons why a large majority of the general public believe Kennedy was shot from the front! Clearly forgers would have desired the exact opposite. Of course people who study ballistics and wound ballistics understand that real bodies barely move when struck by bullets and do not move in the way that Hollywood would have us believe.

David Wrone a renowned expert on the Zapruder film has stated that the film has not been tampered with - and as far as I know he believes in a conspiracy. Robert Groden - an extremely Pro Conspiracy propagandist also believes that the Zapruder film has not been altered.

Clearly as Zapruder and his partner Irwin Schwartz had the film in their possession to the point when the first 3 copies were made - this RULES out any possible opportunity to change the film. And also note that the Nix film matches perfectly the Zapruder film where the capture the same time line. And it goes without saying that altering the Zapruder film RISKING the chance that another film could have been taken on that day - which would then SHOW that the Z film had been altered would draw massive attention to the problem and put any conspirators under the spot light.

Its worth reading to understand how not to write a book on the JFK case.

Interestingly, you refused to tell the truth about Wrone's lying ... why is that?

You give a poor review of the book, AND FAIL COMPLETELY TO MENTION THE OUTRIGHT LIES CONCERNING Z-FILM ALTERATION... why is that, Patrick?

Perhaps you simply avoid the facts because you prefer to believe Wrone when he's telling these blatant lies...

But the fact that you cannot agree that he was dishonest here simply shows your dishonesty.