Bruce Brychek

[Jim Thompson]

Mark de Rooij wrote:My point being: is the copy of the Nix film a certified first generation copy that is authentic and not dented or scratched or enhanced or retouched?

Correct. The blue streaks which are the refraction of the muzzle flash off screen appear in the second generation development of the Nix film negative. On checking the first generation development of the Nix film negative, it is clear that the blue streaks do not appear. More important is the fact that, surprisingly, neither does the Texas School Depository Building appear in the first development! This key discovery, thanks to de Jooij's point, provides irrefutable proof that the blue streaks AND the Texas School Depository Building are false, bogus images superimposed to mislead the investigation. Overlooked by those who tampered with the Nix film (Hoover?) is the contradiction that if the Texas School Depository Building never existed, then how could LHO have fired from its sixth floor?

[Mark de Rooij]

Jim Thompson wrote:Mark de Rooij wrote:My point being: is the copy of the Nix film a certified first generation copy that is authentic and not dented or scratched or enhanced or retouched?Correct. The blue streaks which are the refraction of the muzzle flash off screen appear in the second generation development of the Nix film negative. On checking the first generation development of the Nix film negative, it is clear that the blue streaks do not appear. More important is the fact that, surprisingly, neither does the Texas School Depository Building appear in the first development! This key discovery, thanks to de Jooij's point, provides irrefutable proof that the blue streaks AND the Texas School Depository Building are false, bogus images superimposed to mislead the investigation. Overlooked by those who tampered with the Nix film (Hoover?) is the contradiction that if the Texas School Depository Building never existed, then how could LHO have fired from its sixth floor? Oops, did I step on some toes here or what?

[Jim Thompson]

Mark de Rooij wrote:I do believe Oswald's pics holding the gun and the pamphlet are fake, just as you can tell the pic in which Ruby kills Oswald is retouched (the gun is poorly enhanced), which goes to show that anyone can scratch or tamper with photographic evidence, nowadays even more easily with the help of a PC.

Don't get me wrong here. This point is well taken. Photos can be doctored. Without careful examination of photos & films, false theories can persist clouding & subverting the truth. de Rooij's penetration & debunking of the three blue streak theory as being refracted light proof of Jimmy's muzzle flash is a case in point. Who would have imagined, for example, that JFK was actually shot by a cannon? de Rooij's close reasoning has also led to the even more startling discovery that the Texas School Depository Building did not exist in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22nd, 1963! The current structure, it is now revealed, must be a superb CIA mirage probably maintained by Neutron Activation (see Blakey).

[Mark de Rooij]

Jim Thompson wrote:Mark de Rooij wrote:I do believe Oswald's pics holding the gun and the pamphlet are fake, just as you can tell the pic in which Ruby kills Oswald is retouched (the gun is poorly enhanced), which goes to show that anyone can scratch or tamper with photographic evidence, nowadays even more easily with the help of a PC. Don't get me wrong here. This point is well taken. Photos can be doctored. Without careful examination of photos & films, false theories can persist clouding & subverting the truth. de Rooij's penetration & debunking of the three blue streak theory as being refracted light proof of Jimmy's muzzle flash is a case in point. Who would have imagined, for example, that JFK was actually shot by a cannon? de Rooij's close reasoning has also led to the even more startling discovery that the Texas School Depository Building did not exist in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22nd, 1963! The current structure, it is now revealed, must be a superb CIA mirage probably maintained by Neutron Activation (see Blakey). I ( and probably other people as well) DO get you wrong, for every reply you start out with a confirmation, only to continue to ridicule to the point of absurdity. Just bear in mind what Stone aptly said: Europeans laugh (and rightfully so) at the naievety of the American people, for believing the WC and not being able to force its authorities to lift the ban on al the vital information in this case.

[Jim Thompson]

Mark de Rooij wrote:you can tell the pic in which Ruby kills Oswald is retouched (the gun is poorly enhanced)...

Whoa. Absurd? de Rooij is quoted here as suggesting that Rudy killed Lee with a water pistol. Or that Ruby never used a gun at all & that Lee is still alive. Who is absurd? Must be de Jooij.

Am I beginning to detect an Annemarie around the corner?

[Mark de Rooij]

Jim Thompson wrote:Mark de Rooij wrote:you can tell the pic in which Ruby kills Oswald is retouched (the gun is poorly enhanced)...Whoa. Absurd? de Rooij is quoted here as suggesting that Rudy killed Lee with a water pistol. Or that Ruby never used a gun at all & that Lee is still alive. Who is absurd? Must be de Jooij. Am I beginning to detect an Annemarie around the corner? No, that must be an illiterate. If you can not distinguish the letters R and J, we all have a hard time believing you are able to distinguish a flash from dirt on film.

[Mark de Rooij]

Paul wrote:Mark and Jim: come on, take it easy! Gr. Paul.(moderator)
Hi Paul,
perhaps you can tell me if there have ever been any witnesses that claim to have actually seen the 'flash'. I know that many claim to have seen a puff of smoke, but a flash is much more apparant and noticeable - surely many more witnesses must have seen the flash as compared tot hose who saw the puff of smoke.
Thanks,
Mark