john geraghty wrote:Hi Mark,A lady named Beverly Oliver came forward as the Babushka lady. She was a singer in the colony club and knew Jack Ruby and several other underworld figures.Beverly is a regular at Lancer conferences and is very accessible to researchers.My friend Ian Griggs has had a lot of contact with her and stands by her story. Personally I believe her. Some people say that she is not the Babushka lady, however, they do not say it to her face.I'm sure a google search will bring up some good info, she is also interviewed in Nigel Turners 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', If you ask Bob Clemens nicely he might just give you a copy!All the best Mark.John
Thanks John, but as I understand, her claims have never been corroborated and many doubt the credibility of her story. Sort of like Gordon Arnold. I don't think the person is the issue here, but the picture(s) she might have. I bet that roll of film contains crucial knoll info.
Bruce Brychek
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
dankbaar wrote:Beverly Oliver is the real deal. Mark, you ALL credible witnesses are being discredited in this case."Her claims have never been corroborated 1) and many doubt the credibility 2) "Both statements are incorrect. Wim
O.K. Wim, I'll take your word for it. I have not studied Oliver's role and statements carefully (I just read 3 or 4 articles on her that were focussed on inconsistencies in het claims), so I should not have said that - excuse me for that. But I'm not incorrect in assuming her picture(s) have not surfaced yet? Is there a logical explanation why Oliver did not run to a photo print shop to get the roll developed, like Zapruder and all the others did, and get a dozen prints of that 'once in a lifetime shot'?
O.K. Wim, I'll take your word for it. I have not studied Oliver's role and statements carefully (I just read 3 or 4 articles on her that were focussed on inconsistencies in het claims), so I should not have said that - excuse me for that. But I'm not incorrect in assuming her picture(s) have not surfaced yet? Is there a logical explanation why Oliver did not run to a photo print shop to get the roll developed, like Zapruder and all the others did, and get a dozen prints of that 'once in a lifetime shot'?
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
-
Mark Johansson
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Mark de Rooij wrote:dankbaar wrote:Beverly Oliver is the real deal. Mark, you ALL credible witnesses are being discredited in this case.WimHi Wim, I forgot to ask: what about Gordon Arnold's story. Is that one real too, you think?
Arnold testfied before Gary Mack and Jack White discovered him in the Moorman photo.
Arnold said he hit the ground after a bullet had past his shoulder. This can be verified by Senator Yarborough who saw him hit the ground like football player.
Arnold is being interviewed in the documentary The men who killed Kennedy. You are going to believe him afterward after you have seen his emotional appearance.
Johansson
Arnold testfied before Gary Mack and Jack White discovered him in the Moorman photo.
Arnold said he hit the ground after a bullet had past his shoulder. This can be verified by Senator Yarborough who saw him hit the ground like football player.
Arnold is being interviewed in the documentary The men who killed Kennedy. You are going to believe him afterward after you have seen his emotional appearance.
Johansson
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Mark Johansson wrote:Mark de Rooij wrote:dankbaar wrote:Beverly Oliver is the real deal. Mark, you ALL credible witnesses are being discredited in this case.WimHi Wim, I forgot to ask: what about Gordon Arnold's story. Is that one real too, you think?Arnold testfied before Gary Mack and Jack White discovered him in the Moorman photo.Arnold said he hit the ground after a bullet had past his shoulder. This can be verified by Senator Yarborough who saw him hit the ground like football player.Johansson
Then why is there so much fuzz about his story?
Have there ever been any claims by people in this case that were proven false? I mean, it is an easy way to get worldwide attention, so natuarally this could attract people with a need for such attention. Again, I'm not implying Oliver and Arnold's stories are not credible, but I'm trying to determine whether any claims have ever been rejected, or that almost any eyewitness claim that seems to confirm a conspiracy si taken for granted. I posted a question at another topic re the Dallas policeman who supposedly confessed on his deathbed that he has had part in the assissination. Has that claim been discredited?
Then why is there so much fuzz about his story?
Have there ever been any claims by people in this case that were proven false? I mean, it is an easy way to get worldwide attention, so natuarally this could attract people with a need for such attention. Again, I'm not implying Oliver and Arnold's stories are not credible, but I'm trying to determine whether any claims have ever been rejected, or that almost any eyewitness claim that seems to confirm a conspiracy si taken for granted. I posted a question at another topic re the Dallas policeman who supposedly confessed on his deathbed that he has had part in the assissination. Has that claim been discredited?
-
Mark Johansson
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Mark de Rooij wrote:Mark Johansson wrote:Mark de Rooij wrote:dankbaar wrote:Beverly Oliver is the real deal. Mark, you ALL credible witnesses are being discredited in this case.WimHi Wim, I forgot to ask: what about Gordon Arnold's story. Is that one real too, you think?Arnold testfied before Gary Mack and Jack White discovered him in the Moorman photo.Arnold said he hit the ground after a bullet had past his shoulder. This can be verified by Senator Yarborough who saw him hit the ground like football player.JohanssonThen why is there so much fuzz about his story?Have there ever been any claims by people in this case that were proven false? I mean, it is an easy way to get worldwide attention, so natuarally this could attract people with a need for such attention. Again, I'm not implying Oliver and Arnold's stories are not credible, but I'm trying to determine whether any claims have ever been rejected, or that almost any eyewitness claim that seems to confirm a conspiracy si taken for granted. I posted a question at another topic re the Dallas policeman who supposedly confessed on his deathbed that he has had part in the assissination. Has that claim been discredited?
The same reason as James Files. They know to much and must therefore be silenced or be classified as fools.
Johansson
The same reason as James Files. They know to much and must therefore be silenced or be classified as fools.
Johansson
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
dankbaar wrote:This is McAdams website. The greatest wizard (and liar) of this case. There are 2 columns, both with claims. Left attributed to Beverly Oliver, right claims by Mc Adams. What makes you think that all these claimes are correct? Wim
You got a point there, Wim.
But then again, both 'sides' claim, counterclaim and dismiss.
I have seen several copies of Zapruder's film, but they all look differently, with and without scratches, with and without the frames behind the road sign....it is hard to know what and what not to believe.
Take the 'muzzle flash' in the Nix film - it is being discussed like it is the absolute truth, but I'm telling you: if that was a muzzle flash, it must have been from an 8 inch canonball.
How about McAdams' claim at the bottom of that page, about the 4 pics she claimed she had from her 'own' film. Or that she claimes she was running while filming. Has anyone ever tried to discredit McA's counterclaims or dismissals? I take it you have, as you are pretty outspoken about his credibility. Be assured, after having watched you on SBS6, I tend to believe everything you tell us about the case. Still, we all need to be critical if not sceptical about everything that is being claimed and dismissed here. I still consider myself as being naive (but then again, aren't we all?) in this specific case, so I want to digest all pros and cons. Not that I'm not convinced it was a conspiracy. So hopefully you'll bear with me and have patience with me.
Thanks,
Mark
You got a point there, Wim.
But then again, both 'sides' claim, counterclaim and dismiss.
I have seen several copies of Zapruder's film, but they all look differently, with and without scratches, with and without the frames behind the road sign....it is hard to know what and what not to believe.
Take the 'muzzle flash' in the Nix film - it is being discussed like it is the absolute truth, but I'm telling you: if that was a muzzle flash, it must have been from an 8 inch canonball.
How about McAdams' claim at the bottom of that page, about the 4 pics she claimed she had from her 'own' film. Or that she claimes she was running while filming. Has anyone ever tried to discredit McA's counterclaims or dismissals? I take it you have, as you are pretty outspoken about his credibility. Be assured, after having watched you on SBS6, I tend to believe everything you tell us about the case. Still, we all need to be critical if not sceptical about everything that is being claimed and dismissed here. I still consider myself as being naive (but then again, aren't we all?) in this specific case, so I want to digest all pros and cons. Not that I'm not convinced it was a conspiracy. So hopefully you'll bear with me and have patience with me.
Thanks,
Mark
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Cannon Flash?
Mark de Rooij wrote:Take the 'muzzle flash' in the Nix film - it is being discussed like it is the absolute truth, but I'm telling you: if that was a muzzle flash, it must have been from an 8 inch canonball.
This is a misstatement (deliberate?) & an inaccurate characterization of the recent discussion of the Nix film. I made the point there that the film shows not the muzzle flash per se, but instead the refraction of the light generated by the muzzle flash which is not actually filmed because it is off screen to the left when Jimmy causes it.
To suggest that this refraction of the muzzle flash is the actual flash of a cannon firing is to obfuscate the analysis & to attempt to ridicule the analysis. Is Mr. de Rooji an innocent newbie as he postures, or is something else at play here?
Jim
This is a misstatement (deliberate?) & an inaccurate characterization of the recent discussion of the Nix film. I made the point there that the film shows not the muzzle flash per se, but instead the refraction of the light generated by the muzzle flash which is not actually filmed because it is off screen to the left when Jimmy causes it.
To suggest that this refraction of the muzzle flash is the actual flash of a cannon firing is to obfuscate the analysis & to attempt to ridicule the analysis. Is Mr. de Rooji an innocent newbie as he postures, or is something else at play here?
Jim
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Cannon Flash?
Jim Thompson wrote:Mark de Rooij wrote:Take the 'muzzle flash' in the Nix film - it is being discussed like it is the absolute truth, but I'm telling you: if that was a muzzle flash, it must have been from an 8 inch canonball.This is a misstatement (deliberate?) & an inaccurate characterization of the recent discussion of the Nix film. I made the point there that the film shows not the muzzle flash per se, but instead the refraction of the light generated by the muzzle flash which is not actually filmed because it is off screen to the left when Jimmy causes it.To suggest that this refraction of the muzzle flash is the actual flash of a cannon firing is to obfuscate the analysis & to attempt to ridicule the analysis. Is Mr. de Rooji an innocent newbie as he postures, or is something else at play here? Jim
Don't worry: I AM a newbie. Born in 1960 in the Netherlands, got interested in the case in 1975, visited Dealey Plaza on 11/22/79, read about 10 books on the subject, recorded and watched a dozen documentaries, was thrilled by Stone's JFK and then put it to rest.....until last month when I watched Wim Dankbaar's superb documentary (or actually Peter R. de Vries' documentary, prompted and co-hosted by Wim). That got me interested again. By the limited number of posts as well as the relative ignorance of most of them you can tell I do not posture as a newbie. I'm just using this forum as a crash course, while at the same time I do wonder about some of the postings by others. The theories developed around the supposed flash in the Nix film are too far fetched IMHO. Just check frames 212 thru 218 of the Zapruder film: they are badly scrathed - before too long someone is going to claim those scratches are alpha particles. 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? 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. So, to answer the question: I tend to believe a lot of uncorroborated claims, but the flash is just one too many, so I think the thought is ridiculous. I'm not being hostile over this, just venting my opinion. If it really were an actual image of a flash in the picture, it would have to have the same 'grainy' character as the rest of the objects - which it does not.
Don't worry: I AM a newbie. Born in 1960 in the Netherlands, got interested in the case in 1975, visited Dealey Plaza on 11/22/79, read about 10 books on the subject, recorded and watched a dozen documentaries, was thrilled by Stone's JFK and then put it to rest.....until last month when I watched Wim Dankbaar's superb documentary (or actually Peter R. de Vries' documentary, prompted and co-hosted by Wim). That got me interested again. By the limited number of posts as well as the relative ignorance of most of them you can tell I do not posture as a newbie. I'm just using this forum as a crash course, while at the same time I do wonder about some of the postings by others. The theories developed around the supposed flash in the Nix film are too far fetched IMHO. Just check frames 212 thru 218 of the Zapruder film: they are badly scrathed - before too long someone is going to claim those scratches are alpha particles. 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? 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. So, to answer the question: I tend to believe a lot of uncorroborated claims, but the flash is just one too many, so I think the thought is ridiculous. I'm not being hostile over this, just venting my opinion. If it really were an actual image of a flash in the picture, it would have to have the same 'grainy' character as the rest of the objects - which it does not.