Re: A Zfilm Question For Ben Holmes...
aeffects
> Ben:
>
> I have a couple of questions for you regarding the claim that the
> Zapruder film was altered:
>
> 1.) Why was it altered instead of destroyed or locked up? In other
> words, why bother? Certainly cold-blooded killers that were unafraid
> to post a guy on the grassy knoll in broad daylight to deliver an
> insurance shot to JFK's head wouldn't be too worried about hiding or
> destroying some home movie, would they?
idiot -- even know nobody has access to the in-camera original
> 2.) The technology to convincingly rework/change film seamlessly did
> not exist in 1963. How were these 8mm images/frames altered?
and who told YOU that? LMFAO.... Of course it did, perhaps you can
find the necessary compositing experts to support your idiotic claim
> 3.) When did the alteration occur?
initially anytime between Dec '63 and late Feb '64
> 4.) If the plot was this sophisticated, why didn't someone tap old man
> Zapruder on the shoulder after the shooting and just take his camera
> away like Gordon Arnold claims happened to him?
what plot was needed to alter the film, praytell -- C'mon Nutter fill
us in!
> 5.) As recently as a few months ago, new amateur film footage turned
> up showing the Dallas presidential motorcade from 11/22/63. Describe
> the CIA plan to counter new film which may have popped up days, weeks,
> months or even years in the future that may have been shot from
> another vantage point and exposed the Zfilm alteration?
what does that have to do with the Zapruder film? Stick to your topic,
beefstick!
> 6.) Almost immediately after the assassination, copies of the original
> Zfilm were made. Did the conspirators make alterations of the copies,
> too? How? How did they get the altered copies and original to match in
> an era pre-dating computer generated digital images and editing?
show us a certifiable comparison between the original in-camera
Zapruder film original and the 3 Jamieson 1st generation prints...
perhaps Rolanda Zavada will lend you a hand, would you like his email
address, perhaps his phone number. You do know who he is, yes?
Do you know what a double 8mm unsplit film looks like? Know what a 8mm
blowup is?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Jun 29, 12:15 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> Ben:
>>
>> I have a couple of questions for you regarding the claim that the
>> Zapruder film was altered:
Chuckie is willing to ask *me* questions... but he'll run far and fast in the
other direction before answering any... wonder why?
>> 1.) Why was it altered instead of destroyed or locked up?
Did you pay attention to the history of what happened that day? Zapruder was a
businessman, he wasn't going to be intimidated like many others were that day,
plus too he simply moved too quickly that day... Have you even taken the time to
examine the situation that day?
>> In other
>> words, why bother?
For the same reason that they made sure that professional photographers weren't
in the area. They missed one, Altgens, and his photo *ALONE* demonstrates the
falsity of the extant Z-film.
But you won't be able to answer why Altgen's shows Chaney in a position he's
*never* seen at in the extant Z-film. I predict that you'll duck and run on
this question. *Despite* the fact that I've answered all of yours...
>> Certainly cold-blooded killers that were unafraid
>> to post a guy on the grassy knoll in broad daylight to deliver an
>> insurance shot to JFK's head wouldn't be too worried about hiding or
>> destroying some home movie, would they?
They destroyed quite a bit of evidence. Have you any explanation for Nix's
film, for example? Or film taken that day that was never returned to the owner?
X-rays... photos... the bullet that was picked up in the grass... there's no
real way to know *everything* that was simply destroyed... But we *do know for
a fact* that evidence disappeared. What was the reason for destroying evidence
in what you believe is an "open and shut" case???
>idiot -- even know nobody has access to the in-camera original
Tis true. But I don't think Chuckie the troll knows this.
>> 2.) The technology to convincingly rework/change film seamlessly did
>> not exist in 1963.
Untrue. When you *start* with bad information, you end up with bad conclusions.
This is sort of like going around telling everyone that you saw a Coelacanth...
and the trolls would say, "Oh no, that's been extinct for millions of years",
and you'd say... "well, what do I do with this Coelacanth carcass?"
The extant Z-film contains WITHIN ITSELF the evidence of it's alteration - and
you go around saying "it can't be done, it can't be done, it can't be done"
Despite those who actually *work* in that field who've explained *EXACTLY* how
to do it with the existing equipment.
And despite the proof contained within the film itself that it's been altered.
They *didn't* do a perfect job...
>> How were these 8mm images/frames altered?
The same way *any* images get altered. Where have you been?
>and who told YOU that?
>LMFAO.... Of course it did, perhaps you can
>find the necessary compositing experts to support your idiotic claim
Chuckie won't be able to do so. LNT'ers rely on "experts", yet they seem
perfectly willing to 'pick & choose' until they find the "expert" that supports
their faith... then they close the door and move on.
But the door never *has* been closed on the authenticity of the Z-film, and no
real expert has ever examined it.
"Zavada?" Will tell you instantly that *HE DID NOT EXAMINE THE ACTIONS IN THE
FILM ITSELF TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION OF AUTHENTICITY*. He has, however, laid
to rest any doubt that the film *itself* doesn't date from the appropriate time
period. This hardly precludes alteration, but Chuckie doesn't understand this.
(Unless, of course, Chuckie can prove that film available on 11/22 was suddenly
*not* available in the months to follow when the alterations were undoubtably
performed)
>> 3.) When did the alteration occur?
>
>initially anytime between Dec '63 and late Feb '64
Sounds right to me... tis possible that they went back and did more work on it
when it became inevitable that it would be released to the general public.
>> 4.) If the plot was this sophisticated, why didn't someone tap old man
>> Zapruder on the shoulder after the shooting and just take his camera
>> away like Gordon Arnold claims happened to him?
Answered above. See question #1.
>what plot was needed to alter the film, praytell -- C'mon Nutter fill
>us in!
I rather doubt if Chuckie has ever seriously considered the question.
>> 5.) As recently as a few months ago, new amateur film footage turned
>> up showing the Dallas presidential motorcade from 11/22/63. Describe
>> the CIA plan to counter new film which may have popped up days, weeks,
>> months or even years in the future that may have been shot from
>> another vantage point and exposed the Zfilm alteration?
Tis simple. We *HAVE* a photograph that contradicts the extant Z-film - and you
simply don't believe it.
Just as the WC had the "back and to the left" snap to explain, and simply
refused to deal with it.
>what does that have to do with the Zapruder film? Stick to your topic,
>beefstick!
Chuckie believes that if he can throw enough BS, some of it will stick. He
doesn't seem to realize that he's up against people who know far more about the
topic than he does.
>> 6.) Almost immediately after the assassination, copies of the original
>> Zfilm were made. Did the conspirators make alterations of the copies,
>> too? How? How did they get the altered copies and original to match in
>> an era pre-dating computer generated digital images and editing?
>
>show us a certifiable comparison between the original in-camera
>Zapruder film original and the 3 Jamieson 1st generation prints...
Actually, you don't even need to go that far.
First, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT 1ST GENERATION PRINTS EVEN EXIST!
Of all the codes (0183, 0185, 0186, 0187) that were punched into the film, only
ONE actually exists today, 0186... Interestingly though, while this number,
0186; is physically continuous with the beginning of the motorcade segment (on
SS Copy #2), IT IS SEPARATED FROM THE ACTUAL MOTORCADE IMAGES BY A
PHOTOGRAPHICALLY COPIED SPLICE!
Okay, Chuckie... now's your moment to shine. Explain to everyone why a supposed
first generation copy SHOWS A PHOTOGRAPHICALLY COPIED SPLICE IN THE ORIGINAL!
[Here's my prediction: Chuckie's going to run from this one...]
>perhaps Rolanda Zavada will lend you a hand, would you like his email
>address, perhaps his phone number. You do know who he is, yes?
>
>Do you know what a double 8mm unsplit film looks like? Know what a 8mm
>blowup is?
Come on now, no teasing the trolls allowed... :)
aeffects
> On Jun 29, 3:40 pm, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 12:15 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ben:
>
> > > I have a couple of questions for you regarding the claim that the
> > > Zapruder film was altered:
>
> > > 1.) Why was it altered instead of destroyed or locked up? In other
> > > words, why bother? Certainly cold-blooded killers that were unafraid
> > > to post a guy on the grassy knoll in broad daylight to deliver an
> > > insurance shot to JFK's head wouldn't be too worried about hiding or
> > > destroying some home movie, would they?
>
> > idiot -- even know nobody has access to the in-camera original
>
> wasn't altered, but the copies were?
chuckie, where and when did I say THAT?
>
>
> > > 2.) The technology to convincingly rework/change film seamlessly did
> > > not exist in 1963. How were these 8mm images/frames altered?
>
> > and who told YOU that? LMFAO.... Of course it did, perhaps you can
> > find the necessary compositing experts to support your idiotic claim
>
> You're the one making the fantastic claims, not me. Shouldn't there be
> some burden on you to prove your point and demonstrate how the
> altering could've/would've occurred? Isn't that a fair point?
dufus... I'm not making fantastic claims, your asking questions that
were answered in 1998, by me.... read my article on the subject...
> > > 3.) When did the alteration occur?
>
> > initially anytime between Dec '63 and late Feb '64
>
> Initially? Did they keep re-working the footage?
>
did they? why not.... no one has threaded up the original in-camera
Zapruder film since 1964
>
> > > 4.) If the plot was this sophisticated, why didn't someone tap old man
> > > Zapruder on the shoulder after the shooting and just take his camera
> > > away like Gordon Arnold claims happened to him?
>
> > what plot was needed to alter the film, praytell -- C'mon Nutter fill
> > us in!
>
> So you think one guy on his own somewhere altered the film in a
> darkroom with no input from others?
>
who cares how many?
>
> > > 5.) As recently as a few months ago, new amateur film footage turned
> > > up showing the Dallas presidential motorcade from 11/22/63. Describe
> > > the CIA plan to counter new film which may have popped up days, weeks,
> > > months or even years in the future that may have been shot from
> > > another vantage point and exposed the Zfilm alteration?
>
> > what does that have to do with the Zapruder film? Stick to your topic,
> > beefstick!
>
> Man, you really are dumb. What a Kool-Aid drinker, you are, Healy.
chuckie, your way out of your league champ.... You know what a optical
film printer is, animation stand?
> It has everything to do with the Z film. What if other film showed up
> a few months later that contradicted the alteratins you seem to think
> are present on the Z film?
so what if it did.... there's only 3 other films, 1 in LIFE magazines
possession, 2 with the SS -- 1 altered in-camera original, 3 optical
film prints of the same -- swap 'em out wallah... take about 2 hours
labtime for the new prints....
> And you didn't answer my question. Typical.
>
gott'a know the questions to ask, chuckie!
>
> > > 6.) Almost immediately after the assassination, copies of the original
> > > Zfilm were made. Did the conspirators make alterations of the copies,
> > > too? How? How did they get the altered copies and original to match in
> > > an era pre-dating computer generated digital images and editing?
>
> > show us a certifiable comparison between the original in-camera
> > Zapruder film original and the 3 Jamieson 1st generation prints...
> > perhaps Rolanda Zavada will lend you a hand, would you like his email
> > address, perhaps his phone number. You do know who he is, yes?
>
> Yes, I do.
>
> In fact, website ZabaSearch lists Roland Zavada in New York State,
> with a birthdate of March, 1927, at phone number 1 (585) 248-2162. If
> he is still alive, why don't you call him and tell him why you differ
> with his conclusions?
>
Roalnd and I have talked Chuckie, more than once. He contacted Jim
Fetzer, Fetzer contacted me that Roland wants to call, I told Jim
Fetzer send Zavada my number, Roalnd and I have something else in
common, SMPTE ....
Roland was going to appear at the 2003 UofMinnesota Zapruder film
Symposium, he backed out when he understood John Costella and I would
be presenting along with David Mantik, David Lifton and Jack White,
AND the entire symposium was to be videotaped (which it was)
>
> > Do you know what a double 8mm unsplit film looks like? Know what a 8mm
> > blowup is?
>
> I'm not a film expert. The difference between people like you that
> inhabit kook-world and the rest of us in normal world is that when
> something has been checked out as thoroughly as this has, we move on.
stop acting like an ass -- I forgot more about film composing than any
Lone Nut knows about the SBT.... People like me have made a living
doing compositing work for nearly 40 years, idiot-stick -- But I
forgive your ignorance....
> So the original wasn't altered but the copies were?
what a moron --- If the original in-camera film was altered and 3 new
1st generation dupes were created form the new *in-camera* film then
of course the copies will reflect the alteration... You having trouble
with a little linear thinking there, champ?
David Von Pein
Which means that the original film must have been "altered" by the
Superman film-forgers within hours of 12:30 on 11/22, since the in-
camera original and the 3 copies were made within hours of the
assassination.
The film-fakers must've knocked Abe Zapruder out cold, swiped his Bell
& Howell, developed the in-camera film in secret, faked the film with
lightning-like speed, and then had the three 11/22 copies made from
the forgeries that were created almost as fast as the covert Walter
Reed surgeons were able to completely rearrange JFK's head wounds.
And then after Mr. Z regained consciousness, I guess he didn't notice
that his camera had been stolen from him by the band of evil plotters.
Or, maybe the plotters found a way to put the developed film BACK INTO
the Bell & Howell camera to make it seem like it hadn't yet been
developed. Maybe that was how they pulled it off.
Is there any theory too stupid and silly-sounding for the plot-hungry
morons of the world? (Apparently not. And the "Z-Film Alterationist"
morons prove it every day.)
(And I still wonder why those film-forgers didn't just simply toss the
Z-Film in the trash instead of jumping through needless & reckless
"Let's Fake A Bunch Of Stuff And Hope We Don't Get Caught" hoops. I
guess they just wanted something to do that weekend...since the
Carousel Club was going to be closed.)
~Awaiting Healy's Next Moronic Post~
(Anybody find those non-2766 bullets yet, btw?)
Ben Holmes
says...
Not that I have any high hopes... but if Chuckie the troll actually *does*
answer the questions I posed, be sure to let me know. You have far more
patience than I with stupidity.
eca...@tx.rr.com
Chuck and DVP knocked the ball out of the park
by pointing out what a colossal undertaking it
would have been to alter all the copies as
well as the original.. Something I have
frequently used to zap what's left of you
nutty "The Z film was altered theorists."
But DVP points out something I had
overlooked:
The ( gULp ) alterations of the Z film would
have had to occurred at nearly the speed of
light!! Chuck previously hand-cuffed you
"Something Fishy Here" nuts with his question
about how did Oz wind up with the gun that
killed Tippit in his possession minutes later
in the same vicinity at the TT. Now Chuck
and DVP have hand-cuffed you "Something Fishy"
morons once again with your indefensible
unexplainable "The Z film was altered" yarn..
Right.
Gee Ben, you fooled everybody once again with
your explanation of the Z film alterations
that consisted of a question.. A camouflaged
diversion from a claim you made that you can't
substantiate.. Ya fooled us all again Ben..
BTW how are those "galley proofs" of your fake
author, "John Welsh Hodges" and his non-existent
"book" that will "demolish" VB coming along?
(Tell Hodges Ed sez "Howdy.")
MR ;~D
Ed Cage
0317Jun3007
On Jun 30, 12:09 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1183176215.993040.195...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> patience than I with stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
> >>> "If the original in-camera film was altered and 3 new 1st-generation dupes were created from the new *in-camera* film, then the copies will reflect the alteration." <<<
>
> Which means that the original film must have been "altered" by the
> Superman film-forgers within hours of 12:30 on 11/22, since the in-
> camera original and the 3 copies were made within hours of the
> assassination.
what-a-maroon.... the one thing you can always expect from a Lone
Neuter is *lack of* forward thinking. The one thing a Lone Neuter
can't provide thus can't PROVE is where the in-camera Zapruder film
was between Nov 23rd 1963 and Feb 20th 1964
> The film-fakers must've knocked Abe Zapruder out cold, swiped his Bell
> & Howell, developed the in-camera film in secret, faked the film with
> lightning-like speed, and then had the three 11/22 copies made from
> the forgeries that were created almost as fast as the covert Walter
> Reed surgeons were able to completely rearrange JFK's head wounds.
here we have the best counter Nutter's can come up with on this board,
they run helter-skelter to David Lifton run away bestseller, BEST
EVIDENCE (nominated for a Pulitzer, too)
> And then after Mr. Z regained consciousness, I guess he didn't notice
> that his camera had been stolen from him by the band of evil plotters.
> Or, maybe the plotters found a way to put the developed film BACK INTO
> the Bell & Howell camera to make it seem like it hadn't yet been
> developed. Maybe that was how they pulled it off.
LMAO, we know your nervous David... you've had a few tough weeks
(quite a few actually), you'll get over it. There's baseball DVD's and
oldtime TV (re-run) DVD's to sell. Hang in there kiddo!
> Is there any theory too stupid and silly-sounding for the plot-hungry
> morons of the world? (Apparently not. And the "Z-Film Alterationist"
> morons prove it every day.)
if there was any doubt that you're running scared look at the above,
any diversion will do, eh?
> (And I still wonder why those film-forgers didn't just simply toss the
> Z-Film in the trash instead of jumping through needless & reckless
> "Let's Fake A Bunch Of Stuff And Hope We Don't Get Caught" hoops. I
> guess they just wanted something to do that weekend...since the
> Carousel Club was going to be closed.)
90 day weekend? Of course the original disappeared, I speculated to
that in my *IF* article, "bottom of a DallasTexas landfill...". You
think their unabashed fools like Lone Neuter's and their LHO/SBT
theory
> ~Awaiting Healy's Next Moronic Post~
when you grow up and become the researcher/investigator you THINK you
are, cease being a Bugliosi *knob-polisher*, there may be hope for you
(and a few other Nutter fools) on this board -- till then, you're a
lousy amateur historian, incapable of creative thought. But by GAWD,
you can cut~n~paste.....
If lurkers are interested see the below (about half way down the right
side of the page, double click then save the .pdf to your desktop:
Altering the Zapruder Film by David Healy http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html
prompted Roland Zavada to get in-touch....
> (Anybody find those non-2766 bullets yet, btw?)
stay on point, Vinnie won't help you out - time for independent
thought, David. The Lone Neuter *knob polishers* await your brilliance
LMAO!
aeffects
> On Jun 30, 12:09 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Ben is asked some common sense questions, and he answers with his own
> questions.
>
> Ben, you just admitted that the film wasn't altered until late Dec 63/
> early 64, right?
that was me you fool, in this very thread, not to mention.....
Altering the Zapruder Film by David Healy http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html
> How did the alterationists plan to deal with other copies floating
> around? LIFE had it that weekend, and other copies apparently were
> made.
For those interested see the below (about half way down the right
side of the page, double click then save the .pdf to your desktop:
Altering the Zapruder Film by David Healy http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html
> Nix and Muchmore had already been purchased by other news outlets and
> aired. Other photos and films were rumored to be hanging around.
>
> New amateur film just came to light this year showing the motorcade
> this year. A film altering plot would need to know in advance that all
> of the film and stills out there were accounted for...otherwise, the
> plot gets uncovered if new photos contradict the altered Zfilm.
amazing... what does this film show that verifies the films covering
the Elm Street assassination sequence?
Bring in the varsity, for chrissakes.... you're making all Nutter's
look bad you moron!
> Simple enough to get?
we got it a long time ago, when will you?
> Any part of that logic that you don't understand?
what I dont understand is where the .john crowd finds retards such as
your self.... especially those will so little knowledge of case
exhibits and evidence... I'm getting to the point of calling you
idjits "bandwidth abusers"....
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Jun 29, 9:49 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "If the original in-camera film was altered and 3 new 1st-generation dupes
>>were created from the new *in-camera* film, then the copies will reflect the
>>alteration." <<<
>>
>> Which means that the original film must have been "altered" by the
>> Superman film-forgers within hours of 12:30 on 11/22, since the in-
>> camera original and the 3 copies were made within hours of the
>> assassination.
>
>what-a-maroon.... the one thing you can always expect from a Lone
>Neuter is *lack of* forward thinking. The one thing a Lone Neuter
>can't provide thus can't PROVE is where the in-camera Zapruder film
>was between Nov 23rd 1963 and Feb 20th 1964
There's even a bigger problem. Most LNT'ers believe that the three copies are
simply that - exact copies of the "original" Z-film.
But that is *NOT* what is in the archives ... *NONE* of the copies 'match' each
other. Leader lengths differ, splices unexplained, lack of punched codes
*KNOWN* to have originally existed; and even more interesting, *photographic
copies* of a physical splice!! Which means that there was a splice in the
supposed *ORIGINAL*!!
LNT'ers can feel 'confident' about the authenticity of the film simply because
they know next to nothing *about* the films.
>> The film-fakers must've knocked Abe Zapruder out cold, swiped his Bell
>> & Howell, developed the in-camera film in secret, faked the film with
>> lightning-like speed, and then had the three 11/22 copies made from
>> the forgeries that were created almost as fast as the covert Walter
>> Reed surgeons were able to completely rearrange JFK's head wounds.
>
>here we have the best counter Nutter's can come up with on this board,
>they run helter-skelter to David Lifton run away bestseller, BEST
>EVIDENCE (nominated for a Pulitzer, too)
>
>
>> And then after Mr. Z regained consciousness, I guess he didn't notice
>> that his camera had been stolen from him by the band of evil plotters.
>> Or, maybe the plotters found a way to put the developed film BACK INTO
>> the Bell & Howell camera to make it seem like it hadn't yet been
>> developed. Maybe that was how they pulled it off.
>
>
>LMAO, we know your nervous David... you've had a few tough weeks
>(quite a few actually), you'll get over it. There's baseball DVD's and
>oldtime TV (re-run) DVD's to sell. Hang in there kiddo!
>
>> Is there any theory too stupid and silly-sounding for the plot-hungry
>> morons of the world? (Apparently not. And the "Z-Film Alterationist"
>> morons prove it every day.)
>
>if there was any doubt that you're running scared look at the above,
>any diversion will do, eh?
What LNT'ers will *NOT* do is actually deal with the evidence. For example, the
lack of 'first frame flash' at Z-132/Z-133 ... the same bit of evidence that
proved the "Alien Autopsy" film a fake.
The trolls simply prefer to fight strawmen, as shown above. Actually
*explaining* the photographic copy of a physical splice in the "original" film,
for example, is simply beyond them.
eca...@tx.rr.com
another question..
Try again el dwarfo:
AND ANOTHER BTW..
Tilt your pointy little midget scraggly bearded
head to the right and cast yer beaddy peepers on
this:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4zlg6u1
You fooled us all again Ben..
MR ;~D
Ed Cage
1213Jun3007
On Jun 30, 11:51 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1183221704.568316.79...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> >LMAO!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
LOL. More brilliance exhibited by the band of film-fakers it would
seem, huh? They don't even bother to have the copies match the
original in many ways. Excellent. (They were too worried about those
shoes on Moorman to worry about more important details.)
aeffects
> Benny the Dwarf:
Our good pal Fast Eddy daCage declares himself as a Texas graphics
guru/photo retouch expert with "88,000 graphics job under his belt".
Ran a large Texas graphics company for years and years. Claims he
debunked the Dealey Plaza Badgeman theory, thus exposing the creators
of same.... (those creators happen to be: Gary Mack the current
curator of the 6th Floor Museum and Jack White simple credential
below)
Chief counsel (HSCA) G. Robert Blakey found Jack White qualified to
call as a witness:
quote on
Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr. Jack D. White to
appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied the backyard
photographs for over 10 years. Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism
major, history minor from the Texas Christian University in 1949.
Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft.
Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm. Mr. White has
served with Witherspoon in various capacities for over 25 years. He
has done extensive work in all areas of reproduction, including
photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic arts. Mr. White
has lectured in the United States, widely on the subject of the
backyard photographs. (HSCA Hearings, Volume II, page 322)
quote off
My question to you Fast Eddy is who are you? Jack White never heard of
you, doesn't recall you exposing him or his co founded Badgeman
theory.... astounding that the ground breaking work of yours and there
is no JFK assassination researchers in Texas or anywhere else for that
matter who has ever, EVER heard of you, amazing! You know where
Ft.Worth is, right? NOW you want to be taken seriously regarding the
Zapruder film? With zero professional film-video compositing
bonifides? That like asking your local car mechanic do brain surgery
on a family member, geeeesh!
Where's the hell is the Lone Nut Z-filmvarsity? At least Von Pein has
done a little linear/non-linear editing....he can and does get
creative, you....LMFAO!
Now I remember where that Lone Nut Z-film varsity is, under the
bus.... see here:
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/index.html
for the entire JFK assassination community to see -- where are you,
Ed?
immediately below, the recent Cage drivel....
David Von Pein
Which means the film MUST have been "altered" during this period,
right?
But, again, why didn't "they" simply get rid of the film? Why risk any
fakery being exposed in the future by crackerjack photographic experts
who have examined every shoelace and watermark in the movie (like "The
Healy-meister Extraordinaire" and Jack "Super Kook" White have done),
when a trash can was nearby and handy?
Plus: Those film-fakers must have been sweating like pigs in 1969 when
the film was shown to the Clay Shaw jury in New Orleans, huh? (With
Mr. Zapruder also seeing the film and testifying it looked like the
SAME FILM HE SAW IN HIS OFFICE ON 11/22/63 AND 11/23/63.)
Those film-fakers sure got lucky (again) in '69, when Zapruder
testified the film he saw in court looked the same as the PRE-ALTERED
film (per the CT-Kooks) he had seen multiple times in his office in
Nov. '63.
I guess the film-fakers had Abe Zapruder in their back pockets too,
right? He must've lied when he said the film looked the same in '69 as
it did in '63.
Or, maybe Abe was simply too stupid to see any of the major
differences in the "altered" film he viewed in court. ~shrug~
Lucky plotters all -- yet again.
=====================
"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any of the
most modern technological advances available in film and photography
could do what the buffs said was done {to the Zapruder Film} over four
decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been done back then." --
V. Bugliosi
=====================
aeffects
lame..... your lack of knowledge is ever present... your a internet PR
guy David, a horrible one at that from the looks of Bugliosi's boat
anchor/doorstop, stick to that, you get it worked out....
While I'm at it, I bet you can't tell me where, TODAY the original 4
films (in-camera original and the 3 film dupes [their KODAK control
numbers]) are located, not to mention their physical condition[s], eh?
Dazzle us with some Lone Nut brilliance -- have the other Lone Nuts
give you a hand..... If you can't tell us where they are today and
their condition, how the hell can you get ANYONE to believe you know
for a FACT where they were and in what condition during the time
period of: Nov 23rd 1963 thru Feb 20th 1964?
aeffects
> >>> "The one thing {an LNer} can't provide, thus can't PROVE, is where the in-camera Zapruder film was between Nov 23rd, 1963 and Feb 20th, 1964." <<<
>
> Which means the film MUST have been "altered" during this period,
> right?
>
> But, again, why didn't "they" simply get rid of the film?
perhaps they did, they weren't that stupid, afterall who inspected the
alleged in-camer original, no one, not even to this day has the folm's
content been verified by anyone, expert or novice..
Why risk any
> fakery being exposed in the future by crackerjack photographic experts
> who have examined every shoelace and watermark in the movie (like "The
> Healy-meister Extraordinaire" and Jack "Super Kook" White have done),
> when a trash can was nearby and handy?
ahh.... the only film expert I know that has examined the film was
Kodak's Roland Zavada, and he clearly stated the film was KODAK 8mm
film, he certified no film contents, he told me so, himself... Can you
name me anyone else? And all those Lone Nut pigs have been running
ever since, 'magine THAT folks.....
> Plus: Those film-fakers must have been sweating like pigs in 1969 when
> the film was shown to the Clay Shaw jury in New Orleans, huh? (With
> Mr. Zapruder also seeing the film and testifying it looked like the
> SAME FILM HE SAW IN HIS OFFICE ON 11/22/63 AND 11/23/63.)
yeah, was that the in-camera original? Didn't Zapruder say he never
stipped filming the Elm St sequence? I believe there is his testimony
to that fact..... YET, we see a stopdpown in the extant Z-film,
David.... can any of those Nutter's you command explain that, David?
> Those film-fakers sure got lucky (again) in '69, when Zapruder
> testified the film he saw in court looked the same as the PRE-ALTERED
> film (per the CT-Kooks) he had seen multiple times in his office in
> Nov. '63.
>
> I guess the film-fakers had Abe Zapruder in their back pockets too,
> right? He must've lied when he said the film looked the same in '69 as
> it did in '63.
How would Zapruder know the difference?
> Or, maybe Abe was simply too stupid to see any of the major
> differences in the "altered" film he viewed in court. ~shrug~
perhaps it wasn't Zapruder on the pedestal, can you provide a photo or
evidence that positively ID's him or Sitzman on the DP pedestal,
hearsay doesn't count.....? Guess we have to take a bunch of Lone
Nutting conspirators word for it...
David Von Pein
Oh, good grief. What a kook.
Abe Zapruder HIMSELF confirmed he was on the DP pedestal. Are his OWN
words about his 11/22 whereabouts in DP considered "hearsay"? .....
========================
Mr. LIEBELER - I show you a picture that has been marked Hudson
Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if you can in fact see yourself in that
picture?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Let me see--there it is here. That's me standing there--
there's a girl--that's where I was standing.
Mr. LIEBELER - You are pointing out a concrete abutment that comes up
immediately to the right of the sign that reads "Stemmons Freeway,
Keep Right"?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right. That's the girl behind me--that's my girl
that works in my office. She was up there, too.
Mr. LIEBELER - So, you and this girl are shown standing on top of this
concrete abutment there?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right---she was fight behind me and that's from
where I took the pictures.
Mr. LIEBELER - Then, you can actually see yourself in this picture,
can't you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, I can't distinguish myself being--I know I was
there.
========================
Plus, there's Zapruder telling Jay Watson and the Live WFAA-TV
audience on 11/22/63 that he "got out to shoot some pictures....and
got up on one of those big concrete blocks they have down there near
the underpass" (paraphrased Zapruder quote from his TV interview).
Is Zapruder--himself--lying when he says he was standing on a
"concrete block" down by the underpass?
>>> "Guess we have to take a bunch of Lone Nutting conspirators word for it." <<<
Why would you have to rely on any LNers to verify Zapruder's presence
on the pedestal? Abe Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman THEMSELVES have
verified their presence there.
David Von Pein
The camera-original film and 2 of the 3 first-generation copies are at
the National Archives (with the original now too brittle to ever be
run through a projector again).
The third copy resides at The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza (as
of January 2000, when many Zapruder Film-related items were donated to
the museum by the Zapruder family, along with the official copyright
of the film).
http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapruder_Press_Conference.htm
Is that good enough for you? Or does a webcam need to be fixed on
these 4 films 24/7 in order to prove where they reside every minute of
every day?
I haven't been privy to the whereabouts of Bullet CE399 every second
of every day since 11/22/63 either. Does that mean I can't have an
opinion that it was 399 that wounded JFK & JBC in 1963?
I didn't have a camera focused on Lee Oswald when he killed JFK and
Officer Tippit on Nov. 22nd either. I guess that's what it takes,
though, if you're going to have an opinion about a piece of evidence
(or about the whereabouts of a double-murderer named Lee).
Footnote.......
In order to see how utterly preposterous the notion of "Z-Film Fakery"
is, you only need to read the pages of Richard B. Trask's 2005 book
"National Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film: Mr. Zapruder's Home Movie And
The Murder Of President Kennedy".
In that book, Mr. Trask provides a detailed chronology of the history
of the Zapruder Film, from the moment Abe Zapruder took his home movie
in Dealey Plaza to the sale of the film to Life Magazine the next day.
Trask's chronology includes a little tidbit of info on Page #113 about
how Mr. Zapruder insisted on being in the darkroom at the Jamieson
Film Company while the three copies of his movie were being printed.
In short.....
THERE WAS NO TIME OR OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY Z-FILM FAKERY TO HAVE
OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE THREE ORIGINAL COPIES AT
JAMIESON'S. Period.
http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapruder_Film_Chrono.htm
aeffects
> >>> "I bet you can't tell me where, TODAY, the original 4 films (in-camera original and the 3 film dupes) are located...eh?" <<<
>
> The camera-original film and 2 of the 3 first-generation copies are at
> the National Archives (with the original now too brittle to ever be
> run through a projector again).
the proof that 2 of the 3 film dupes are located at NARA is, what?
Next you'll be telling me they're all intact. copmplete with KODAK
control numbers, eh?
There is not bit bit of absolute proof that the Zapruder in-camera
original film was EVER laced up in a projector since it left Dallas on
Nov 22/23rd
> The third copy resides at The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza (as
> of January 2000, when many Zapruder Film-related items were donated to
> the museum by the Zapruder family, along with the official copyright
> of the film).
what control number is that, again? AND along with many film dupes
both in color and black and white, 8mm and 16mm and 35mm and 35mm
trannies, etc....
> http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapruder_Press_Conference.htm
>
> Is that good enough for you? Or does a webcam need to be fixed on
> these 4 films 24/7 in order to prove where they reside every minute of
> every day?
>
> I haven't been privy to the whereabouts of Bullet CE399 every second
> of every day since 11/22/63 either.
so what? The agent who held it in his hand that day in November says
it doesn't resemble what we see today as CE399. How do we rectify
that, David?
Does that mean I can't have an
> opinion that it was 399 that wounded JFK & JBC in 1963?
of course you can, however wrong it may be!
> I didn't have a camera focused on Lee Oswald when he killed JFK and
> Officer Tippit on Nov. 22nd either. I guess that's what it takes,
> though, if you're going to have an opinion about a piece of evidence
> (or about the whereabouts of a double-murderer named Lee).
>
> Footnote.......
>
> In order to see how utterly preposterous the notion of "Z-Film Fakery"
> is, you only need to read the pages of Richard B. Trask's 2005 book
> "National Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film: Mr. Zapruder's Home Movie And
> The Murder Of President Kennedy".
what-a-farce.... and I like the guy, Trask.... He and Lone Nutter's
just can't bear to deal with the idea that over and above the
assassination something else sinister was happening... WHAT, a coup
detat in America....? The entire world knew it then, knows it today --
but not our resident Lone Neuter's and their brigades of "keep the
current WCR/LHO/SBT historical intact...
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> In that book, Mr. Trask provides a detailed chronology of the history
> of the Zapruder Film, from the moment Abe Zapruder took his home movie
> in Dealey Plaza to the sale of the film to Life Magazine the next day.
>
> Trask's chronology includes a little tidbit of info on Page #113 about
> how Mr. Zapruder insisted on being in the darkroom at the Jamieson
> Film Company while the three copies of his movie were being printed.
so what? A few FBI agent's were present too!
> In short.....
>
> THERE WAS NO TIME OR OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY Z-FILM FAKERY TO HAVE
> OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE THREE ORIGINAL COPIES AT
> JAMIESON'S. Period.
who said there was David, what don't you understand about Nov 23rd
1963 (last time anyone from the public saw the film) thru Feb 20th
1964 (when the WC saw the film, at that we don't know if they screened
the original in-camera Zapruder film?... Think foundation David....
Not for the faint-at-heart...
You really should read my article, your sounding every bit the fool
you make yourself out to be....
>
> http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapruder_Film_Chrono.htm
David Von Pein
Yes, I know. I responded to that idiocy in this post.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5228d4b250d5afd1
There was a discussion at JFK-Lancer or The Education Forum a few
years ago all about whether Mr. Z was really on the pedestal. That
discussion, as I recall, was started by Jack White (who, of course,
never saw a film or photo that didn't look "funny" to his eyes).
White invented a new wrinkle in conspiracy lore -- "The Zapruder/
Sitzman Waltz", where Mr. White-Kook seems to imply that Zapruder and/
or Sitzman weren't really on the pedestal and were "added in" to
photos later on (like the Willis picture and the Nix Film), but they
were added in incorrectly, with Sitzman actually IN FRONT of
Zapruder...hence, the dance/waltz.
It just proves that no theory is too outlandish to consider for some
of the "I Want A Conspiracy" crackpots of the world.
As I said, Jack White (as you probably realize) sees something
suspicious in nearly every picture/film taken on 11/22. The Bronson
Film looks funny to him too. And the Z-Film. Plus the Backyard Photos
of Oswald. And the Nix Film. And probably the official film of the
1963 World Series between the Dodgers and Yankees too.*
* = I'm guessing that White probably thinks it WASN'T really Sandy
Koufax on the pitching mound in Games 1 and 4....it was probably Abe
Zapruder on the Dodger Stadium mound in the decisive fourth game;
while Sandy was really filming the motorcade on 11/22....it's OBVIOUS!
Case Solved!
aeffects
> >>> "Healey isn't even sure Zapruder filmed the motorcade, per his above post." <<<
>
> Yes, I know. I responded to that idiocy in this post.....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5228d4b250d5afd1
>
> There was a discussion at JFK-Lancer or The Education Forum a few
> years ago all about whether Mr. Z was really on the pedestal. That
> discussion, as I recall, was started by Jack White (who, of course,
> never saw a film or photo that didn't look "funny" to his eyes).
>
> White invented a new wrinkle in conspiracy lore -- "The Zapruder/
> Sitzman Waltz", where Mr. White-Kook seems to imply that Zapruder and/
> or Sitzman weren't really on the pedestal and were "added in" to
> photos later on (like the Willis picture and the Nix Film), but they
> were added in incorrectly, with Sitzman actually IN FRONT of
> Zapruder...hence, the dance/waltz.
>
pass Davey Von Pein some kool-aid, he can ID Sitzman and Zapruder, the
only person in the world to do so, except Fast Eddy (88,000 graphics
jobs under his belt) Cage of course
<snip the Nutter nonsense>
David Von Pein
You mean more of a fool than David G. Healy???
Nah. That's impossible.
BTW, I have read your article, DH. It's not conclusive in the least.
You go on and on about photographic composite techniques....and that's
nice that you know a lot about such things (hooray for Davey!!). But
none of that impressive photo talk gets you anywhere nearer proving
the Z-Film was phonied-up in '63.
The film-fakery theory, on its face, has no basis in common sense.
Zilch. In fact, it crumbles to bits when confronted with any degree of
CS&L.
And you've got to jump through immunerable "What If This Really
Happened?" hoops in order to come anywhere close to your ultimate goal
of the film actually having been faked in some way.
And as you jump through each hoop, you're involving additional people
who would have had no good reason for WANTING TO DELIBERATELY FALSIFY
A HUGE PIECE OF ASSASSINATION EVIDENCE AND RISK JAIL TIME THEMSELVES.
Common sense (and proof) is NOT on your side, Dave. Surely, this fact
hasn't escaped your grasp. Has it?
David Von Pein
Therefore, per Healy's idiotic logic, if NO film or photo of the
Zapruder pedestal existed at all, this fact would HAVE to mean that
Zapruder & Sitzman could not possibly have been on that pedestal at
12:30 on November 22.
Because Healy MUST HAVE PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF VIA POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
of Mr. Z and Miss Sitzman on the pedestal....and without that positive
ID proof via photos, they just simply could not have been there on the
pedestal.
I posted Zapruder's OWN WORDS, verifying he was on that very same
pedestal that was filmed by Nix, et al....but Healy totally ignores
Zapruder's OWN WORDS. He'd rather rely on his wild imagination
instead, and actually believe there's a grain of a chance that
Zapruder (and Sitzman) LIED when they each said they were on that
pedestal.
Vince...you were ohhhhhhh so right here:
"One of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the
theorists is that they rarely ever carry their suspicions, which are
based on some discrepancy, anomaly, or contradiction they find, to
their logical conclusion. .... For them, if something looks
suspicious, that's enough. Instead of asking, "Where does this go?"--
that is, where does the discrepancy, contradiction, or whatever, lead
them?--they immediately give their minds a breather and conclude that
what they find is itself proof of a conspiracy (or proof that Oswald
is innocent). The discrepancy or contradiction is the ENTIRE story.
And being the entire story, it by itself discredits the entire twenty-
six volumes of the Warren Commission. Nothing else has to be shown or
even argued." -- Vince Bugliosi
Ben Holmes
And answered every single one of them...
>> and he answers with his own questions.
Chuckie clearly feels put upon when someone does to him what he feels perfectly
fine doing.
Notice that while I answered every single question posed by Chuckie, to the best
of my knowledge, he's not answered a single question by me. Why is that, I
wonder?
>> Ben, you just admitted that the film wasn't altered until late Dec 63/
>> early 64, right?
>
>that was me you fool, in this very thread, not to mention.....
Yep... Chuckie can't figure out who's saying what. In any case, I agree with
Aeffects, the majority of the work on the extant Z-film was undoubtably done
from Dec through Feb.
>Altering the Zapruder Film by David Healy http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html
>
>> How did the alterationists plan to deal with other copies floating
>> around?
I wonder why Chuckie clearly feels that he can *continue* to ask questions
without answering any?
There *is*, by the way, a perfect answer for this one...
>> LIFE had it that weekend, and other copies apparently were
>> made.
>
>For those interested see the below (about half way down the right
>side of the page, double click then save the .pdf to your desktop:
>
>Altering the Zapruder Film by David Healy http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html
>
>
>> Nix and Muchmore had already been purchased by other news outlets and
>> aired. Other photos and films were rumored to be hanging around.
>>
>> New amateur film just came to light this year showing the motorcade
>> this year. A film altering plot would need to know in advance that all
>> of the film and stills out there were accounted for...otherwise, the
>> plot gets uncovered if new photos contradict the altered Zfilm.
>
>
>amazing... what does this film show that verifies the films covering
>the Elm Street assassination sequence?
>
>Bring in the varsity, for chrissakes.... you're making all Nutter's
>look bad you moron!
>
>
>> Simple enough to get?
>
>we got it a long time ago, when will you?
>
>
>> Any part of that logic that you don't understand?
>
>what I dont understand is where the .john crowd finds retards such as
>your self.... especially those will so little knowledge of case
>exhibits and evidence... I'm getting to the point of calling you
>idjits "bandwidth abusers"....
That's okay... the trolls *do* serve a purpose. They demonstrate to lurkers
unsure of what to believe that one side has the evidence, and the other side has
a complete lack of honesty.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Jun 30, 10:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "But that is *NOT* what is in the archives ... *NONE* of the copies 'match'
>>each other." <<<
>>
>> LOL. More brilliance exhibited by the band of film-fakers it would
>> seem, huh? They don't even bother to have the copies match the
>> original in many ways.
DVP the troll has just been told that the King isn't wearing any clothing, and
he can't explain it at all.
*No Explanation*...
For if the WCR's theory were correct, copies would match the original, right?
But I've just thrown the trolls for a loop, because they don't even know enough
about the evidence to *realize* that the "copies" aren't copies.
>> Excellent. (They were too worried about those
>> shoes on Moorman to worry about more important details.)
And, as has been well noted before, they got the shoe color wrong.
Ben Holmes
says...
What DVP the Troll apparently believes is that the "copies" in existence today
are identical to the copies made on 11/22.
They *PROVABLY* are not.
This is why DVP, Chuckie, Martin, Bugliosi, Tony, and the rest of the nutcases
will continue to duck the questions concerning the evidence.
eca...@tx.rr.com
But consider, you are now sharing dialog
with Question Man Healey who has an IQ 20
points below rock life. Using CS&L on DH..
It sez here, you'd have a better chance
convincing a fence post. But 3rd party
observers will easily understand what
you're saying so all is not lost.
Ed Cage
0656Jul107
eca...@tx.rr.com
question" by Chuck, yet where is my answer?
How are those "galley Proofs" coming from your
fake author "John Welsh Hodges" and his non-
existent "book" you made up that was going to
"demolish" VB?
MR ;~D
0701Jul107
On Jun 30, 9:51 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1183222193.747507.29...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> a complete lack of honesty.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> >>> "You really should read my article, your [sic; as usual] sounding every bit the fool you make yourself out to be." <<<
>
> You mean more of a fool than David G. Healy???
>
> Nah. That's impossible.
>
> BTW, I have read your article, DH. It's not conclusive in the least.
well of course its not -- the premise re the article is simple, so
simple in fact even the dumbest of Lone Nutter can understand (but
can't come to grips with:
IF, the Zapruder Film was altered, was the equipment, techniques, know-
how/expertise, personnel and TIME available to do the job? AND the
intended audience is/was for ANY such alteration? Those questions were
answered...
> You go on and on about photographic composite techniques....and that's
> nice that you know a lot about such things (hooray for Davey!!). But
> none of that impressive photo talk gets you anywhere nearer proving
> the Z-Film was phonied-up in '63.
well of course it doesn't prove anything (other than it was possible
to do the job), any more than that constant Lone Nut drone: the Z-film
is unaltered, impossible... Researchers need access to the actual Z-
film (or 1st generation 4x5 trannies of alleged Z-film incamera
frames) that champ was my reason for discussions with Roland Zavada...
> The film-fakery theory, on its face, has no basis in common sense.
> Zilch. In fact, it crumbles to bits when confronted with any degree of
> CS&L.
nothing crumbles you dolt, of course there's a common sense basis. If,
for no other reason, SS malfeseance. Is the SS reputation in tact
after the assassination? What is in the lobby of at the SS HQ in
Washington? Do you know?
> And you've got to jump through immunerable "What If This Really
> Happened?" hoops in order to come anywhere close to your ultimate goal
> of the film actually having been faked in some way.
Hey David, I'm a simple researcher with a long career in image
compositing, tell me where I'm wrong in the film process -- we'll
discuss it, civilly. You can bring Eddie *88,000 graphics jobs under
his belt* Cage to the get-together as your second, I'll use Dr. John
Costella's Ph.D-Physics Great Zapruder Film Hoax presentation as my
second....
> And as you jump through each hoop, you're involving additional people
> who would have had no good reason for WANTING TO DELIBERATELY FALSIFY
> A HUGE PIECE OF ASSASSINATION EVIDENCE AND RISK JAIL TIME THEMSELVES.
No hoops to jump through David, dismantle my entire presentation,
paragraph-by-paragraph, show me the error of my ways.... I've waited
for 8 years now, not one (film credentialed) Lone Nut, Z-film (no-
alteration) supporter can be found. Even the guy who wrote the
textbook I quote numerous times in the article, begged off.... Roland
Zavada told me he traveled to Florida to consult with this same author
(he and his institutions of the years, were awarded many grants from
KODAK, Zavada employer) after the article appeared was posted to
JFKResearch in '98-'99 (it still resides there).
> Common sense (and proof) is NOT on your side, Dave. Surely, this fact
> hasn't escaped your grasp. Has it?
common sense failed in Dallas, Nov 22nd 1963, David.
Today up to 90% of the US population believe a conspiracy led to the
assassination of JFK. Probably a higher percentage in edcated parts of
the world.... Especially where politicial assassinations are more
common than elections.
So, nah, there's plenty of facts that don't escape me, including facts
like: the Academy Awards, and special film optical effects
contraptions called: optical film printers, aerial film printers, step
film printers, contact film printers, etal. Btw, film printers WON
technical achivement Academy awards, multiple times, during the 50's
and early 60's) and SMPE/SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Engineers/
Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) SMPTE has a film
techniques database dating back to 1915 covering optical film effects
and how-to -- theySTILL publishes a monthly magazine -- which, btw
Roland Zavada was a active member-officer of, and which I attended a
fair share of meetings and conventions during the last 40 years....
those kind of facts never escape competent researchers...
aeffects
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Apollo program lunar landing PHOTOS were altered or faked?
I don't know -- I hope not!
aeffects
> On Jun 30, 9:51 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <1183222193.747507.29...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Ben if it makes you feel good or special or better than others or "in
> the know" to go on believing that the Zapruder film was altered, go
> ahead.
>
> This is madness.
>
> Idiots like you and Healy or the nutjobs that listen to Coast-to-Coast
> live might believe the Zfilm was tampered with, but convince someone
> at ...
dufus, I don't listen to coast-to-coast radio.... I've wandered
around Black Op Radio archive a few times, and heard a few LIVE audio
streams though.....I've no driving need to convince a Nutter of
anything. I do enjoy you **.john 1-credit wonder, no-nothings**
attempting to sound literate when it comes to JFK assassination
related evidence....
There's a little problem called *45 questions* you no-nothings need to
address if you expect a little respect....
> read more »
David Von Pein
By malfeasance, do you mean a "plot" to kill JFK orchestrated by the
Secret Service? If so, what POSSIBLE reason would the SS have had for
disposing of their boss in Dallas? Such a theory reeks with the odor
of silliness.
Did Rowley, Behn, Hill, Roberts, Ready, McIntyre, et al, really WANT
to be looked upon as the only SS detail to ever lose a President on
their watch since 1901?
That's just....stupid.
And if you're talking about some sort of innocent, non-sinister
malfeasance (e.g., the SS just simply fell asleep at the wheel while
protecting the President)....then you've got some problems with any Z-
Film Alteration Theory there as well (which are actually the same type
problems that would also exist even if the SS had pre-planned JFK's
death in some fashion). Because it still doesn't add up, logically.
Why on Earth would the authorities feel a need to fake a film showing
JFK being killed (by ANY number of assassins; what's the difference in
this example?) just in order to protect its SS 'image'? That makes no
sense at all. With or without an "unaltered" Z-Film, the President's
still going to be dead and the SS would still be frowned upon in many
quarters for not doing its job properly in Dealey Plaza.
Think up another theory, Dave. Because either version of the "Secret
Service Malfeasance" theory is full of many holes and logic gaps.
>>> "Hey David, I'm a simple researcher with a long career in image compositing; tell me where I'm wrong in the film process." <<<
I wouldn't have the slightest idea if you are wrong or right about
most of that technical stuff re. photographic techniques. I know very
little about it; and I have no real desire to learn anything else
about it.
Like I said before, your TECHNICAL presentation re. photo techniques
looks quite palatable (whether it is all true...as I just said...I
haven't the foggiest); but the nice presentation is really a lot to do
about nothing IMO.
Because in order for the Z-Film to actually have been altered (or, per
Fetzer & Co., to have been "wholly fabricated"; ~Large Laugh Here~),
it would have required people who would have actually HAD A DESIRE TO
ALTER A *SILENT* MOVIE FILM WHEREIN NO GUNSHOTS CAN BE HEARD AT ALL.
The biggest common-sense question, therefore, remains unanswered: Why
would the proverbial and unknown "they" have wanted to fake those 26
seconds of SILENT film in the first place, instead of just tossing the
movie in the trash so it would never be seen by anyone (in any form)
again?
We all agree that examining the silent Zapruder motion picture is a
subjective exercise, at best. Everybody has a different opinion, it
seems, as to when the shots are occurring within the film.
And unless the "Real, Unaltered" original film (per CTers) truly
showed the UNDENIABLE EFFECTS of a conspiracy (i.e., shots hitting the
2 victims from the front), what possible good-enough reason would
anyone have had for wanting to risk altering this silent, subjective
movie in the first place (thereby risking their own freedom as well,
if the alterations were ever revealed and traced to them)?
I have a feeling that no conspiracy theorist can REASONABLY answer
that question.
aeffects
if it wasn't SS malfeseance or their complicity in a coverup, we're
left with two simple options: the film is true and accurate as it
stands in the NARA archives or the U.S government altered or made the
in-camera original Zapruder film available for altering to cover up a
national security concern (and there were PLENTY of concerns at that
time as alluded to by LBJ quotes)
> We all agree that examining the silent Zapruder motion picture is a
> subjective exercise, at best. Everybody has a different opinion, it
> seems, as to when the shots are occurring within the film.
opinions are one thing, yes.... try finding a Lone Nut *authentic Z-
film* expert who would testify in a court of law may be a more
difficult challenge, if at all possible...
I suspect your mentor, Bugliosi has a different take....
> And unless the "Real, Unaltered" original film (per CTers) truly
> showed the UNDENIABLE EFFECTS of a conspiracy (i.e., shots hitting the
> 2 victims from the front), what possible good-enough reason would
> anyone have had for wanting to risk altering this silent, subjective
> movie in the first place (thereby risking their own freedom as well,
> if the alterations were ever revealed and traced to them)?
bottom of a Texas landfill, David (my opinion of course, and stated
such in 1998-99)...
> I have a feeling that no conspiracy theorist can REASONABLY answer
> that question.
Oh I'd give it the ole college try. Simple, just make the *alleged* in-
camera Zapruder film available to us. Pretty sure we know what SHOULD
be on that film numbered #0183 (I'd like the 'A' side too)
Forensic testing on a few alleged Z-film frames would be nice, too
(but not necessary) -- however, a complete set of 1st generation 4x5
trannies (that can be verified as blowups of the alleged NARA in-
camera Z-film original #0183) would to the job, nicely.
At lot of this nonsense could be put to rest if Nutters delivered a un-
split, dual 8mm (Kodak-1963 film) COPY of Zapruder's in-camera
original film
David Von Pein
LOL. As if the Z-Film Fakery "nonsense" has anything to do with
"LNers" at all.
Nice CTer tactic employed here...i.e., put some degree of blame and
responsibility for the "nonsense" on the LNers who know the film has
not been faked, as if such non-alterationists have any burden to prove
the film is authentic. (I thought it was the other way around, Dave.
CTers made the claim of fakery or fabrication, so THEY need to prove
it. Or is mere conjecture enough in your opinion?)
Next thing you know, I'll have to have photographic proof that I
wasn't in Dallas on Nov. 22nd. Otherwise, I'm a prime suspect too.
And I'm probably a prime suspect in that Z-Film Fakery "nonsense" too,
unless I've got a dang good alibi. Right?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Jun 30, 8:32 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 9:51 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>ects
>> > says...
>>
>> > >On Jun 29, 10:35 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Jun 30, 12:09 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>>
> aeffects
>> > >> > says...
>>
>> > >> > >On Jun 29, 3:59 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> > >> > >> On Jun 29, 3:40 pm, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > >> > On Jun 29, 12:15 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > >> > > Ben:
>>
>at the
>> > >> > >> > > Zapruder film was altered:
>>
>n other
>> > >> > >> > > words, why bother? Certainly cold-blooded killers that were=
> unafraid
>> > >> > >> > > to post a guy on the grassy knoll in broad daylight to deli=
>ver an
>> > >> > >> > > insurance shot to JFK's head wouldn't be too worried about =
>hiding or
>> > >> > >> > > destroying some home movie, would they?
>>
>> > >> > >> > idiot -- even know nobody has access to the in-camera original
>>
>inal
>> > >> > >> wasn't altered, but the copies were?
>>
>> > >> > >chuckie, where and when did I say THAT?
>>
>essly did
>> > >> > >> > > not exist in 1963. How were these 8mm images/frames altered?
>>
>u can
>> > >> > >> > find the necessary compositing experts to support your idioti=
>c claim
>>
>> > >> > >> You're the one making the fantastic claims, not me. Shouldn't t=
>here be
>> > >> > >> some burden on you to prove your point and demonstrate how the
>> > >> > >> altering could've/would've occurred? Isn't that a fair point?
>>
>hat
>> > >> > >were answered in 1998, by me.... read my article on the subject...
>>
>> > >> > >> > > 3.) When did the alteration occur?
>>
>> > >> > >> > initially anytime between Dec '63 and late Feb '64
>>
>> > >> > >> Initially? Did they keep re-working the footage?
>>
>ra
>> > >> > >Zapruder film since 1964
>>
>ap old man
>> > >> > >> > > Zapruder on the shoulder after the shooting and just take h=
>is camera
>> > >> > >> > > away like Gordon Arnold claims happened to him?
>>
>ter fill
>> > >> > >> > us in!
>>
>> > >> > >> So you think one guy on his own somewhere altered the film in a
>> > >> > >> darkroom with no input from others?
>>
>> > >> > >who cares how many?
>>
>ge turned
>> > >> > >> > > up showing the Dallas presidential motorcade from 11/22/63.=
> Describe
>> > >>> >> > > the CIA plan to counter new film which may have popped up da=
>ys, weeks,
>> > >> > >> > > months or even years in the future that may have been shot =
>from
>> > >> > >> > > another vantage point and exposed the Zfilm alteration?
>>
>ur topic,
>> > >> > >> > beefstick!
>>
>> > >> > >> Man, you really are dumb. What a Kool-Aid drinker, you are, Hea=
>ly.
>>
>> > >> > >chuckie, your way out of your league champ.... You know what a op=
>tical
>> > >> > >film printer is, animation stand?
>>
>wed up
>> > >> > >> a few months later that contradicted the alteratins you seem to=
> think
>> > >> > >> are present on the Z film?
>>
>ines
>> > >> > >possession, 2 with the SS -- 1 altered in-camera original, 3 opti=
>cal
>> > >> > >film prints of the same -- swap 'em out wallah... take about 2 ho=
>urs
>> > >> > >labtime for the new prints....
>>
>> > >> > >> And you didn't answer my question. Typical.
>>
>> > >> > >gott'a know the questions to ask, chuckie!
>>
>e original
>> > >>> >> > > Zfilm were made. Did the conspirators make alterations of th=
>e copies,
>> > >>> >> > > too? How? How did they get the altered copies and original t=
>o match in
>> > >> > >> > > an era pre-dating computer generated digital images and edi=
>ting?
>>
>> > >> > >> > show us a certifiable comparison between the original in-came=
>ra
>> > >> > >> > Zapruder film original and the 3 Jamieson 1st generation prin=
>ts...
>> > >> > >> > perhaps Rolanda Zavada will lend you a hand, would you like h=
>is email
>> > >> > >> > address, perhaps his phone number. You do know who he is, yes?
>>
>> > >> > >> Yes, I do.
>>
>te,
>> > >> > >> with a birthdate of March, 1927, at phone number 1 (585) 248-21=
>62. If
>> > >> > >> he is still alive, why don't you call him and tell him why you =
>differ
>> > >> > >> with his conclusions?
>>
>> > >> > >Roalnd and I have talked Chuckie, more than once. He contacted Jim
>> > >> > >Fetzer, Fetzer contacted me that Roland wants to call, I told Jim
>> > >> > >Fetzer send Zavada my number, Roalnd and I have something else in
>> > >> > >common, SMPTE ....
>>
>> > >> > >Roland was going to appear at the 2003 UofMinnesota Zapruder film
>ould
>> > >> > >be presenting along with David Mantik, David Lifton and Jack Whit=
>e,
>> > >> > >AND the entire symposium was to be videotaped (which it was)
>>
>hat a 8mm
>> > >> > >> > blowup is?
>>
>hat
>> > >> > >> inhabit kook-world and the rest of us in normal world is that w=
>hen
>> > >> > >> something has been checked out as thoroughly as this has, we mo=
>ve on.
>>
>> > >> > >stop acting like an ass -- I forgot more about film composing tha=
>n any
>> > >> > >Lone Nut knows about the SBT.... People like me have made a living
>> > >> > >doing compositing work for nearly 40 years, idiot-stick -- But I
>> > >> > >forgive your ignorance....
>>
>> > >> > >> So the original wasn't altered but the copies were?
>>
> new
>> > >> > >1st generation dupes were created form the new *in-camera* film t=
>hen
>> > >> > >of course the copies will reflect the alteration... You having tr=
>ouble
>> > >> > >with a little linear thinking there, champ?
>>
>y *does*
>> > >> > answer the questions I posed, be sure to let me know. You have fa=
>r more
>> > >> > patience than I with stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > >> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > >> Ah...the old Ben pattern...you sure don't dissapoint, Ben!
>>
>> > >> Ben is asked some common sense questions,
>>
>> > And answered every single one of them...
>>
>> > >> and he answers with his own questions.
>>
>erfectly
>> > fine doing.
>>
>> > Notice that while I answered every single question posed by Chuckie, to=
> the best
>> > of my knowledge, he's not answered a single question by me. Why is tha=
>t, I
>> > wonder?
>>
>> > >> Ben, you just admitted that the film wasn't altered until late Dec 6=
>3/
>> > >> early 64, right?
>>
>> > >that was me you fool, in this very thread, not to mention.....
>>
>e with
>> > Aeffects, the majority of the work on the extant Z-film was undoubtably=
> done
>> > from Dec through Feb.
>>
>3=2Ehtml
>>
>> > >> How did the alterationists plan to deal with other copies floating
>> > >> around?
>>
>ons
>> > without answering any?
>>
>> > There *is*, by the way, a perfect answer for this one...
>>
>> > >> LIFE had it that weekend, and other copies apparently were
>> > >> made.
>>
>> > >For those interested see the below (about half way down the right
>> > >side of the page, double click then save the .pdf to your desktop:
>>
>3=2Ehtml
>>
>> > >> Nix and Muchmore had already been purchased by other news outlets and
>> > >> aired. Other photos and films were rumored to be hanging around.
>>
>> > >> New amateur film just came to light this year showing the motorcade
>ll
>> > >> of the film and stills out there were accounted for...otherwise, the
>> > >> plot gets uncovered if new photos contradict the altered Zfilm.
>>
>> > >amazing... what does this film show that verifies the films covering
>> > >the Elm Street assassination sequence?
>>
>> > >Bring in the varsity, for chrissakes.... you're making all Nutter's
>> > >look bad you moron!
>>
>> > >> Simple enough to get?
>>
>> > >we got it a long time ago, when will you?
>>
>> > >> Any part of that logic that you don't understand?
>>
>> > >what I dont understand is where the .john crowd finds retards such as
>> > >your self.... especially those will so little knowledge of case
>> > >exhibits and evidence... I'm getting to the point of calling you
>> > >idjits "bandwidth abusers"....
>>
>rkers
>> > unsure of what to believe that one side has the evidence, and the other=
> side has
>> > a complete lack of honesty.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Ben, you must have a rich fantasy life.
Nope. Is ad hominem the best you can do, Chuckie? Why can't you respond to the
points I raised ABOUT THE EVIDENCE???
Does the fact that the evidence doesn't support your theory get you down?
>> Ben if it makes you feel good or special or better than others or "in
>> the know" to go on believing that the Zapruder film was altered, go
>> ahead.
It *is* what the evidence shows. The fact that you can't deal with the evidence
in this case shows your faith, but little more.
>> This is madness.
If it truly *were* madness, you'd be able to respond to the points raised about
the evidence. Yet you can't.
>> Idiots like you and Healy or the nutjobs that listen to Coast-to-Coast
>> live might believe the Zfilm was tampered with, but convince someone
>> at ...
>
>dufus, I don't listen to coast-to-coast radio.... I've wandered
>around Black Op Radio archive a few times, and heard a few LIVE audio
>streams though.....I've no driving need to convince a Nutter of
>anything. I do enjoy you **.john 1-credit wonder, no-nothings**
>attempting to sound literate when it comes to JFK assassination
>related evidence....
>
>There's a little problem called *45 questions* you no-nothings need to
>address if you expect a little respect....
I'd be happy if Chuckie would even just answer the evidential problems that I
pointed out in the extant Z-film.
Ben Holmes
says...
Such does not exist, and trolls have no answer for why not.
There's not even a provable *copy* of the original... as I've detailed before.
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183317002.4...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Ah! Now I was feeling a little unkind for correcting your mistake the last
time, after all it *may* have been just a typo. But you have confirmed your
complete lack of intelligence by repeating the error. I can now confidently
assert that you are indeed dumber than a box of hair Healey. Still think
you're cute as a button though. I just wish it was the off button, but I
can't have everything I life I suppose.
> read more »
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sigh...I see Bennie the Dwarf allowed his nutcase slave Healy to shoot
his mouth off again.
Whenever Bennie needs backup, you can count on Healy to put on his
cheerleading outift and rah rah rah the dwarf!!
aeffects
wrote:
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sigh...I see Bennie the Dwarf allowed his nutcase slave Healy to shoot
> his mouth off again.
> Whenever Bennie needs backup, you can count on Healy to put on his
> cheerleading outift and rah rah rah the dwarf!!
sitdown you in-choate maureen -- you're irrelevant, I'm sure the
lurkers have come to that conclusion too, YoHarvey.....
Sam Brown
Perhaps you too should sit down Healey, you must have callouses on your
knees by now. This lurker thinks *you* and Benny the Dwarf are irrelevant.
Now be a good boy, someones still waiting on their order of fries and they
aren't going to get them unless you get off your bot-bot and cook them now
are they?
>
justm...@gmail.com
> "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam,
The only think Healy can say without sounding like the imbecile he is
is:
"You want fries with that shake"
If anyone is irrelevant around here it's Healy and Bennie. Those two
love birds must discuss
their plans before they come and act like fools on here. It's too
humorous watching him get shot down everytime he posts something. Just
about the same level as Chico and Ricland.
Justme
aeffects
wrote:
you're fascination with homosexual sex is duly noted, so how long have
you had this problem, snookum's? Perhaps we can get this cleared up
quickly so you can get back to the JFK assassination, you know, what
you studiously avoid at all costs, eh....
Now, if its issues about YOU having no friends, well, we can fix you
up, just fine. Just jump on a winged love bird, head your sorry ass
towards Las Vegas and I'll see to it your treated to the best case of
crabs this side of the Mississippi (and I ain't talking a Las Vegas
Strip seafood buffet)
So co'mon now, if your going to try and act like an old-timer around
here, YoHarvey -- ACT like one, no more of this 1 unit summer
school .john wonder, you....
Jesus, these children... and NOW, Justme is attempting the ole polish
Samantha's knob trick -- this is getting serioius!
eca...@tx.rr.com
MR ;~D
On Jul 1, 4:19 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1183321195.551691.311...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> There's not even a provable *copy* of the original... as I've detailed before.- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy your problem is you haven't had your knob polished in so long
it's about ready to fall off!
I happen to admire the wit and humor of some of the posters on here
and their comebacks they slam you with...among the other idiots. I
don't need to argue the JFK case...I already know LHO is guilty. I'd
much rather be here and make your life miserable. It's just soooooo
entertaining!
Not to mention the fact that none of the CT's on this group ever bring
up anything new worth discussing unless it's one of Chicos insane
theories. Even the CT's don't bother disscussing those.
Get the hint Chico??
Justme
aeffects
just answer the 45 questions you dweeb, you can troll for dates when
your through withblessing us with your extensive JFK assassination
knowledge...... ROFLMFAO!....
How's that for humor beef-stick?
Bud
You don`t know who dunnit, or exactly when it was done, just that
somone did it.
> >Altering the Zapruder Film by David Healy http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html
> >
> >> How did the alterationists plan to deal with other copies floating
> >> around?
>
> I wonder why Chuckie clearly feels that he can *continue* to ask questions
> without answering any?
Why do so many of Ben`s "answers" end in question marks?
> There *is*, by the way, a perfect answer for this one...
Which he won`t give, because it looks silly in print.
Well, the normal ones that understand what you are truly
suggesting will lean towards the LN point of view. The morons you can
have. If they think the conspiracators can go anywhere, and do
anything, and make anyone do anything they wish, that they can
coordinate the shifting needs of the cover-up with the technical
evidence manipulators, and keep all this this co-ordination and
communication quiet for decades, then they are destined to be kooks,
and will probably be taken in by the impossible yarns you relate.
Sam Brown
Below par, as expected dip-stick! Keep it up Justme, its fab fun!
>
>
>