The "Other" Zapruder film
Gil Jesus
as described by the eyewitnesses.
Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
is a fake.
tomnln
HSCA >>> http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"Gil Jesus" <GJJ...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:tvu5d3lu2vef81us1...@4ax.com...
bigdog
> One of those Alterations is Explained on page 68 of Volume I of the
> HSCA >>>http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
>
>
> news:tvu5d3lu2vef81us1...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
> > as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> > Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> > ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> > is a fake.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Crackpot is too kind a word to use to describe people who actually
believe this shit.
YoHarvey
> The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
> as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> is a fake.
>
roflmao. Nuff said.
cdddraftsman
> The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
> as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> is a fake.
>
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6czvclg
No wonder you two share the Golden Sombrero Award so often !
Martin Shackelford
Zapruder film," but he and Della Rosa give different descriptions of its
contents.
Martin
"Gil Jesus" <GJJ...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:tvu5d3lu2vef81us1...@4ax.com...
Lone
> I know of at least one other person who also claim to have seen "the real
> Zapruder film," but he and Della Rosa give different descriptions of its
> contents.
>
> Martin
>
>
> news:tvu5d3lu2vef81us1...@4ax.com...
>
> > The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
> > as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> > Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> > ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> > is a fake.
>
You got to tell apart the following:
There is the real Zapruder film which none out of the ordinary people
have seen yet.
And there is a second film, shot from a guy in the shadow of the
pergola behind and above Zapruder...
Rich DellaRosa
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I know of at least one other person who also claim to have seen "the real
> Zapruder film," but he and Della Rosa give different descriptions of its
> contents.
>
> Martin
Really?? I don't suppose you'd name that person? I know at least 6 who
give identical descriptions -- yet no 2 of them ever viewed it at the
same time or place.
Hey do you think Judyth saw it??
>
> "Gil Jesus" <GJJ...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:tvu5d3lu2vef81us1...@4ax.com...
> > The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
> > as described by the eyewitnesses.
> >
> > Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> > ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> > is a fake.
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6jYkC&pg=PA463&lpg=PA463&dq=dellaros
> > a+zapruder&source=web&ots=r8sRL0YZeB&sig=WkQq-vulcZ_4eg1aaEzfAcWv2kk#PPA464,
> > M1
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Gil Jesus
have seen the REAL Zapruder film and their descriptions of it are
similar to Mr. DellaRosa's.
Sorry, Bigdog, "crackpot shit" isn't usually verifiable. Several
witnesses have seen the same thing. Now shut up and go sniff some ass.
Burly...@gmail.com
> as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> is a fake.
>
That's odd...
The Zapruder film doesn't show any "wounds"--plural. I know it shows
*a* wound-- the head wound--and that head wound as seen in the film is
identical to where Abraham Zapruder placed his fingers on his head,
as he described the assassination on Dallas' ABC TV News affiliate,
WFAA shortly after the shooting.
Marilyn Sitzman gave a rather graphic description of the head wound
to Josiah Thompson in her interview, which fits the head wound to a
"T", which is "between the eye and the ear". Just as the Zapruder
film we've all seen shows it.
Bobby Hargis, the guy you insulted by posting an interview on Youtube
that he clearly states ''cannot be shown publicly...'' described it
as an explosion on the right side of his head in an interview for, I
believe the Garrison trial. His description is revealed in what the
Zapruder film shows.
Only the desperate conspiracy theorist believes this film is
''fake''.
Ben Holmes
Burly...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Aug 27, 12:34 pm, GJJm...@aol.com(Gil Jesus) wrote:
>> The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
>> as described by the eyewitnesses.
>>
>> Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
>> ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
>> is a fake.
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6jYkC&pg=PA463&lpg=PA463&dq=d...
>
>
>That's odd...
What's odd is that you fail to mention any closeup eyewitnesses to JFK's large
BOH wound. There's over 40 of them, you shouldn't have any problems finding
one.
> The Zapruder film doesn't show any "wounds"--plural. I know it shows
>*a* wound-- the head wound--and that head wound as seen in the film is
>identical to where Abraham Zapruder placed his fingers on his head,
>as he described the assassination on Dallas' ABC TV News affiliate,
>WFAA shortly after the shooting.
>
> Marilyn Sitzman gave a rather graphic description of the head wound
>to Josiah Thompson in her interview, which fits the head wound to a
>"T", which is "between the eye and the ear". Just as the Zapruder
>film we've all seen shows it.
>
> Bobby Hargis, the guy you insulted by posting an interview on Youtube
>that he clearly states ''cannot be shown publicly...'' described it
>as an explosion on the right side of his head in an interview for, I
>believe the Garrison trial. His description is revealed in what the
>Zapruder film shows.
>
> Only the desperate conspiracy theorist believes this film is
>''fake''.
Hardly "desperate" at all. The extant film, EVEN AS ALTERED, contains quite
convincing proof of conspiracy. It's simply not in the same league as the
original.
"Desperate", in fact, would describe those who want to argue that the film is
legitimate. You can't even produce a SINGLE film that still has the numbers
punched in it (0183, 0185, 0186, 0187) Why is that?
Why does one of the SS copies that still *does* photographically show the 0183,
SHOW A SPLICE BETWEEN THE MOTORCADE AND THE PUNCHED NUMBER???
Why isn't there any "flash frame" after the Z-132/Z-133 juncture?
The questions can go on and on... indeed, several *books* have been written on
the topic.
And those who believe the film hasn't been altered are indeed "desperate"
Gil Jesus
> Bobby Hargis, the guy you insulted by posting an interview on Youtube
> that he clearly states ''cannot be shown publicly...''
Oh, are you the asshole who commented that you were upset that I
posted it and you were going to "talk to him about it "? You know, I
could have easily edited that part of it out, but I wanted it in for
effect to show how people can say one thing publicly and another
privately.
If you have a beef with anyone, it's the video's producers, not me.
THEY made it public by selling it to people like me. I didn't make a
profit on it. Besides, Hargis should have insisted that the cameras be
stopped or he could have remained silent. The option was his. He knew
he was on camera and it was rolling. I'm sure he also signed a release
form, as is the normal procedure.
So stop crying about it already. You're boring people.
aeffects
> In article <s6TAi.452$Sd4....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I know of at least one other person who also claim to have seen "the real
> > Zapruder film," but he and Della Rosa give different descriptions of its
> > contents.
>
> > Martin
>
> Really?? I don't suppose you'd name that person? I know at least 6 who
> give identical descriptions -- yet no 2 of them ever viewed it at the
> same time or place.
>
> Hey do you think Judyth saw it??
>
rotflmao!
>
> > "Gil Jesus" <GJJm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:tvu5d3lu2vef81us1...@4ax.com...
> > > The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
> > > as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> > > Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> > > ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> > > is a fake.
>
> > >http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6jYkC&pg=PA463&lpg=PA463&dq=d...
> > > a+zapruder&source=web&ots=r8sRL0YZeB&sig=WkQq-vulcZ_4eg1aaEzfAcWv2kk#PPA464,
> > > M1
>
> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/http://www.jfkresearch.com
aeffects
> In article <1188307383.635998.236...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> BurlyGu...@gmail.com says...
which brings up the mysterious #0184.... where oh where did you
go....?
> Why does one of the SS copies that still *does* photographically show the 0183,
> SHOW A SPLICE BETWEEN THE MOTORCADE AND THE PUNCHED NUMBER???
>
> Why isn't there any "flash frame" after the Z-132/Z-133 juncture?
>
> The questions can go on and on... indeed, several *books* have been written on
> the topic.
I recall two in particular....
Gil Jesus
>
> Crackpot is too kind a word to use to describe people who actually
> believe this shit.
Hey poochie:
That "shit" (that there were multiple versions of the Zapruder film)
surfaced in the Life Magazine issue of 2 October 1964.
aeffects
> On Aug 27, 12:34 pm, GJJm...@aol.com(Gil Jesus) wrote:
>
> > The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
> > as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> > Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> > ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> > is a fake.
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6jYkC&pg=PA463&lpg=PA463&dq=d...
>
> That's odd...
>
> The Zapruder film doesn't show any "wounds"--plural. I know it shows
> *a* wound-- the head wound--and that head wound as seen in the film is
> identical to where Abraham Zapruder placed his fingers on his head,
> as he described the assassination on Dallas' ABC TV News affiliate,
> WFAA shortly after the shooting.
>
> Marilyn Sitzman gave a rather graphic description of the head wound
> to Josiah Thompson in her interview, which fits the head wound to a
> "T", which is "between the eye and the ear". Just as the Zapruder
> film we've all seen shows it.
was MSitzman providing support for her "boss" while standing on the
pedestal with her "boss"
> Bobby Hargis, the guy you insulted by posting an interview on Youtube
> that he clearly states ''cannot be shown publicly...'' described it
> as an explosion on the right side of his head in an interview for, I
> believe the Garrison trial. His description is revealed in what the
> Zapruder film shows.
>
> Only the desperate conspiracy theorist believes this film is
> ''fake''.
desperate stomping of LN feet, saying it ain't so, doesn't help the LN
cause one bit.....
Rudy Lasparri
Burly...@gmail.com wrote:
Look, if you believe the WCR and Oswald did it, you would believe the
extant Z film is unaltered. No surprise there. Some would rather curse
the darkness than light just one little candle.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Lone" <amsei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188298706.7...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
As I recall, he has posted here.
As for Judyth, no, her claims are less crazy than yours.
Martin
"Rich DellaRosa" <rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:richdell-1659A3...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Martin Shackelford
One of the three claimed to have seen the "real Zapruder film" in a theater
or on TV.
Martin
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1188304524....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188314326.4...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Reymond was the fellow I had in mind. Thanks for reminding me about Scott.
> One of the three claimed to have seen the "real Zapruder film" in a theater
> or on TV.
>
> Martin
Neither one claimed to have seen it on TV or in a theatre. Keep
spinning your tales.
Rich DellaRosa
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I think you know about the European journalist who has said he saw it, Rich.
> As I recall, he has posted here.
> As for Judyth, no, her claims are less crazy than yours.
>
> Martin
Yes I am aware of French photojournalist William Reymond and his
description of the film meshes with mine in every detail.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
curtjester1
> as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> is a fake.
>
CIA Item 450 released via the Freedom of Information suit indicated
that the Zapruder film was at the National Photo Interpretation Center
possibly on the night of the assassination and if not, "certainly
within days of the assassination." One of the documents tells of the
existence of either a negative or master positive of the film and call
for the production of four prints---one "test print" and three
dupicates. (Interestinly that's what existed in Dallas the day of the
assassination).
C.D. Jackson was the organizer of the elitist group The Bilderbergers
if you dare want to make a connection.
CJ
curtjester1
wrote:
> I know of at least one other person who also claim to have seen "the real
> Zapruder film," but he and Della Rosa give different descriptions of its
> contents.
>
> Martin
>
>
> news:tvu5d3lu2vef81us1...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
> > as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> > Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> > ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> > is a fake.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
>From Farewell America, which claims ties to Foreign Intelligence and
implications that it had been sought and used by the Kennedy's to get
to the bottom of the assassination:
"We were fortunate enough to obtain two copies of this film, from two
different sources in the U.S. One is a poor copy, the other of
excellent quality. We have run through this film dozens of times.
Certain of the photographs taken from it and published by leading
magazines throughout the world have been retouched. Others were never
published at all. These faked photographs and these cuts were the
work of photographic technicians of Time-Life, Inc., who were acting
on offical instructions."
CJ
Rich DellaRosa
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.jfkresearch.com/melanson.html
HIDDEN EXPOSURE
Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder film
by
Philip H. Melanson
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Rich DellaRosa
HIDDEN EXPOSURE
Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder film
by
Philip H. Melanson
http://www.jfkresearch.com/melanson.html
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Gil Jesus
> > HIDDEN EXPOSURE
> Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder film
> by
> Philip H. Melanson
>
> http://www.jfkresearch.com/melanson.html
>
> --
Lurkers, the important thing to remember in dealing with the validity
of eyewitness accounts is if they are corroborated. People in Dealey
Plaza described the shooting in terms that were mirrored by those who
saw the Zapruder film that weekend.
I think anyone would be hard pressed to explain how it was that people
at different times and in different places made the same mistake about
what they saw. Especially when some of them saw it over and over
again.
Those descriptions do not match the Zapruder film that was made public
in 1975, the film we know as the Zapruder film today.
It isn't rocket science. The CIA had the film. The same CIA who gave
us the famous pic of Oswald in Mexico City that wasn't Oswald and the
same CIA who gave us the "red haired Cuban paid Oswald to kill JFK"
hoax.
justm...@gmail.com
Chico? Give advice to your moronic groupies, LN's will never listen to
the shit you spew.
You have a vivid imagination, you should have been writing fairy tales
for a living.
Martin Shackelford
long-established now.
Martin
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188403447.0...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
heavily penetrated by the KGB? That makes it interesting for different
reasons.
Martin
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188404573....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Rich DellaRosa" <rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:richdell-15FE05...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1188410530....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
> This is a lot of nonsense.
>
> Martin
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Martin....the name Gil Jesus translates to a lot of nonsense. No
surprises that whatever he types is something from the dark corner of
what little mind he has left trying to come out and make it's debut.
Martin Shackelford
on some issues, you make no more sense than tomnln or Ben Holmes.
Martin
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188468675....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Martin must not be familiar with many of the posts from Gil "HE'S
COUGHING UP A BULLET" Jesus. ;)
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> You don't mention, Rich, that the article you cite is a very outdated one.
>
> Martin
What's outdated about it Martin? Because Melanson is dead?? The
reference is CIA document #450. Has the invisible ink kicked in and
erased the content?? Or is it because you don't agree with it?
Rich DellaRosa
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> You don't mention, Rich, that the article you cite is a very outdated one.
>
> Martin
Why do you think it is outdated??
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Rich DellaRosa
"justm...@gmail.com" <justm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 6:06 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > This is a lot of nonsense.
> >
> > Martin
THIS is nonsense?? You must not be able to recognize nonsense when you
see it. Many, many of us think Judyth is the epitome of nonsense.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Were you aware that the book was produced by French intelligence, which was
> heavily penetrated by the KGB? That makes it interesting for different
> reasons.
>
> Martin
Are you still looking for Commies under the bed??
Rich DellaRosa
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> It wasn't at CIA the night of the assassination. That's been
> long-established now.
>
> Martin
Have you read Homer McMahon's ARRB testimony?? You make statements like
that as if you're an oracle.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Ben Holmes
DellaRosa says...
>
>In article <4DwBi.696$ZA5...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> It wasn't at CIA the night of the assassination. That's been
>> long-established now.
No, it *hasn't been*. Martin will refuse to defend this false statement of his
- my crystal ball is speaking again...
>> Martin
>
>Have you read Homer McMahon's ARRB testimony?? You make statements like
>that as if you're an oracle.
The evidence is actually quite persuasive that the Z-film *WAS* in the hands of
the CIA on the weekend, if not the night, of the assassination.
Martin won't provide any specifics for his statement... he'll top-post, avoid
supporting his words, and run away.
curtjester1
wrote:
> Were you aware that the book was produced by French intelligence, which was
> heavily penetrated by the KGB? That makes it interesting for different
> reasons.
>
> Martin
>
show that a real CIA affilliate was spouting with what he knew without
wanting to implicate himself. I doubt seriously the KGB would be in
that Photo studiio of the CIA, and if you think so, why don't you
spill the beans?
I see no reason why the film couldn't have been anywhere very soon
after the assassination. I will wait for your reply by your other
'antagonists' here.
CJ
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188404573....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 6:51 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> I know of at least one other person who also claim to have seen "the real
> >> Zapruder film," but he and Della Rosa give different descriptions of its
> >> contents.
>
> >> Martin
>
> >> "Gil Jesus" <GJJm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:tvu5d3lu2vef81us1...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
> >> > as described by the eyewitnesses.
>
> >> > Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
> >> > ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
> >> > is a fake.
>
> >> >http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6jYkC&pg=PA463&lpg=PA463&dq=d...
> >> >Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>From Farewell America, which claims ties to Foreign Intelligence and
> > implications that it had been sought and used by the Kennedy's to get
> > to the bottom of the assassination:
>
> > "We were fortunate enough to obtain two copies of this film, from two
> > different sources in the U.S. One is a poor copy, the other of
> > excellent quality. We have run through this film dozens of times.
> > Certain of the photographs taken from it and published by leading
> > magazines throughout the world have been retouched. Others were never
> > published at all. These faked photographs and these cuts were the
> > work of photographic technicians of Time-Life, Inc., who were acting
> > on offical instructions."
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Please exsplain WHY the authorities placed a black bar on the botton the the
frames
where "most of the action takes place"?"?
From HSCA Volume I pages 68 through 94.
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
<Burly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188307383.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 27, 12:34 pm, GJJm...@aol.com(Gil Jesus) wrote:
>> The extant Zapruder film does not represent President Kennedy's wounds
>> as described by the eyewitnesses.
>>
>> Rich Dellarosa describes "the other film" of the assassination that he
>> ACTUALLY SAW that proves that the extant Zapruder film (as we know it)
>> is a fake.
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6jYkC&pg=PA463&lpg=PA463&dq=d...
>
>
> That's odd...
>
> The Zapruder film doesn't show any "wounds"--plural. I know it shows
> *a* wound-- the head wound--and that head wound as seen in the film is
> identical to where Abraham Zapruder placed his fingers on his head,
> as he described the assassination on Dallas' ABC TV News affiliate,
> WFAA shortly after the shooting.
>
> Marilyn Sitzman gave a rather graphic description of the head wound
> to Josiah Thompson in her interview, which fits the head wound to a
> "T", which is "between the eye and the ear". Just as the Zapruder
> film we've all seen shows it.
>
> Bobby Hargis, the guy you insulted by posting an interview on Youtube
> that he clearly states ''cannot be shown publicly...'' described it
> as an explosion on the right side of his head in an interview for, I
> believe the Garrison trial. His description is revealed in what the
> Zapruder film shows.
>
> Only the desperate conspiracy theorist believes this film is
> ''fake''.
>
tomnln
You already know that when people attacke me, I RETALIATE.
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:z6xBi.708$ZA5...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Sam Brown
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:z6xBi.708$ZA5...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> on some issues, you make no more sense than tomnln or Ben Holmes.
Holy Crap! That bad! Really?
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Rudy Lasparri" <Rud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RudyL39-8F6906...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Martin Shackelford
of wisdom?
Martin
"Rich DellaRosa" <rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:richdell-44A379...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Martin Shackelford
was shown to be nonsense.
Martin
"Rich DellaRosa" <rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:richdell-049E13...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Martin Shackelford
KGB has long been known. It's ancient history.
Martin
"Rudy Lasparri" <Rud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RudyL39-863836...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Martin Shackelford
The CIA documents involved refer to the LIFE Magazine issue which came out
the following week. They clearly had access to it at the time they had the
film, which places it at CIA days after Nov. 22.
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:fb6jh...@drn.newsguy.com...
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Because it cotains assumptions that were later proven incorrect.
>
> Martin
Would you care to list them?? No, wait . . if you say it -- it must be
true. Gee I forgot.
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm just tired of the same nonsense being repeated over and over after it
> was shown to be nonsense.
>
> Martin
Fantasy interviewer: "Mr Shackelford, can you sum up the Judyth Baker
case for us??"
Shack: "I'm just tired of the same nonsense being repeated over and over
after it was shown to be nonsense."
Fantasy interviewer: "Thank you for that concise report . . at long
last."
Martin Shackelford
Friday, November 22: In Zapruder's camera, in his office safe, to WFAA
(still in the camera, held by his partner Erwin Schwartz as Zapruder is
interviewed), to Eastman Kodak for developing, to Jamieson Lab for copies
(two given to the Secret Service at Zapruder's office; one is kept in
Dallas, the other is sent to Secret Service in Washington with a cover
note), and then his safe. The second copy is temporarily loaned to the FBI
in Dallas (likely how Dan Rather later saw it on Nov. 25).
Saturday, November 23: At his office, then the original and a copy go to
LIFE--the original to LIFE's Chicago office, the copy to LIFE's New York
office. LIFE Chicago makes another copy of the film which is also sent to
the New York office, then black and white copies of individual frames for
the following week's issue. .The second Secret Service copy is temporarily
loaned to the FBI in Dallas that afternoon. It is sent to the FBI lab in
Washington, which makes three copies, retaining one and sending the Secret
Service copy and two FBI copies back to Dallas.
Sunday, November 24: The issue of LIFE with the Zapruder frames begins
printing.
Monday, November 25: Dan Rather is allowed one viewing of a copy of the
film, probably one of the FBI copies returned from Washington.
Tuesday, November 26: The LIFE issue hits newsstands.The FBI returns the
second Secret Service copy to Forrest Sorrels in Dallas. Time-LIFE editors
order copies of the film for themselves.
November 29 or after: At the request of the Secret Service, the CIA makes
copies of frames from the D.C. Secret Service copy of the film at their
National Photographic Interpretation Center. Two sets of two briefing boards
are created, and notes mention referring to the LIFE magazine issue. A
Secret Service agent remains with the film, and takes it with him when the
work is done. He also takes one of two sets of the briefing boards with him.
The other is sent to a CIA storage facility.
November 30: LIFE releases six frames from the film to the general press.
December 3: One of the FBI copies is returned to the Dallas FBI office.
December 6: LIFE prints color copies of some of the frames in a special
issue.
December 30: The CIA asks to borrow an FBI copy of the film "solely for
training purposes." Instead, J. Lee Rankin arranged for LIFE to provide the
CIA with a copy.
1964
January 7: LIFE tries to claim that the Secret Service copies came from
LIFE, not from Zapruder.
January 27: The FBI provides one of their second-generation copies for
examination by Lyndal Shaneyfelt at a Warren Commission session. This is the
best copy the Commission has a chance to study in detail. The Secret Service
agent present doesn't mention that the Secret Service has a copy one
generation closer to the original. Rankin later explains that they didn't
subpoena the original because it was LIFE's "private property."
February 25: LIFE voluntarily projects the original film for the Commission
several times, In April, LIFE gave the Commission, FBI and Secret Service
three partial slide sets (frames 171 to 334).
May 24: The FBI uses the film to stage a re-enactment.
September 25: The FBI copy of the film and the LIFE slides are deposited in
the National Archives. A 16mm copy is made available for public viewing, but
only at the Archives.
October 2: LIFE publishes another issue with color frames from the film,
including 313 for the first time.
November 30: The Warren Commission 26 volumes are released, including an FBI
album of black and white frame enlargements.
1966
November 22: LIFE publishes a more extensive collection of the frames in
color, and calls for a new investigation of the case.
December 1: Joining the LIFE investigation, Josiah Thompson is given access
to 5x7 color transparencies of the frames.
1967
May 15: LIFE finally registers its copyright of the film.
October 1: LIFE allows Josiah Thompson to publish the six "missing frames"
but no others.
1968
LIFE sends the film to a New Jersey photo lab to have 35mm copies made. One
of the test copies falls into the hands of Robert Groden, who creates a
steadied copy of the film.
1969
February 13: Zapruder testifies at the Clay Shaw trial and a LIFE copy of
the film is shown five times. While in possession of Jim Garrison's office,
100 bootleg copies of the film are made and circulated by Mark Lane (further
bootleg copies are made from these copies). The film is shown five more
times during the trial, once in a frame-by-frame showing.
November 1: The Texas Observer offers inexpensive bootleg copies to its
readers.
1972
A bootleg copy is shown during protests at the Miami Republican convention.
1973
November: The Assassination Information Bureau offers a set of selected
frame slides, and uses a Mark Lane bootleg during its lectures. Lane is also
using a bootleg during his own lectures.
1975
January 31: Robert Groden first publicly shows his steadied copy at a JFK
research conference in Boston.
February 1: Groden screens the film for the Rockefeller Commission.
March 6: The film is first shown on national television, on Geraldo Rivera's
ABC latenight program "Goodnight, America." The program shows the film again
on March 27.
April 9: Time-LIFE sells the film back to the Zapruder family for $1. The
National Archvies was given a first generation copy, a second generation
copy, and a set of transparencies the same day.
April 29: The Zapruder family places the original film in the National
Archives.
November 25: CBS includes the film in a special on the assassination. ABC
had tried to use the film in its own special, but was denied by the Zapruder
family.
1976
February 18: Henry Zapruder offers to sell copies of the film for $300 plus
the cost of copying, for research purposes only.
November 22: Channel 11 in Fort Worth purchases a copy of the film and
broadcasts it. KERA-TV, the public television station in Dallas, had
declined an opportunity to broadcast the film.
1978
September 6: The HSCA shows the film on public television during broadcast
of its hearings.
Robert Groden offers sets of frame slides (133-486) for sale to researchers.
Martin
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188488921.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Examination of the full set of documents showed that they made reference to
the LIFE magazine article which came out on November 26, and that they
examined the film at the request of the Secret Service (a request made no
sooner than November 29).
Martin
"Rudy Lasparri" <Rud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RudyL39-4AD384...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Well, that explains a lot. If you believe that timeline it's no longer
a puzzle why you believe Judyth.
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> One of the assumptions was that the CIA had the film on Friday, November 22.
> Examination of the full set of documents showed that they made reference to
> the LIFE magazine article which came out on November 26, and that they
> examined the film at the request of the Secret Service (a request made no
> sooner than November 29).
>
> Martin
That's right Martin, the hell with the documents uncovered by
Fensterwald and Melanson and the hell with Homer McMahon's sworn ARRB
testimony. The hell with Newcomb & Adams research in "Murder From
Within." You make statements without any substantiating citations --
and of course, you wish everyone to believe you. You don't have time to
substantiate your claims, you done so before (BC or AD?), the dog ate
you reference material, you have no demonstrated regard for truth,
everyone is wrong while you are right, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Martin Shackelford
website.
Let's see your evidence that it's inaccurate, Rudy.
Martin
"Rudy Lasparri" <Rud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RudyL39-7E8BB9...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Martin Shackelford
additional ones that were pried loose from the CIA.
As for McMahon, relying solely on one witness is a thin reed.
The fact is that because the CIA made reference to the LIFE issue, they
could NOT have been analyzing the film on Friday, November 22.
As for Newcomb and Adams, they were wrong about quite a few things. Perhaps
you should re-read them.
As for reference material, the timeline I provided derives from the most
detailed source-documented database on the history of the Zapruder film
available, to my knowledge. I spent years researching it, and it relies on
every reliable source you are likely to be able to name. .
Martin
"Rudy Lasparri" <Rud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RudyL39-F9D6F6...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
What about Hawkeye Works??
Life's publication deadline placed sense of urgency for NPIC to complete
their work, establish 9 3-shot scenarios of
which 5 could not be accomplished by a single gunman. The
camera-original and the 3 Dallas copies were replaced by the new NPIC
master and the 3 NPIC copies.
Erwin Schwartz stated in later years that Time-Life took possession of
the film, not on Saturday the 23th but on Monday the 25. CIA #450 advised
that the camera original and 3 copies (from Jamieson) were not in Dallas
that weekend -- they were at NPIC in Washington.
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> JFK Lancer also accepts that timeline--they posted my timeline on their
> website.
> Let's see your evidence that it's inaccurate, Rudy.
>
> Martin
Lancer??? LOL! The established timeline is wrong and a part of the
cover story. Read Melanson's article again slowly and perhaps find
someone to read it to someone at Lancer.
Martin Shackelford
allegations. This is one of the claims made by David Lifton, and it doesn't
hold up.
Your second paragraph makes claims which you can't substantiate.
Schwartz was confused. LIFE got the film on Saturday, but the contract for
ALL RIGHTS was signed on Monday.
Perhaps you'd care to post a link to "CIA #450" so everyone is sure what you
are talking about--otherwise it is mumbo-jumbo, and will be regarded as
such.
Martin
"Rudy Lasparri" <Rud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RudyL39-108C1E...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Martin Shackelford
timeline drawn from every currently available source.
I'm quite familiar with Melanson, and always admired his work.
You would do much better not to patronize.
Martin
"Rudy Lasparri" <Rud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RudyL39-3F8B97...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Sorry, Rudy. What I posted is not "the established timeline," but my own
> timeline drawn from every currently available source.
> I'm quite familiar with Melanson, and always admired his work.
> You would do much better not to patronize.
>
> Martin
>
Please don't give me advise. If I followed your lead I would find the
silliest mind-boggling theory and promote the hell out of it for the
next 8 or 9 years and lie anytime I'm asked for proof.
Your timeline isn't any better than the "official" timeline. You're
Harry Livingstone's butt boy, what does he say about the "other" film??
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm fully aware of the Kodak Rochester Hawkeye Works and the related
> allegations. This is one of the claims made by David Lifton, and it doesn't
> hold up.
> Your second paragraph makes claims which you can't substantiate.
> Schwartz was confused. LIFE got the film on Saturday, but the contract for
> ALL RIGHTS was signed on Monday.
> Perhaps you'd care to post a link to "CIA #450" so everyone is sure what you
> are talking about--otherwise it is mumbo-jumbo, and will be regarded as
> such.
>
> Martin
Do your own research -- if you know how. There's no evidence shown here
that you do.
The info about the film going to Hawkeye works didn't come from Lifton
primarily. It came from ARRB testimony but the name Hawkeye Works
apparently was classified. In the ARRB testimony it is referred to as a
"top secret facility in Rochester."
Martin Shackelford
done.
Martin
"Rudy Lasparri" <Rud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RudyL39-DB0BF1...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Ben Holmes
>
>I don't treat insults as valid questions. If that's all you have, we're
>done.
>
>Martin
You don't treat real questions any differently, Martin.
If they point out facts that you can't explain - you simply run away.
Everyone knows that.
curtjester1
doesn't mean IMO, that a copy couldn't have been hidden, or held back,
or a copy switched for an apparent original along the way.
BTW, where is the claimed original Z film supposedly held now?
CJ
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> While that is a lot of research and an extensive list of events, it
> doesn't mean IMO, that a copy couldn't have been hidden, or held back,
> or a copy switched for an apparent original along the way.
>
> BTW, where is the claimed original Z film supposedly held now?
NARA been there for quite sometime.... The 6thfloor has one of the
original 3 Jamieson optical film dupes...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Sep 4, 9:33 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> While that is a lot of research and an extensive list of events, it
>> doesn't mean IMO, that a copy couldn't have been hidden, or held back,
>> or a copy switched for an apparent original along the way.
>>
>> BTW, where is the claimed original Z film supposedly held now?
>
>
>NARA been there for quite sometime.... The 6thfloor has one of the
>original 3 Jamieson optical film dupes...
Dupe of *what*?
There isn't *ANY* film in existence that has the punched numbers, 0183, 0185,
0186, 0187... only *one* of the SS copies shows the original with the punched
numbers - BUT SHOWS A SPLICE BETWEEN IT AT THE REST OF THE FILM!!
Martin has been running in the opposite direction - he can't explain this. Nor
has any LNT'er tried to do so...
*COMPLETELY* unexplicable if you believe the official 'time-line' of the film -
or if you believe that the extant film is completely authentic.
Martin Shackelford
too.
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:fbjn5...@drn.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
Archives College Park branch.
Jamieson executed an affidavit that only three copies were made of the film
on November 22. We have good information on the sources of other
copies--those made by the FBI lab, those made for Time-LIFE executives,
those made during the Shaw trial, etc.
Martin
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188923585....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:fbkor...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Is Robert Groden also an LN? Or just those who fit your quirky definition?
>
>Martin
Martin... once again, you simply ducked and ran away. Why is that? Why can't
you support your opinion that the extant Z-film is authentic?
Why are you unable to respond to the evidence that it IS NOT!?
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:fbkor...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <1188941623....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
>> aeffects
>> says...
>>>
>>>On Sep 4, 9:33 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> While that is a lot of research and an extensive list of events, it
>>>> doesn't mean IMO, that a copy couldn't have been hidden, or held back,
>>>> or a copy switched for an apparent original along the way.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, where is the claimed original Z film supposedly held now?
>>>
>>>
>>>NARA been there for quite sometime.... The 6thfloor has one of the
>>>original 3 Jamieson optical film dupes...
>>
>>
>> Dupe of *what*?
Dead Silence...
>> There isn't *ANY* film in existence that has the punched numbers, 0183,
>> 0185, 0186, 0187... only *one* of the SS copies shows the original with the
>> punched numbers - BUT SHOWS A SPLICE BETWEEN IT AT THE REST OF THE FILM!!
>>
>> Martin has been running in the opposite direction - he can't explain this.
>> Nor has any LNT'er tried to do so...
And, predictably, Martin *STILL* refuses to address the issue.
>> *COMPLETELY* unexplicable if you believe the official 'time-line' of the
>> film - or if you believe that the extant film is completely authentic.
Cat got your tongue, Martin??
aeffects
> In article <1188941623.289177.82...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
>
>
>
> >On Sep 4, 9:33 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> While that is a lot of research and an extensive list of events, it
> >> doesn't mean IMO, that a copy couldn't have been hidden, or held back,
> >> or a copy switched for an apparent original along the way.
>
> >> BTW, where is the claimed original Z film supposedly held now?
>
> >NARA been there for quite sometime.... The 6thfloor has one of the
> >original 3 Jamieson optical film dupes...
>
> Dupe of *what*?
the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film. The family received the
one of the 3 Jameison dupes that originally went to LIFE (on or around
11/23/63)
> There isn't *ANY* film in existence that has the punched numbers, 0183, 0185,
> 0186, 0187... only *one* of the SS copies shows the original with the punched
> numbers - BUT SHOWS A SPLICE BETWEEN IT AT THE REST OF THE FILM!!
for the record each of the 3 original Jamieson dupes should ALSO show
the control number of #0183 (alleged in-camera original from which the
dupes were created). That number should appear just before the DP
sequence on all three film dupes... as discussed above it does NOT!
> Martin has been running in the opposite direction - he can't explain this. Nor
> has any LNT'er tried to do so...
correct.... more time spent reviewing the alleged in-camera Zapruder
film, more question arise....
> ...
>
> read more ยป
aeffects
> This seems to be the opinion of your tiny clique, Ben--but we all know that,
> too.
Martin--- the Z-film debate goes back well before Ben Holmes ....you
know THAT!
> Martin
>
> "Ben Holmes" <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote in message
>
> news:fbjn5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> > In article <mS6Di.1557$Sd4....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, Martin Shackelford
> > says...
>
> >>I don't treat insults as valid questions. If that's all you have, we're
> >>done.
>
> >>Martin
>
> > You don't treat real questions any differently, Martin.
>
> > If they point out facts that you can't explain - you simply run away.
>
> > Everyone knows that.
>
> >>"Rudy Lasparri" <Rudy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:RudyL39-DB0BF1...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
> >>> In article <b8PCi.5304$z_5.1...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> >>> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sorry, Rudy. What I posted is not "the established timeline," but my
> >>>> own
> >>>> timeline drawn from every currently available source.
> >>>> I'm quite familiar with Melanson, and always admired his work.
> >>>> You would do much better not to patronize.
>
> >>>> Martin
>
> >>> Please don't give me advise. If I followed your lead I would find the
> >>> silliest mind-boggling theory and promote the hell out of it for the
> >>> next 8 or 9 years and lie anytime I'm asked for proof.
>
> >>> Your timeline isn't any better than the "official" timeline. You're
> >>> Harry Livingstone's butt boy, what does he say about the "other" film??
>
> >>>> "Rudy Lasparri" <Rudy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:RudyL39-3F8B97...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
> >>>> > In article <crsCi.1141$FO2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
> >>>> > "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> JFK Lancer also accepts that timeline--they posted my timeline on
> >>>> >> their
> >>>> >> website.
> >>>> >> Let's see your evidence that it's inaccurate, Rudy.
>
> >>>> >> Martin
>
> >>>> > Lancer??? LOL! The established timeline is wrong and a part of the
> >>>> > cover story. Read Melanson's article again slowly and perhaps find
> >>>> > someone to read it to someone at Lancer.
>
> >>>> >> "Rudy Lasparri" <Rudy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> >>news:RudyL39-7E8BB9...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
> >>>> >> > In article <p79Ci.703$7P7....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> ...
>
> read more ยป
aeffects
> The original film is kept in cold storage (for preservation) at the National
> Archives College Park branch.
> Jamieson executed an affidavit that only three copies were made of the film
> on November 22. We have good information on the sources of other
> copies--those made by the FBI lab, those made for Time-LIFE executives,
> those made during the Shaw trial, etc.
Jamieson wasn't even sure of what optical printer they used to make
the dupes, c'mon, his affidavit is moot.... Have you read the 2000 NYC-
SMPTE conference on the Zapruder film, courtesy of RZavada (who
chaired the conference) yet?
> ...
>
> read more ยป
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@scam-info.com> wrote in message
news:fbled...@drn.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
early 90s, and debating Fetzer starting in 1996, then had a long debate with
Jack White on another newsgroup before he fled to the bootlickers at the
Della Rosa group.
Martin
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189016081....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Rich DellaRosa
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I haven't said it didn't. I was discussing the issue with Livingstone in the
> early 90s, and debating Fetzer starting in 1996, then had a long debate with
> Jack White on another newsgroup before he fled to the bootlickers at the
> Della Rosa group.
>
> Martin
>
Boot lickers?? Well,I guess that's better than being an ass licker.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Rich DellaRosa" <rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:richdell-52BCF7...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Sorry, Ben, but you're a total waste of time and not worth the effort.
>
>Martin
It is, of course, the only excuse that you can offer.
But the *TRUTH* is that you've ducked and ran from virtually *everything* I've
presented as far as evidence for alteration in the extant Z-film.
It isn't *I* you're running from, Martin. It's the *FACTS*.
You can't answer *me*, because you can't answer the *FACTS*.
So you'll continue to look like the scared LNT'er type...
*NONE* of the present "copies" or "original" possess the punched number, 0183,
0185, 0186, 0187...
The only copy that shows the original with the 0183 number, HAS A SPLICE BETWEEN
THE 0183 AND THE MOTORCADE.
That is INDISPUTABLE proof that the original was spliced, at the very least.
Something that your precious "timeline" can't account for.
And this is something that you have *NO* answer for - so you pretend that *I'M*
a "total waste of time" - when the truth is that you *can't* answer the facts.
Embarrassing, isn't it?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>I haven't said it didn't. I was discussing the issue with Livingstone in the
>early 90s, and debating Fetzer starting in 1996, then had a long debate with
>Jack White on another newsgroup before he fled to the bootlickers at the
>Della Rosa group.
>
>Martin
And yet, despite this constant reference to his earlier efforts - Martin can't
point to a *SINGLE* refutation of the points I keep raising about the evidence
of alteration in the extant Z-film.
Truth can be embarrassing sometimes, can't it Martin?