About two just discovert manipulations on the Zapruder Film
Lone
First: The Original must be about 30 sec. long, not 26. Why? At the
beginning of the film, when the motorcade turns around from Huston to
Elm, three, or 4 seconds of the Zapruder Film are completely missing.
The film makes a jump, the 50, 100 meters between the 4 Motorcycles and
the Lincoln Limo disappeared. The white Front Car with Sorrels, Fritz
and Jesse Curry is completely cut out of the film!
2. In the Stone Film, 2h33min44sec.(of my DVD) appears a piece of the
Zapruder Film, where you can see four woman and a running man dressed
in black with arms open wide among them---just across the street
opposite the umbrella man! Those five people are not visible on all the
other versions of the Zapruder Film I have ever seen..
Conclusion: nobody has seen the original film yet...not in the full
lenght...not with all the persons on it.
Greetings from austria
Grizzlie Antagonist
> 2. In the Stone Film, 2h33min44sec.(of my DVD) appears a piece of the
> Zapruder Film, where you can see four woman and a running man dressed
> in black with arms open wide among them---just across the street
> opposite the umbrella man! Those five people are not visible on all the
> other versions of the Zapruder Film I have ever seen..
> Conclusion: nobody has seen the original film yet...not in the full
> lenght...not with all the persons on it.
Ha ha ha! And the Time magazine cover photo of T.E. Lawrence must be
fake because Lawrence's features on that cover clearly differ from
Peter O'Toole's.
And the pictures of General Rommel don't look a thing like James Mason
so something must be fishy there.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>First: The Original must be about 30 sec. long, not 26. Why? At the
>beginning of the film, when the motorcade turns around from Huston to
>Elm, three, or 4 seconds of the Zapruder Film are completely missing.
>The film makes a jump, the 50, 100 meters between the 4 Motorcycles and
>the Lincoln Limo disappeared. The white Front Car with Sorrels, Fritz
>and Jesse Curry is completely cut out of the film!
The proof of this is that an original viewer of the film, *DESCRIBED* seeing the
limo turn the corner...
And, of course, the fact that Z-133 doesn't show the "first frame flash" that is
normal for that camera. Martin is forced to outright lies to defend his
position... Tony is making things up out of mid-air.
>2. In the Stone Film, 2h33min44sec.(of my DVD) appears a piece of the
>Zapruder Film, where you can see four woman and a running man dressed
>in black with arms open wide among them---just across the street
>opposite the umbrella man! Those five people are not visible on all the
>other versions of the Zapruder Film I have ever seen..
>Conclusion: nobody has seen the original film yet...not in the full
>lenght...not with all the persons on it.
I'd be rather skeptical of this. For just like the Z-film, the Stone film is an
attempt at describing reality - not reality itself. If Stone had a version of
the Z-film that was radically different from what is viewed as the extant film
today - I'd find it incredible that I'd not already know that fact.
>Greetings from austria
>
Oswald
Ben Holmes schrieb:
The Zapruder film piece I mentioned is 1.5 to 2 sec. long.
2h33min44sec. on my DVD Version of the Stone Film...one of those four
elderly women is pointing across the street to the umbrella man in an
attempt to lead the attention of the man dressed in black on him. But
this man doesn't care! He starts running, by opening his arms. He
wears a hat his face seems wiped out by beeing painted black. The four
elderly women are bright dressed. Everyone who got a DVD of the Stone
film can find this piece. I made a couple of screenshots of these five
persons opposite the umbrella man and the traffic- sign where he shots
his Flechette into JFKs throat, causing that little puncture entry
wound, observed by the Parkland doctors... I would mail these
screenshots, is there a forum for such mails?...but I think it is not
necessary, except you in the US got a different Stone Movie, we got
here in the EU!
Lone
Oswald
Grizzlie Antagonist schrieb:
I hope you are aware that there are pieces of the Zapruder Original
Film in the Stone Movie?
Ossi
David Von Pein
Zapruder frames have been snipped WELL BEFORE THE SHOOTING EVEN STARTS.
Why the need to snip the film prior to the shooting itself? Were the
film-fakers merely amusing themselves for the sport of it by altering
totally-needless frames that show nothing to do with the actual
shooting?
It's as obvious as can be what actually happened on 11/22 -- Zapruder
started filming the lead motorcycles, but when the President's car
didn't come into view right away, he obviously stopped filming
momentarily, then started again when he saw JFK's car on Elm.
But, since CS&L are foreign things to the "Everything Must Have Been
Faked" crowd, the above Occam's-like explanation cannot be accepted. A
much more complicated scenario involving conspiracy and a cover-up must
be used by CTers instead, involving the removal of needless Z-Film
frames, but the LEAVING IN OF THE KILL-SHOT FRAMES INSTEAD (including
the rear head snap).
Those film fakers should have been fired...for it's obvious they were
total morons.
Lone
Crazy...Some humorous guy changed my nickname...I am still Lone...and
not the lone nut..
Greetings
Lone
Lone
David Von Pein schrieb:
> Of course, Ben (et al) fail to use any common sense when they think
> Zapruder frames have been snipped WELL BEFORE THE SHOOTING EVEN STARTS.
>
> Why the need to snip the film prior to the shooting itself? Were the
> film-fakers merely amusing themselves for the sport of it by altering
> totally-needless frames that show nothing to do with the actual
> shooting?
>
> It's as obvious as can be what actually happened on 11/22 -- Zapruder
> started filming the lead motorcycles, but when the President's car
> didn't come into view right away, he obviously stopped filming
> momentarily, then started again when he saw JFK's car on Elm.
None of the Zapruder Frames are worthless. First there are the
motorcycles. Then the white lead car with Jesse Curry, Forrest Sorrels
and Bill Decker on board should appear on elm street just ahead of JFKs
Limo...This event is cut out of the film. Zapruder himself never said
that he stopped filming while things went wrong on elm street...
Lone
David Von Pein
I can't find anything like that on my copy of Stone's film (the 2001
2-Disc SE). The closest thing I can find is a "re-created" portion of
the movie (although obviously not meant to represent the Z-Film, due to
its incorrect positioning) at 2:55:16 of the lengthier "Director's Cut"
of the film, where a woman on the south side of Elm seems to be waving
or pointing toward the north.
What you're seeing is probably just one more part of Oliver Stone's
playing fast & loose with the actual facts (and films) of 11/22/63. I
can see many different people on Elm Street in the film that aren't
really on Elm in real life. But Stone places them there anyway.
And there's also the lie in the film about the Depository's
floor-laying crew being comprised of "unknown workmen" on 11/22.
Totally false, of course, since the new floor was being laid by TSBD
employees such as Williams, Givens, and others. No "unknown" person was
seen on the 6th Floor on November 22nd...but Stone's script includes
such a lie anyway. I find a new "lie" every time I cue up that 1991
fantasy project of Mr. Stone's.
Lone
David Von Pein schrieb:
> >>> "One of those four elderly women is pointing across the street to the umbrella man..." <<<
>
>
> I can't find anything like that on my copy of Stone's film (the 2001
> 2-Disc SE). The closest thing I can find is a "re-created" portion of
> the movie (although obviously not meant to represent the Z-Film, due to
> its incorrect positioning) at 2:55:16 of the lengthier "Director's Cut"
> of the film, where a woman on the south side of Elm seems to be waving
> or pointing toward the north.
>
> What you're seeing is probably just one more part of Oliver Stone's
> playing fast & loose with the actual facts (and films) of 11/22/63. I
> can see many different people on Elm Street in the film that aren't
> really on Elm in real life. But Stone places them there anyway.
I do not agree with all of the conclusions in the stone film. I know
quite well, that this movie(maybe the most courageous film ever made in
the US), is a mixture of facts and fiction. What I say is: there is a
piece of the original Zapruder Film used in the Stone film, showing
that group of five human beings opposite the umbrella man and the
traffic sign where he stands...and this five human beings, four elderly
woman in bright clothes and a man dressed in black, do not appear on
all the other versions of the Z Film I know...its not the directors cut
Stone Film where those individuals appear, for 1.5 to 2 seconds at
2h33min44sec on the DVD. Search. This piece exists. I can mail you the
screenshots, if you want to see those frames...
Lone
Lone
> And there's also the lie in the film about the Depository's
> floor-laying crew being comprised of "unknown workmen" on 11/22.
> Totally false, of course, since the new floor was being laid by TSBD
> employees such as Williams, Givens, and others. No "unknown" person was
> seen on the 6th Floor on November 22nd...but Stone's script includes
> such a lie anyway. I find a new "lie" every time I cue up that 1991
> fantasy project of Mr. Stone's.
Quote:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler3.html
, "One of the most critical elements of this plot was the Texas School
Book Depository." In addition to both the circumstances of Oswald's
employment at the TSBD, and the routing of the motorcade by the
building, Weston points out that there would have been a need for a
team of plotters to make detailed plans inside the building well in
advance of November 22, including firing angles, planting of false
evidence, and getaway plans. This could have been done, Weston says, by
six TSBD employees assigned to lay new flooring on the fifth and sixth
floors from late October until November 22. It is a plausible argument,
which brings up the concern that any long-term improvement to the
property such as a flooring project would have to have been of interest
to, if not directly initiated and contracted by, the building's owner.
Roy Truly, the "superintendent" who hired Oswald was "a building
manager." In a story published the day after the assassination, Dallas
Morning News reporter Kent Biffle referred to Roy Truly as
"Superintendent of the textbook building...." The floor crew was
supervised directly by William Shelly, "the assistant manager who was
in charge of the floor laying project." These titles imply that they
were building managers more closely associated with the landlord than
with the private textbook brokerage firm which leased the building.The
employment of these individuals would seem to be a relatively easy fact
for researchers verify.
Weston writes, "The electrical power for the whole building and even
the telephone stopped working about five minutes prior to the
assassination. How two such entirely different systems as the
electricity and the phones could go out simultaneously is beyond
explanation, unless one can assume that the interruption was
deliberate.
Close quote(From: Fair Play Magazine 17th Issue
Grizzlie Antagonist
I don't believe anything that a conspiracy theorist tells me. If a
conspiracy theorist tells me that the sun rises in the east, I look
outside my window and check a compass to be sure and then I check the
compass. And then if I'm satisfied, I shake my head and remark to
myself that I've caught a conspiracy theorist actually telling the
truth.
Why would sinister forces make missing components of the film available
to Oliver Stone, of all people, and to no one else?
aeffects
David Von Pein wrote:
> Of course, Ben (et al) fail to use any common sense when they think
> Zapruder frames have been snipped WELL BEFORE THE SHOOTING EVEN STARTS.
>
> Why the need to snip the film prior to the shooting itself? Were the
> film-fakers merely amusing themselves for the sport of it by altering
> totally-needless frames that show nothing to do with the actual
> shooting?
let me throw a Lone Neuter a *bone* so he can chew handily: what you
see in 313 is the 2nd shot. Up to you to find out why!
aeffects
David Von Pein wrote:
> Of course, Ben (et al) fail to use any common sense when they think
> Zapruder frames have been snipped WELL BEFORE THE SHOOTING EVEN STARTS.
>
> Why the need to snip the film prior to the shooting itself? Were the
> film-fakers merely amusing themselves for the sport of it by altering
> totally-needless frames that show nothing to do with the actual
> shooting?
let me throw a Lone Neuter a *bone* so he can chew handily: what you
see in 313 is the 2nd shot, perhaps? Up to you to find out why!
bail...@gmail.com
drinking. Stone himself admits he took creative license in putting the
film together. He was neither driven by "truth nor justice" but by the
almightly dollar looking for a return on his studios investment. This
is not unusual for Stone. In his film "Born on the 4th of July", he
again took creative license in portraying the films main character Ron
Kovic as the "All American Boy" who ran to his high school senior prom
in a driving rain storm to dance one last dance with his true love
before leaving for Vietnam. Kovic was portrayed as a member of the
school wrestling team and Stone did everything possible to win the
sympathy of the audience for the title character. Truth be told,
nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, Kovic NEVER attended
his high school prom and the night of the prom was a gorgeous moon
drenched evening. As for the wrestling team, Kovic was never a "jock"
in HS. How do I know this? Simple. I attended the same high school
as Kovic, knew him fairly well and WAS at the senior prom.
Anthony Marsh
> Those who consider the Stone film a "coureageous work" must be
> drinking. Stone himself admits he took creative license in putting the
> film together. He was neither driven by "truth nor justice" but by the
> almightly dollar looking for a return on his studios investment. This
> is not unusual for Stone. In his film "Born on the 4th of July", he
> again took creative license in portraying the films main character Ron
> Kovic as the "All American Boy" who ran to his high school senior prom
> in a driving rain storm to dance one last dance with his true love
> before leaving for Vietnam. Kovic was portrayed as a member of the
> school wrestling team and Stone did everything possible to win the
> sympathy of the audience for the title character. Truth be told,
> nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, Kovic NEVER attended
> his high school prom and the night of the prom was a gorgeous moon
> drenched evening. As for the wrestling team, Kovic was never a "jock"
> in HS. How do I know this? Simple. I attended the same high school
> as Kovic, knew him fairly well and WAS at the senior prom.
>
You only say things like that about Liberal film makers.
bail...@gmail.com
has to do with taking a well written book such as Born on the 4th of
July and turning into a morass of lies to fit his own agenda. Stone
fits the motif of the typical CT. Take known facts, turn them around
to suit a particular point of view and pass them off as the truth.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Stone used the Z film in places, and also did his own reconstructions.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Zapruder testified at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969 that the film shown
there was a complete copy of what he filmed.
Someone here at one point said that Zapruder didn't watch his original
film, but he watched it when he showed it twice on November 23.
Martin
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>What a lot of crap.
And yet, Martin "courageously" top-posts, why is that, Martin?
Martin refutes every statement with facts and citations.... NOT. In fact, just
like LNT'ers... he ducks and runs...
Martin is even willing to lie about the evidence to make his points... how sad.
aeffects
we're the originals of the two photos above considered as *touched* up
evidence in a murder investigation? I recollect the LHO backyard photos
had a few *touch up* issues, just a *slip and a slide away for the
Z-film
aeffects
bail...@gmail.com wrote:
> This has nothing to do with whether a filmmaker is liberal or not. It
> has to do with taking a well written book such as Born on the 4th of
> July and turning into a morass of lies to fit his own agenda. Stone
> fits the motif of the typical CT. Take known facts, turn them around
> to suit a particular point of view and pass them off as the truth.
there you go, sounding like a typical .john clonned LoneNeuter with a
streak of Dave Reitzes thrown in for extra credit..... Character
assassin a decorated Vietnam War veteran because you don't like his
film award winning topics..... typical fucking Nutter! What a
weanie.... LMAO
Todd W. Vaughan
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Nothing was cut out of the film.
> Zapruder testified at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969 that the film shown
> there was a complete copy of what he filmed.
> Someone here at one point said that Zapruder didn't watch his original
> film, but he watched it when he showed it twice on November 23.
>
He also saw it projected after it was developed on November 22.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:A1Qfh.29858$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
tomnln
License".
That's the ONLY way to compress Years into a movie of 2-3 hours
There have been Thousands on movies based on Historical Events.
Oliver Stone's JFK is the First & ONLY movie based on a Historical Event
that was totally Vilified by Government/Media even Before it hit the
theaters.
Barnum & Bailey NEVER discusses evidence/testimony.
All he ever offers is Opinion.
<bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165969260....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
ALL movies based on Historical events use "Artistic License"
That's the ONLY way to compress an event over Years into a 2-3 hr. movie.
There have been "Thousands" of movies based on History.
Of the Thousands of movies based on Historical events using "Artistic
License"
how many have you Challenged?
WHY don't you challenge Felonies?
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
Unless, you Endorse Felonies?
WHY don't you address the official Proof that they Altered the Film?
Found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
<bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165971247.4...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
when he projected it on November 23--once or twice matters little.
Leave it to you to focus on a red herring issue.
Martin
Todd W. Vaughan
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Right--at the lab.
Yes. A few times I think.
aeffects
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > Right--at the lab.
>
>
> Yes. A few times I think.
upsidedown and backwards, unless it was split, was IT?
Todd W. Vaughan
aeffects wrote:
> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > > Right--at the lab.
> >
> >
> > Yes. A few times I think.
>
> upsidedown and backwards, unless it was split, was IT?
What, you think it could only be put on a reel one way?
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
ps;
Good to see allies Aligned.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166119135.0...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
you STILL avoid the 3 questions shacksup.
Did they put a Black Bar across the bottom of the frames?
Is the bottom of the frames where most of the action is?
Is the HSCA an official record?
You're a REAL Verbal Fred Astaire. (sidestepping)
Give us your comments on this Official Record HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ue8gh.8165$Ga1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Todd W. Vaughan
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > > > Right--at the lab.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. A few times I think.
> >
> > upsidedown and backwards, unless it was split, was IT?
>
>
> What, you think it could only be put on a reel one way?
Well, turtle?
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>
>Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> aeffects wrote:
>> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> > > Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> > > > Right--at the lab.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Yes. A few times I think.
>> >
>> > upsidedown and backwards, unless it was split, was IT?
>>
>>
>> What, you think it could only be put on a reel one way?
>
>
>
>Well, turtle?
Rather amusing, coming from someone who's refused to answer a post on FBI
Intimidation for 11 months and 19 days now...
But as soon as Toddy finds his files - he's assured us that he *will* respond.
Don't hold your breath, lurkers!
Todd W. Vaughan
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1166194301.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
> >
> >
> >Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> >> aeffects wrote:
> >> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> >> > > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >> > > > Right--at the lab.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes. A few times I think.
> >> >
> >> > upsidedown and backwards, unless it was split, was IT?
> >>
> >>
> >> What, you think it could only be put on a reel one way?
> >
> >
> >
> >Well, turtle?
>
>
> Rather amusing, coming from someone who's refused to answer a post on FBI
> Intimidation for 11 months and 19 days now...
And that's rather amusing coming from you, Ben Holmes, since you've,
Ben Holmes, refused several of my requests to explain exactly how your,
Ben Holmes, quote of what Edwards said (which started all this) has
anything to do with FBI intimidation.
>
>
> But as soon as Toddy finds his files - he's assured us that he *will* respond.
> Don't hold your breath, lurkers!
The word "find" implies that they're lost. But they're not - as I've
clearly said before, they're in storage, and I know exactly where they
are.
Rather deceiptfull of you, Ben Holmes, yes?
By the way, maybe you can answer for Healy-stump, since he's not man
enough to even touch the question: do you think the 16mm unslit
Zapruder film camera original could only be put on a reel one way?
aeffects
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In article <1166194301.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> > Vaughan says...
> > >
> > >
> > >Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > >> aeffects wrote:
> > >> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > >> > > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > >> > > > Right--at the lab.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Yes. A few times I think.
> > >> >
> > >> > upsidedown and backwards, unless it was split, was IT?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> What, you think it could only be put on a reel one way?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Well, turtle?
> >
> >
> > Rather amusing, coming from someone who's refused to answer a post on FBI
> > Intimidation for 11 months and 19 days now...
>
>
>
> And that's rather amusing coming from you, Ben Holmes, since you've,
> Ben Holmes, refused several of my requests to explain exactly how your,
> Ben Holmes, quote of what Edwards said (which started all this) has
> anything to do with FBI intimidation.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > But as soon as Toddy finds his files - he's assured us that he *will* respond.
> > Don't hold your breath, lurkers!
>
>
>
> The word "find" implies that they're lost. But they're not - as I've
> clearly said before, they're in storage, and I know exactly where they
> are.
hate to butt in, butt-- yeah, uh-HUH! Sure you do!
Todd W. Vaughan
LOL!
"hate to butt in"?
Why?
This is where you belong - the questions was asked of you!
Wow, you really are a turtle. A double one at that!
Now, when you say "Sure you do", is that in reply to my question "you
think it could only be put on a reel one way?"
Or are you still ignoring that question and was your "Sure you do", in
reply to my saying I know where my files are?
Please clarify.
tomnln
Did they put a Black Bar across the bottom of frames on pages 87-94 of HSCA
Vol I?
Did the bottom of those frames contain "most of the action"?
Is the HSCA an Official Record?
Tell us WHY they would ALTER Evidence that way?
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
toad STILL endorses the Alteration of Evidence. A FELONY
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166194301.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
ALL in his own words.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166205280.8...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
ALL in your own words.
You're a Whore toad.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166206175....@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln wrote:
> Maybe he was replying to him Knowing where your LIES are.
>
> Found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> ALL in your own words.
>
> You're a Whore toad.
>
Merry Christmas, Tom.
May the Lord bless you and your family this holiday season.
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1166194301.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> >> aeffects wrote:
>> >> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> >> > > Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> >> > > > Right--at the lab.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Yes. A few times I think.
>> >> >
>> >> > upsidedown and backwards, unless it was split, was IT?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What, you think it could only be put on a reel one way?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, turtle?
>>
>>
>> Rather amusing, coming from someone who's refused to answer a post on FBI
>> Intimidation for 11 months and 19 days now...
>
>
>
>And that's rather amusing coming from you,
Why? It's 100% true, isn't it?
>Ben Holmes, since you've,
>Ben Holmes, refused several of my requests to explain exactly how your,
>Ben Holmes, quote of what Edwards said (which started all this) has
>anything to do with FBI intimidation.
Been there, done that.
>> But as soon as Toddy finds his files - he's assured us that he *will*
>> respond. Don't hold your breath, lurkers!
>
>
>
>The word "find" implies that they're lost. But they're not - as I've
>clearly said before, they're in storage, and I know exactly where they
>are.
>
>Rather deceiptfull of you, Ben Holmes, yes?
>
>By the way, maybe you can answer for Healy-stump, since he's not man
>enough to even touch the question: do you think the 16mm unslit
>Zapruder film camera original could only be put on a reel one way?
Wouldn't have a clue. I'd tend to defer to someone who works in that field...
do you know anyone who does?
Todd W. Vaughan
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1166205280.8...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In article <1166194301.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> >> Vaughan says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> >> >> aeffects wrote:
> >> >> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> >> >> > > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >> >> > > > Right--at the lab.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Yes. A few times I think.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > upsidedown and backwards, unless it was split, was IT?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What, you think it could only be put on a reel one way?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Well, turtle?
> >>
> >>
> >> Rather amusing, coming from someone who's refused to answer a post on FBI
> >> Intimidation for 11 months and 19 days now...
> >
> >
> >
> >And that's rather amusing coming from you,
>
>
> Why? It's 100% true, isn't it?
Nope.
>
>
> >Ben Holmes, since you've,
> >Ben Holmes, refused several of my requests to explain exactly how your,
> >Ben Holmes, quote of what Edwards said (which started all this) has
> >anything to do with FBI intimidation.
>
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Nope.
>
>
>
> >> But as soon as Toddy finds his files - he's assured us that he *will*
> >> respond. Don't hold your breath, lurkers!
> >
> >
> >
> >The word "find" implies that they're lost. But they're not - as I've
> >clearly said before, they're in storage, and I know exactly where they
> >are.
> >
> >Rather deceiptfull of you, Ben Holmes, yes?
Well?
> >
> >By the way, maybe you can answer for Healy-stump, since he's not man
> >enough to even touch the question: do you think the 16mm unslit
> >Zapruder film camera original could only be put on a reel one way?
>
>
> Wouldn't have a clue. I'd tend to defer to someone who works in that field...
> do you know anyone who does?
That's what I thought.
aeffects
speak to us oh Linwood Dunn, speak to us..... This is the best the
Nutter's have Lurker's: how do ya put a roll of film on a reel.... your
getting to ber an embarassment, Todd. Even to me!
btw, you find your files YET?
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1166205280.8...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> In article <1166194301.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> >> Vaughan says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> >> >> aeffects wrote:
>> >> >> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> >> >> > > Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> >> >> > > > Right--at the lab.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Yes. A few times I think.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > upsidedown and backwards, unless it was split, was IT?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What, you think it could only be put on a reel one way?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, turtle?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Rather amusing, coming from someone who's refused to answer a post on FBI
>> >> Intimidation for 11 months and 19 days now...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >And that's rather amusing coming from you,
>>
>>
>> Why? It's 100% true, isn't it?
>
>
>Nope.
You mean that it's *NOT* been 11 months and 19 days now? How long *has* it been
since you've not responded?
>> >Ben Holmes, since you've,
>> >Ben Holmes, refused several of my requests to explain exactly how your,
>> >Ben Holmes, quote of what Edwards said (which started all this) has
>> >anything to do with FBI intimidation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that.
>
>
>Nope.
Who cares what *you* believe...
>> >> But as soon as Toddy finds his files - he's assured us that he *will*
>> >> respond. Don't hold your breath, lurkers!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >The word "find" implies that they're lost. But they're not - as I've
>> >clearly said before, they're in storage, and I know exactly where they
>> >are.
>> >
>> >Rather deceiptfull of you, Ben Holmes, yes?
>
>
>Well?
Found your files yet?
>> >By the way, maybe you can answer for Healy-stump, since he's not man
>> >enough to even touch the question: do you think the 16mm unslit
>> >Zapruder film camera original could only be put on a reel one way?
>>
>>
>>Wouldn't have a clue. I'd tend to defer to someone who works in that field...
>> do you know anyone who does?
>
>
>
>That's what I thought.
You don't?
Anthony Marsh
> Hey toad;
> Did they put a Black Bar across the bottom of frames on pages 87-94 of HSCA
> Vol I?
> Did the bottom of those frames contain "most of the action"?
> Is the HSCA an Official Record?
>
> Tell us WHY they would ALTER Evidence that way?
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
>
> toad STILL endorses the Alteration of Evidence. A FELONY
>
>
>
How about if they published a photo backwards? Would that be alteration
of evidence? You don't seem to be able to understand the difference
between an exhibit and the actual piece of evidence.
tomnln
Are you making Excuses for Criminal Acts AGAIN???
( those who read you regularily are NOT surprised)
They DID print a Zapruder frame photo"backwards".
Volume XVIII pages 70-71 frames 314-315 giving the appearance that the head
went "Forward".
Indicating a shot from behind.
NOW, Answer the questions?
Did they put a Black Bar across the bottom of frames on pages 87-94 of HSCA
Vol I?
Did the bottom of those frames contain "most of the action"?
Is the HSCA an Official Record?
Tell us WHY they would ALTER Evidence that way?
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:56CdnVg2Mbk0zx7Y...@comcast.com...