The Anonymous "Conan" Still Refuses...

[Ben Holmes]

To answer any legitimate questions concerning the evidence in this case.

The cowardice is simply amazing...

Why did Z-133 not have the INVARIABLE 'first frame flash' that science says *must* have been there?

Why can't you explain what the evidence shows?

Why are you afraid?

Why the fear?

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> To answer any legitimate questions concerning the evidence in this case.
>
> The cowardice is simply amazing...
>
> Why did Z-133 not have the INVARIABLE 'first frame flash' that science says *must* have been there?
>

Can you explain to me WHY THIS EVEN MATTERS?

Are you *really* suggesting that there is ANYTHING shown on the film PRIOR to Z133 that would have any value at all as far as SHOTS BEING FIRED or VICTIMS BEING HIT BY BULLETS?

Are you suggesting that conspirators felt the need to excise some frames out of the Z-Film between Z132 and Z133? For what possible reason would "they" have needed to do that? Any idea, Ben? Nobody had been shot that early in the film.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8UwZ588YcqIc3hRRHluY2NmR2c/view

[conantheco...@gmail.com]

Haha!

What fear, King Chicken Shit? You're the one that is totally incapable of giving your own opinion on how much time elapsed between Z-132 and Z-133 which I asked you 3 TIMES before you ever asked me about "first frame flash." You do realize that that first frame overexposure is much more the exception than the rule so your so-called proof of alteration has vanished....not like it was ever there before.

If you want to discuss the potential for missing frames, especially those between Z-132 and Z-133 (like a normal human being) and how much time elapsed then I MIGHT be willing to listen. Otherwise I have to assume that your unwillingness to discuss it is an indication that you actually are a WC defender whose primary goal is eliminating this newsgroup.


Looks like you already reneged on your "new policy." Haha!! It made you look incredibly cowardly and ignorant. I guess we can now add hypocritical to the list as well!

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > To answer any legitimate questions concerning the evidence in this case.
> >
> > The cowardice is simply amazing...
> >
> > Why did Z-133 not have the INVARIABLE 'first frame flash' that science says *must* have been there?
> >
>
> Can you explain to me WHY THIS EVEN MATTERS?

Of course.

It's SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the extant Zapruder film has been altered from the original.

THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Simple.

If we cannot even trust the most basic of evidence in this case, how can you be sure of your conclusions?

> Are you *really* suggesting that there is ANYTHING shown on the film PRIOR to Z133 that would have any value at all as far as SHOTS BEING FIRED or VICTIMS BEING HIT BY BULLETS?

How can *YOU* be sure that there isn't?

After all, THE FILM WAS ALTERED FOR A REASON.

Unless you can refute the scientific evidence of film alteration, then you need to give a *credible* reason for altering the film that doesn't include conspiracy.

But you can't.

I'll also point out your implied theory that the only missing evidence is from *before* Z-133 - that's simply a theory on your part, and one that DOES NOT ACCORD with the actual evidence in this case.

For example... the original recreations of the event placed the final shot some 30 or 40 feet further down the street from where Z-313 is. You can't explain that... (nor will you). Then there's the HUGE number of witnesses for a limo slowdown/stop. Once again, you won't explain it. Let's not forget the missing Chaney/Curry conversation - YOU HAVEN'T EXPLAINED IT.

You want to do a 'limited hangout' - and imply that you'll accept a very small "alteration" - but you simply cannot do that.

Once you allow for *ANY* alteration, you're in a world of trouble.

> Are you suggesting that conspirators felt the need to excise some frames out of the Z-Film between Z132 and Z133? For what possible reason would "they" have needed to do that? Any idea, Ben? Nobody had been shot that early in the film.

So *YOU* say...

On what evidence do you base this on?


Nor do I "suggest" anything... THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF 'FIRST FRAME FLASH' **PROVES** THAT THE CAMERA WAS NOT MERELY STOPPED BETWEEN Z-132 AND Z-133.

It **PROVES** that the film was cut at that point.

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8UwZ588YcqIc3hRRHluY2NmR2c/view
>
> > Why can't you explain what the evidence shows?
> >
> > Why are you afraid?
> >
> > Why the fear?

Well?

[Ben Holmes]

New policy... if you snip the entire post you're responding to, and ask the same questions that have already been answered, you'll get this response.

You're a coward and a liar, and if you cannot answer the points I raise, then there's no need for me to spend any time on your posts.

It has ALWAYS been my policy not to answer questions from cowards who refuse to answer mine. It will continue to be my policy.

[David Von Pein]

Hogwash. It proves no such thing. You're placing way too much emphasis on this so-called "first frame flash". The lack of such a "flash" doesn't HAVE to mean the film was cut or altered. That's a ridiculous leap of faith.

We KNOW the original in-camera Z-Film could not possibly have been altered, unless Abe Zapruder himself was part of the conspiracy to alter his own film. (And who believes such silliness?)

Abraham was with that film every step of the way (at Kodak & Jamieson's) on 11/22/63. There was no opportunity for any goon squad to alter the film. And you know it. But you (and other CTers) won't allow any common sense get in the way of your silly "Alteration" beliefs.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 9:38:02 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 12:20:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > To answer any legitimate questions concerning the evidence in this case.
> > > >
> > > > The cowardice is simply amazing...
> > > >
> > > > Why did Z-133 not have the INVARIABLE 'first frame flash' that science says *must* have been there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you explain to me WHY THIS EVEN MATTERS?
> >
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > It's SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the extant Zapruder film has been altered from the original.
> >
> > THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
> >
> > Simple.
> >
> > If we cannot even trust the most basic of evidence in this case, how can you be sure of your conclusions?

Dead silence.

Tell us David, why can't you acknowledge the truth?

> > > Are you *really* suggesting that there is ANYTHING shown on the film PRIOR to Z133 that would have any value at all as far as SHOTS BEING FIRED or VICTIMS BEING HIT BY BULLETS?
> >
> > How can *YOU* be sure that there isn't?
> >
> > After all, THE FILM WAS ALTERED FOR A REASON.
> >
> > Unless you can refute the scientific evidence of film alteration, then you need to give a *credible* reason for altering the film that doesn't include conspiracy.
> >
> > But you can't.

And, surprising no-one at all... you didn't.

> > I'll also point out your implied theory that the only missing evidence is from *before* Z-133 - that's simply a theory on your part, and one that DOES NOT ACCORD with the actual evidence in this case.
> >
> > For example... the original recreations of the event placed the final shot some 30 or 40 feet further down the street from where Z-313 is. You can't explain that... (nor will you). Then there's the HUGE number of witnesses for a limo slowdown/stop. Once again, you won't explain it. Let's not forget the missing Chaney/Curry conversation - YOU HAVEN'T EXPLAINED IT.

More damning silence on your part. I've listed additional evidence that supports the fact that the film was altered, and you had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY.

No explanation, not even an ATTEMPT to explain...

> > You want to do a 'limited hangout' - and imply that you'll accept a very small "alteration" - but you simply cannot do that.
> >
> > Once you allow for *ANY* alteration, you're in a world of trouble.
> >
> >
> > > Are you suggesting that conspirators felt the need to excise some frames out of the Z-Film between Z132 and Z133? For what possible reason would "they" have needed to do that? Any idea, Ben? Nobody had been shot that early in the film.
> >
> >
> > So *YOU* say...
> >
> > On what evidence do you base this on?

Clearly... on *NOTHING AT ALL*.

Run David... RUN!!!

> > Nor do I "suggest" anything... THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF 'FIRST FRAME FLASH' **PROVES** THAT THE CAMERA WAS NOT MERELY STOPPED BETWEEN Z-132 AND Z-133.
> >
> > It **PROVES** that the film was cut at that point.
> >
>
> Hogwash. It proves no such thing. You're placing way too much emphasis on this so-called "first frame flash". The lack of such a "flash" doesn't HAVE to mean the film was cut or altered. That's a ridiculous leap of faith.

Then all you have to do is to explain it.

Yet you keep refusing to do so.

Why is that, David?

Why are you so afraid of the evidence in this case?

> We KNOW the original in-camera Z-Film could not possibly have been altered, unless Abe Zapruder himself was part of the conspiracy to alter his own film. (And who believes such silliness?)

No David, you're lying again. You're making claims for Zapruder that he cannot support.

Indeed, IT'S A PROVABLE FACT - and one that even *YOU* will admit, that the "original" Zapruder film has been altered... IT'S MISSING FRAMES... and you know this.

Merely accidents on the part of Time-Life - but this is ABSOLUTELY UNREFUTABLE... (Watch as you refuse to deny this...)

The only issue is not whether the Zapruder film is altered - IT PROVABLY IS - but whether or not it was *INTENTIONAL* - and the extent of the alteration.

> Abraham was with that film every step of the way (at Kodak & Jamieson's) on 11/22/63. There was no opportunity for any goon squad to alter the film. And you know it. But you (and other CTers) won't allow any common sense get in the way of your silly "Alteration" beliefs.

You're lying again, David.

You're pretending that unless it was altered before it was developed, it couldn't have been altered.

You know that's sheer nonsense... I know it's sheer nonsense... and you CANNOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM defend such a silly claim.

> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8UwZ588YcqIc3hRRHluY2NmR2c/view
> > >
> > > > Why can't you explain what the evidence shows?
> > > >
> > > > Why are you afraid?
> > > >
> > > > Why the fear?
> >
> > Well?

Crickets...

[conantheco...@gmail.com]

David Von Pein

Keep in mind that Ben Holmes said that the ONLY REASON the "alien autopsy video" was fake was because of its lack of "first frame flash." This should explain the mindset of this kook.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 10:08:02 AM UTC-7, conantheco...@gmail.com wrote:
> David Von Pein
>
> Keep in mind that Ben Holmes said that the ONLY REASON the "alien autopsy video" was fake was because of its lack of "first frame flash." This should explain the mindset of this kook.

You're lying again.

No doubt, this is one of the reasons that you're afraid to quote what you respond to.

When you need to lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're a liar.

[David Von Pein]

But the "accident" at LIFE Magazine (where somebody stepped on 4 frames and crushed them) isn't the type of deliberate conspiratorial "alterations" that you think happened with the Zapruder Film, so why pretend they're the same thing at all? Those situations aren't close to being synonymous and you know it. You don't really think LIFE Magazine "altered" the film on purpose. So why did you even BRING UP the "accidents" at LIFE Magazine?

> The only issue is not whether the Zapruder film is altered - IT PROVABLY IS - but whether or not it was *INTENTIONAL* - and the extent of the alteration.
>
>
> > Abraham was with that film every step of the way (at Kodak & Jamieson's) on 11/22/63. There was no opportunity for any goon squad to alter the film. And you know it. But you (and other CTers) won't allow any common sense get in the way of your silly "Alteration" beliefs.
>
> You're lying again, David.
>
> You're pretending that unless it was altered before it was developed, it couldn't have been altered.
>
> You know that's sheer nonsense... I know it's sheer nonsense... and you CANNOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM defend such a silly claim.
>

Huh?? What the heck are you talking about here? When did I ever suggest such a thing? Did you mean to say "before it was copied at Jamieson's", instead of saying "before it was developed"? Because you surely aren't suggesting that it's even *POSSIBLE* to have altered Mr. Zapruder's film BEFORE it was *DEVELOPED* (i.e., processed at Kodak), are you?

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut, David...

You've been caught lying.

Why not simply retract your "error" and tell the truth?

> > The only issue is not whether the Zapruder film is altered - IT PROVABLY IS - but whether or not it was *INTENTIONAL* - and the extent of the alteration.
> >
> >
> > > Abraham was with that film every step of the way (at Kodak & Jamieson's) on 11/22/63. There was no opportunity for any goon squad to alter the film. And you know it. But you (and other CTers) won't allow any common sense get in the way of your silly "Alteration" beliefs.
> >
> > You're lying again, David.
> >
> > You're pretending that unless it was altered before it was developed, it couldn't have been altered.
> >
> > You know that's sheer nonsense... I know it's sheer nonsense... and you CANNOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM defend such a silly claim.
> >
>
> Huh?? What the heck are you talking about here? When did I ever suggest such a thing? Did you mean to say "before it was copied at Jamieson's", instead of saying "before it was developed"? Because you surely aren't suggesting that it's even *POSSIBLE* to have altered Mr. Zapruder's film BEFORE it was *DEVELOPED* (i.e., processed at Kodak), are you?

Hanging your hat on the copies, are you?

That's not evidence either... indeed, the copies form some of the strongest evidence AGAINST the authenticity of the film.


Go ahead, David... tell us what stopped the U.S. Government from altering the film after 11/22/63.

I DARE YOU!!!


And while you're at it, ADMIT THAT THE EXTANT ZAPRUDER FILM ***IS*** ALTERED, even if only by accident.

And produce the evidence you claim to have showing that it's not been altered...

PRODUCE IT, DAVID!!!


CITE IT!!!


DO IT **HERE** WHERE A CRITIC CAN REVIEW IT!!!

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Hanging your hat on the copies, are you?

That's not evidence either... indeed, the copies form some of the strongest evidence AGAINST the authenticity of the film.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you ACTUALLY believe that some band of film fakers went about the task of altering FOUR SEPARATE COPIES of the Zapruder Film (the original and the three copies that were made on the day of the assassination), and that this band of film alterers was able to alter each of those four copies in EXACTLY the same manner each time, so that no differences could be spotted by anyone watching any of those four copies of the film?

Is that what you're suggesting? If not, please elaborate on what you DO think happened regarding your "Film Alteration" theory, Ben. (I love fiction. So go ahead and spill it.)

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Go ahead, David... tell us what stopped the U.S. Government from altering the film after 11/22/63.

I DARE YOU!!!

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, for one thing, the Zapruder Film appears to be in perfect harmony (and "in sync") with the Orville Nix film of the assassination (see the comparison video below). So this "in harmony" fact would certainly suggest that the Z-Film was NOT altered. Or would you like to now suggest that the Nix Film was altered as well? Because at least as far as the "Limo Slowdown" is concerned, this comparison of the two films is providing solid evidence that both films match each other perfectly. In other words, nobody "faked" the "Limo Slowdown" in the Zapruder Film....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOR0p1ZFlqbTlKeDg/view

Another thing that tells any sensible person that the Z-Film has not been tampered with by evil conspirators is the fact that if anybody *had* wanted to alter the film in order to REMOVE ALL SIGNS OF PERCEIVED CONSPIRACY, they would have certainly removed from the film the ONE THING that almost all conspiracy theorists love to harp on as the #1 thing in the film that (for the CTers) proves that the President was struck in the head from the FRONT --- with that thing being, of course, JFK's head snap to the rear. But that head snap still exists in all copies of Mr. Zapruder's 26-second home movie.

How can you, Ben, as a believer in Z-Film Alteration, possibly explain why the film forgers chose not to remove the single biggest thing in the film that spells out "Conspiracy" to millions of Americans?

Please try to explain that, Ben. (As I said, I love fiction.)

BEN HOLMES SAID:

And while you're at it, ADMIT THAT THE EXTANT ZAPRUDER FILM ***IS*** ALTERED, even if only by accident.

And produce the evidence you claim to have showing that it's not been altered.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, the film is "altered" to THAT limited extent. The film was accidentally damaged by LIFE Magazine and some frames had to be removed. I already acknowledged that (obvious) fact in a previous post. (How could anyone--including me--possibly DENY that fact? They can't.)

But the "accident" at LIFE has NOTHING to do with the kind of alleged sinister and conspiratorial alterations that you believe in, Ben. So, again, why do you even bring up the LIFE "accident" in the first place? It's apples and oranges. It's not the same thing in the slightest---and you know it.

Now, why don't YOU, Mr. Ben Holmes, produce the evidence you claim to have showing that the Zapruder Film HAS been altered by a band of conspirators---not by LIFE Magazine, mind you, but by some person or group that you think changed the film in order to HIDE A CONSPIRACY IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION. (And the "first frame flash" argument won't cut it. You need way more than that. So get cracking.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 4:03:38 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Hanging your hat on the copies, are you?
>
> That's not evidence either... indeed, the copies form some of the strongest evidence AGAINST the authenticity of the film.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> So you ACTUALLY believe that some band of film fakers went about the task of altering FOUR SEPARATE COPIES of the Zapruder Film (the original and the three copies that were made on the day of the assassination), and that this band of film alterers was able to alter each of those four copies in EXACTLY the same manner each time, so that no differences could be spotted by anyone watching any of those four copies of the film?

How silly!!!

I asked you to refute what I stated, and you come up with this nonsense!!!


POST RIGHT HERE WHAT WOULD STOP YOU FROM ALTERING THE ORIGINAL FILM, THEN MAKING THREE NEW COPIES.

I don't want speculation, I want CITABLE FACT.

> Is that what you're suggesting? If not, please elaborate on what you DO think happened regarding your "Film Alteration" theory, Ben. (I love fiction. So go ahead and spill it.)

If it's "fiction" - why can't you refute it?

Why do you keep running?

Indeed, you're clearly posting this nonsense on your website, and not answering what I post.

> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Go ahead, David... tell us what stopped the U.S. Government from altering the film after 11/22/63.
>
> I DARE YOU!!!
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Well, for one thing, the Zapruder Film appears to be in perfect harmony (and "in sync") with the Orville Nix film of the assassination (see the comparison video below).

No. It's not in perfect sync.

Nor does the Nix film prevent anyone from altering the Zapruder film. The Nix film was also under control of the Government.

Indeed, you can't even produce the *original* Nix film anymore, can you?

>So this "in harmony" fact would certainly suggest that the Z-Film was NOT altered. Or would you like to now suggest that the Nix Film was altered as well? Because at least as far as the "Limo Slowdown" is concerned, this comparison of the two films is providing solid evidence that both films match each other perfectly. In other words, nobody "faked" the "Limo Slowdown" in the Zapruder Film....

Nope.

Indeed, the Nix film demonstrates as the Zapruder film couldn't that Chaney never went forward to speak with Curry.

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOR0p1ZFlqbTlKeDg/view
>
> Another thing that tells any sensible person that the Z-Film has not been tampered with by evil conspirators

Your language here shows that you know you lost...

> is the fact that if anybody *had* wanted to alter the film in order to REMOVE ALL SIGNS OF PERCEIVED CONSPIRACY, they would have certainly removed from the film the ONE THING that almost all conspiracy theorists love to harp on as the #1 thing in the film that (for the CTers) proves that the President was struck in the head from the FRONT --- with that thing being, of course, JFK's head snap to the rear. But that head snap still exists in all copies of Mr. Zapruder's 26-second home movie.

Speculation isn't evidence.


Interestingly, YOU'VE RUN from the actual hard physical evidence of alteration, and you won't post that on your website... the lack of 'first frame flash' in Z-133.

Why the cowardice, David? Why are you running from that topic?

It would be amusing to ask an **HONEST** Warren Commission believer to pretend for a moment that Zapruder & Nix didn't exist... and describe what the *rest* of the evidence shows happened that day.

I know for a FACT that you wouldn't be able to honestly answer that question, you're simply not an honest man.

If I ever *find* an honest & knowledgeable believer, it would be fun to hear the answer.

>How can you, Ben, as a believer in Z-Film Alteration, possibly explain why the film forgers chose not to remove the single biggest thing in the film that spells out "Conspiracy" to millions of Americans?
>
> Please try to explain that, Ben. (As I said, I love fiction.)

First you'd have to admit that the head snap *DOES* prove conspiracy.

Ready to do that, David?

Because unless you do, your point is sheerest nonsense and meaningless.

And speculation isn't evidence.

> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> And while you're at it, ADMIT THAT THE EXTANT ZAPRUDER FILM ***IS*** ALTERED, even if only by accident.
>
> And produce the evidence you claim to have showing that it's not been altered.

David is clearly posting this on his website - notice that he's removed all the context that shows I schooled him on the lie he told.

Tell us David, why the dishonesty?

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yes, the film is "altered" to THAT limited extent.

So you lied.

And you *KNEW* you were lying...

I presume that a retraction of your "error" is now forthcoming??

> The film was accidentally damaged by LIFE Magazine and some frames had to be removed. I already acknowledged that (obvious) fact in a previous post. (How could anyone--including me--possibly DENY that fact? They can't.)

YOU'RE A COWARDLY AND DESPICABLE LIAR....

You acknowledged it *AFTER* I schooled you on your lie.

And, of course, you *DID* deny this basic fact... which is why I had to correct you.

> But the "accident" at LIFE has NOTHING to do with the kind of alleged sinister and conspiratorial alterations that you believe in, Ben.

Indeed, I went into detail on *that very issue* in my very next paragraph. (which has disappeared) Now you're pretending that it's *YOU* that's saying this... and not what I originally said.

You're quite the gutless little liar, aren't you David?

>So, again, why do you even bring up the LIFE "accident" in the first place? It's apples and oranges. It's not the same thing in the slightest---and you know it.

I bring it up because you blatantly lied.

Plan on retracting that lie any time soon?

> Now, why don't YOU, Mr. Ben Holmes, produce the evidence you claim to have showing that the Zapruder Film HAS been altered

I did.

You ran.

What a coward you are!!!

WHERE'S YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THE LACK OF 'FIRST FRAME FLASH' IN Z-133???

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER THIS???

>by a band of conspirators---not by LIFE Magazine, mind you, but by some person or group that you think changed the film in order to HIDE A CONSPIRACY IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION. (And the "first frame flash" argument won't cut it. You need way more than that. So get cracking.)

No, the 'first frame flash' does it just fine... it's scientific, it's supported by experts, it's supported by science... and you can't answer it.

So it's really all I need.

There's plenty of other corroborating evidence for the extant film having been altered, but this one unanswerable hard evidence is all I need.

RUN DAVID... RUN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE!!!

[Jason Burke]

You spelled "retard" incorrectly, Holmie-boy.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

POST RIGHT HERE WHAT WOULD STOP YOU FROM ALTERING THE ORIGINAL FILM, THEN MAKING THREE NEW COPIES.

I don't want speculation, I want CITABLE FACT.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now you're just making up crazy conspiratorial scenarios that cannot possibly apply to the situation regarding the Zapruder Film on November 22, 1963.

We know that the U.S. Government didn't whip up three copies of an altered film on Nov. 22nd.

How can we know that for a fact?

Because either Abraham Zapruder or his business partner, Erwin Schwartz, retained physical possession of the original film throughout the day on 11/22/63. (Schwartz held onto Mr. Zapruder's camera, with the undeveloped film inside of it, while Zapruder was being interviewed on WFAA-TV between 2:31 PM and about 2:40 PM CST.) And Mr. Zapruder was also present when the film was processed at Kodak and he was also present when the three copies of the film were made at Jamieson's Film Lab, with one of those three copies being retained by Abe Zapruder himself on Nov. 22.

Therefore, no alterations could possibly have been performed on the original film or the three copies during this brief period when Abraham Zapruder himself was in possession of his original in-camera film and one of the three copies.

If Mr. Zapruder had not escorted his film on every step of its journey from Dealey Plaza to Kodak and then to the Jamieson lab, then conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes would have a better argument. The silly "alteration" argument would still fall flat for many other reasons, but at least Holmes could pretend the "U.S. Government" went about the cumbersome task of "ALTERING THE ORIGINAL FILM, THEN MAKING THREE NEW COPIES".

But with Mr. Zapruder retaining possession of his own film every step of the way on 11/22, well, as we can see, Holmes can't possibly even get to first base in his "alteration" argument---let alone trot around the bases with a round-tripper. There was simply NO TIME or OPPORTUNITY for the evil "U.S. Government" to have accomplished the kind of Z-Film alterations that CTers think occurred in this case. Similar to David Lifton's "Body Alteration" theory, it just simply could not have happened.

~Mark VII~

BEN HOLMES SAID:

No. It's not in perfect sync.

Nor does the Nix film prevent anyone from altering the Zapruder film. The Nix film was also under control of the Government.

Indeed, you can't even produce the *original* Nix film anymore, can you?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Great! So now we've got still MORE film fakery in the JFK case, eh Ben?

You're funny.

And if you don't think the limo slowdown is "in sync" when comparing the Nix and Zapruder films in the video I posted earlier, then you're either blind as a bat or you're in total denial.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The Nix film demonstrates as the Zapruder film couldn't that Chaney never went forward to speak with Curry.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just like your fellow conspiracy kook Jim Fetzer, you expect way too much to be seen in the Zapruder and Nix films. For some idiotic reason, you actually seem to think that motorcycle policeman James Chaney should be seen moving forward to talk with Police Chief Jesse Curry in the Nix film. But, quite obviously, Orville Nix had stopped filming prior to the time when Chaney moved further down Elm Street to catch up with Curry's car.

BEN HOLMES SAID:

First you'd have to admit that the head snap *DOES* prove conspiracy.

Ready to do that, David?

Because unless you do, your point is sheerest nonsense and meaningless.

And speculation isn't evidence.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I was very careful in my wording, Ben. I said:

"Another thing that tells any sensible person that the Z-Film has not been tampered with by evil conspirators is the fact that if anybody had wanted to alter the film in order to REMOVE ALL SIGNS OF PERCEIVED CONSPIRACY, they would have certainly removed from the film the ONE THING that almost all conspiracy theorists love to harp on as the #1 thing in the film that (for the CTers) proves that the President was struck in the head from the FRONT --- with that thing being, of course, JFK's head snap to the rear. But that head snap still exists in all copies of Mr. Zapruder's 26-second home movie."

Key word there --- "Perceived". Not REAL, but PERCEIVED.

To anyone who has studied the evidence relating to JFK's autopsy, of course, the realization must sink in that JFK was struck in the head only from BEHIND. That fact is indisputable and irrevocable, regardless of what any CTer says the "head snap" proves.

Quoting JFK's chief autopsy physician....

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James Humes; October 1991

BEN HOLMES SAID:

WHERE'S YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THE LACK OF 'FIRST FRAME FLASH' IN Z-133???

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER THIS???

The 'first frame flash'...is scientific, it's supported by experts, it's supported by science... and you can't answer it.

So it's really all I need.

There's plenty of other corroborating evidence for the extant film having been altered, but this one unanswerable hard evidence is all I need.

RUN DAVID... RUN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE!!!

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This "first frame flash" crap is one of the silliest conspiracy arguments I think I've ever encountered. It's something that is occurring (or, I should say, NOT occurring) at Z-frame 133, which is the very first frame showing Kennedy's car on the film. The rest of the film is continuous and uncut (except for the frames that were accidentally damaged by LIFE Magazine, as discussed earlier). And yet I'm supposed to believe that instead of Mr. Zapruder merely stopping and starting his camera again between Z132 and Z133, the film was (per CTers) "cut" or "altered" at Z133 by some unnamed group of film manipulators for some nefarious purpose. And all because there's no "flash" at Z133.

Pardon me, Ben, if I don't bow down to your "first frame flash" theory. But, as I said before, you're going to need a lot more than that flimsy reason for me to even begin to believe the Zapruder Film is a forgery.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 6:59:20 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> POST RIGHT HERE WHAT WOULD STOP YOU FROM ALTERING THE ORIGINAL FILM, THEN MAKING THREE NEW COPIES.
>
> I don't want speculation, I want CITABLE FACT.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Now you're just making up crazy conspiratorial scenarios that cannot possibly apply to the situation regarding the Zapruder Film on November 22, 1963.
>
> We know that the U.S. Government didn't whip up three copies of an altered film on Nov. 22nd.
>
> How can we know that for a fact?

Because I asked for citable FACT - and you're running again.

You can't refute what I stated... there's NOTHING WHATSOEVER that would have prevented the government from altering the film, then making three new copies.

And you lost the challenge.

> Because either Abraham Zapruder or his business partner, Erwin Schwartz, retained physical possession of the original film throughout the day on 11/22/63. (Schwartz held onto Mr. Zapruder's camera, with the undeveloped film inside of it, while Zapruder was being interviewed on WFAA-TV between 2:31 PM and about 2:40 PM CST.) And Mr. Zapruder was also present when the film was processed at Kodak and he was also present when the three copies of the film were made at Jamieson's Film Lab, with one of those three copies being retained by Abe Zapruder himself on Nov. 22.

Sorry... it's a fail.

You're now pretending that the film could only have been altered between it's developing, and the end of the day.

How silly!!!

> Therefore, no alterations could possibly have been performed on the original film or the three copies during this brief period when Abraham Zapruder himself was in possession of his original in-camera film and one of the three copies.
>
> If Mr. Zapruder had not escorted his film on every step of its journey from Dealey Plaza to Kodak and then to the Jamieson lab, then conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes would have a better argument. The silly "alteration" argument would still fall flat for many other reasons, but at least Holmes could pretend the "U.S. Government" went about the cumbersome task of "ALTERING THE ORIGINAL FILM, THEN MAKING THREE NEW COPIES".
>
> But with Mr. Zapruder retaining possession of his own film every step of the way on 11/22, well, as we can see, Holmes can't possibly even get to first base in his "alteration" argument---let alone trot around the bases with a round-tripper. There was simply NO TIME or OPPORTUNITY for the evil "U.S. Government" to have accomplished the kind of Z-Film alterations that CTers think occurred in this case. Similar to David Lifton's "Body Alteration" theory, it just simply could not have happened.

How many days between 11/23/63 and the time in 1969 when it was shown at the Clay Shaw trial?

Don't bother answering... you already look like a moron.

> ~Mark VII~
>
>
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> No. It's not in perfect sync.
>
> Nor does the Nix film prevent anyone from altering the Zapruder film. The Nix film was also under control of the Government.
>
> Indeed, you can't even produce the *original* Nix film anymore, can you?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Great! So now we've got still MORE film fakery in the JFK case, eh Ben?

Satire?

Is that all you have???


> You're funny.


You're not.

> And if you don't think the limo slowdown is "in sync" when comparing the Nix and Zapruder films in the video I posted earlier, then you're either blind as a bat or you're in total denial.

Coming from someone who thinks he sees Connally reacting at the same time as JFK, I think I can survive your opinion.

> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> The Nix film demonstrates as the Zapruder film couldn't that Chaney never went forward to speak with Curry.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Just like your fellow conspiracy kook Jim Fetzer, you expect way too much to be seen in the Zapruder and Nix films. For some idiotic reason, you actually seem to think that motorcycle policeman James Chaney should be seen moving forward to talk with Police Chief Jesse Curry in the Nix film. But, quite obviously, Orville Nix had stopped filming prior to the time when Chaney moved further down Elm Street to catch up with Curry's car.

Nope. Not true.

> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> First you'd have to admit that the head snap *DOES* prove conspiracy.
>
> Ready to do that, David?
>
> Because unless you do, your point is sheerest nonsense and meaningless.
>
> And speculation isn't evidence.

Notice that David is snipping all the context?

What AMUSING cowardice!

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I was very careful in my wording, Ben. I said:
>
> "Another thing that tells any sensible person that the Z-Film has not been tampered with by evil conspirators is the fact that if anybody had wanted to alter the film in order to REMOVE ALL SIGNS OF PERCEIVED CONSPIRACY, they would have certainly removed from the film the ONE THING that almost all conspiracy theorists love to harp on as the #1 thing in the film that (for the CTers) proves that the President was struck in the head from the FRONT --- with that thing being, of course, JFK's head snap to the rear. But that head snap still exists in all copies of Mr. Zapruder's 26-second home movie."
>
> Key word there --- "Perceived". Not REAL, but PERCEIVED.

Then your argument has no force.

If the headsnap isn't evidence of conspiracy, there's no reason to remove it.

You lose again!

> To anyone who has studied the evidence relating to JFK's autopsy, of course, the realization must sink in that JFK was struck in the head only from BEHIND. That fact is indisputable and irrevocable, regardless of what any CTer says the "head snap" proves.

And yet, it's disputed all the time.

> Quoting JFK's chief autopsy physician....
>
> "In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James Humes; October 1991

Of course, as you've demonstrated yourself, you don't *believe* Dr. Humes.

> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> WHERE'S YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THE LACK OF 'FIRST FRAME FLASH' IN Z-133???
>
> WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER THIS???
>
> The 'first frame flash'...is scientific, it's supported by experts, it's supported by science... and you can't answer it.
>
> So it's really all I need.
>
> There's plenty of other corroborating evidence for the extant film having been altered, but this one unanswerable hard evidence is all I need.
>
> RUN DAVID... RUN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE!!!
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> This "first frame flash" crap is one of the silliest conspiracy arguments I think I've ever encountered. It's something that is occurring (or, I should say, NOT occurring) at Z-frame 133, which is the very first frame showing Kennedy's car on the film. The rest of the film is continuous and uncut (except for the frames that were accidentally damaged by LIFE Magazine, as discussed earlier). And yet I'm supposed to believe that instead of Mr. Zapruder merely stopping and starting his camera again between Z132 and Z133, the film was (per CTers) "cut" or "altered" at Z133 by some unnamed group of film manipulators for some nefarious purpose. And all because there's no "flash" at Z133.

Yep... that's what the science shows.

> Pardon me, Ben, if I don't bow down to your "first frame flash" theory. But, as I said before, you're going to need a lot more than that flimsy reason for me to even begin to believe the Zapruder Film is a forgery.

It's not a "theory" David, it's a FACT THAT YOU CANNOT REFUTE.

Notice that you don't even *try*.

Inertia isn't going to just go away because you don't like it.

This is HARD SCIENTIFIC PHYSICAL EVIDENCE... and you're just too gutless to confront it.