Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Time-Life Liars
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Questionin
Feb 11, 2012, 5:37:53 PM2/11/12
to
I recently asked the "experts" here on this site about the Life report
explaining how and why the Zapruder film was "altered." Of course they did
not know anything. These self proclaimed experts had said this and that
CRAP. But no real answers. Cause they don't really know more than the rest
of us. Us meaning the public.
They didn't have any answers. Some told me to google it. So I did. got
611,000 responses that lead me around in circles. After 25 pages of bull
spit. I gathered these guys don't know squat.
I was ready to just give up. All this back and forth they do is bull spit
too. They aren't here to help or to educate. They have their own agendas
they remote. Like this one crazy told me to go to his site and read the
Zavada report to find Life's account. So I did that too. I read it three
time and didn't find one word on how "Life" destroyed their copy. Another
dead-end.
One character just said "most of us read it along time ago." Yea, big help
that dummy was.
So I have come to the conclusion there never was a Life report. It just a
bunch of know-nothang claiming they got the answers. And they have
preached their lies so long they actually believe them themselves.
As for the Zavada report went. It was full of facts and figures that
really didn't say anything. And I take it for what is was worth. Life's
account wasn't there. So I don't believe these bullspiters know what they
are talking about. So stick your critism up yo ....
explaining how and why the Zapruder film was "altered." Of course they did
not know anything. These self proclaimed experts had said this and that
CRAP. But no real answers. Cause they don't really know more than the rest
of us. Us meaning the public.
They didn't have any answers. Some told me to google it. So I did. got
611,000 responses that lead me around in circles. After 25 pages of bull
spit. I gathered these guys don't know squat.
I was ready to just give up. All this back and forth they do is bull spit
too. They aren't here to help or to educate. They have their own agendas
they remote. Like this one crazy told me to go to his site and read the
Zavada report to find Life's account. So I did that too. I read it three
time and didn't find one word on how "Life" destroyed their copy. Another
dead-end.
One character just said "most of us read it along time ago." Yea, big help
that dummy was.
So I have come to the conclusion there never was a Life report. It just a
bunch of know-nothang claiming they got the answers. And they have
preached their lies so long they actually believe them themselves.
As for the Zavada report went. It was full of facts and figures that
really didn't say anything. And I take it for what is was worth. Life's
account wasn't there. So I don't believe these bullspiters know what they
are talking about. So stick your critism up yo ....
burgundy
Feb 11, 2012, 9:29:53 PM2/11/12
to
bigdog
Feb 11, 2012, 9:30:46 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 11, 5:37 pm, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I recently asked the "experts" here on this site about the Life report
> explaining how and why the Zapruder film was "altered." Of course they did
> not know anything. These self proclaimed experts had said this and that
> CRAP. But no real answers. Cause they don't really know more than the rest
> of us. Us meaning the public.
>
> They didn't have any answers. Some told me to google it. So I did. got
> 611,000 responses that lead me around in circles.
CTs should be used to that by now.
> I recently asked the "experts" here on this site about the Life report
> explaining how and why the Zapruder film was "altered." Of course they did
> not know anything. These self proclaimed experts had said this and that
> CRAP. But no real answers. Cause they don't really know more than the rest
> of us. Us meaning the public.
>
> They didn't have any answers. Some told me to google it. So I did. got
> 611,000 responses that lead me around in circles.
>After 25 pages of bull
> spit.
> I gathered these guys don't know squat.
>
> I was ready to just give up. All this back and forth they do is bull spit
> too. They aren't here to help or to educate.
going to reject that, there's not much any of us can do for them.
> They have their own agendas
> they remote. Like this one crazy told me to go to his site and read the
> Zavada report to find Life's account. So I did that too. I read it three
> time and didn't find one word on how "Life" destroyed their copy. Another
> dead-end.
>
for the last 48 years?
> One character just said "most of us read it along time ago." Yea, big help
> that dummy was.
>
> So I have come to the conclusion there never was a Life report. It just a
> bunch of know-nothang claiming they got the answers. And they have
> preached their lies so long they actually believe them themselves.
>
> As for the Zavada report went. It was full of facts and figures that
> really didn't say anything. And I take it for what is was worth. Life's
> account wasn't there. So I don't believe these bullspiters know what they
> are talking about. So stick your critism up yo ....
cdddraftsman
Feb 11, 2012, 9:31:46 PM2/11/12
to
advice .... eating vitamins and posting less .... hugs & kisses ....
tl
Anthony Marsh
Feb 12, 2012, 5:28:35 PM2/12/12
to
Seems the only thing that lured you back was talking about sex.
Questionin
Feb 12, 2012, 9:28:56 PM2/12/12
to
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:19a89708-7569-4d02...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>No we aren't. The right answer was given over 47 years ago. If people are
>going to reject that, there's not much any of us can do for them.
> They have their own agendas they promote. Like this one crazy told me to
>going to reject that, there's not much any of us can do for them.
> go to his site >and read the Zavada report to find Life's account. So I
> did that too. I read it three time and >didn't find one word on how "Life"
> destroyed their copy. Another dead-end.
>How is that different from every other dead end the CT's have followed
>for the last 48 years?
I'm not saying there was a CTer thought here. There is no difference, The
> did that too. I read it three time and >didn't find one word on how "Life"
> destroyed their copy. Another dead-end.
>How is that different from every other dead end the CT's have followed
>for the last 48 years?
LNers lead them astray on some false path and then condemn them for being
sceptical. BTW I don't think I'm a CTer because I do think Oswald was
involved, somehow. But yous guys don't make a convincing case. No I don't
think he was a lone assassin. Every piece of evidence yous guys referenced
has a stain about it. This or that is not as quite authenic as you claim.
That leads to another piece of evidence that contridicts what you have
said. But you insist it is correct. So what's new about that. All this
drivil about what Life said years ago don't mean squat now unless the
public has access to it. And you LNers want to defend what Life said but
you don't know what it is. Where were you your 49 years ago? I don't
remember anybody named BigDog doing or saying anything.
> One character just said "most of us read it along time ago." Yea, big help
> that dummy was.
> So I have come to the conclusion there never was a Life report. It just a
> bunch of know-nothang claiming they got the answers. And they have
> preached their lies so long they actually believe them themselves.
> As for the Zavada report went. It was full of facts and figures that
> really didn't say anything. And I take it for what is was worth. Life's
> account wasn't there. So I don't believe these bullspiters know what they
> are talking about.
>Another disappointing finish.
> really didn't say anything. And I take it for what is was worth. Life's
> account wasn't there. So I don't believe these bullspiters know what they
> are talking about.
Yes yous guys are a disappointment. That's the shame yous guys have to
portray.
Questionin
Feb 12, 2012, 9:29:12 PM2/12/12
to
"burgundy" <WBurg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1fd8213b-db84-4258...@p21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 4:37 pm, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Read Doug Horne's analysis in Volume IV of his AARB report
Thanks for the link. I did skim the articles. I'll be reading it later.
Read Doug Horne's analysis in Volume IV of his AARB report
Where can the ARRB review board findings be found?
bigdog
Feb 12, 2012, 11:18:30 PM2/12/12
to
On Feb 12, 9:28 pm, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
by himself unless you believe somebody else carried out the assassination
all by himslef and the authorities just got the wrong guy by mistake.
Anything else would amount to a conspiracy and if you believe anything
else, you are by definition a CTer.
> But yous guys don't make a convincing case.
We don't have to. The WC already did.
> No I don't
> think he was a lone assassin.
But you don't think you are a CTer. I there a third choice?
> Every piece of evidence yous guys referenced
> has a stain about it.
Just because some wacky conspiracy theorist has dreamed up some excuse to
dismiss the evidence of Oswald's guilt doesn't stain it. There can be only
one reason the body of evidence is what it is and that is if Oswald did
remember saying anything accusatory about them either. Why would I?
> > One character just said "most of us read it along time ago." Yea, big help
> > that dummy was.
> > So I have come to the conclusion there never was a Life report. It just a
> > bunch of know-nothang claiming they got the answers.
That's how a lot of conspiracy myths are born.
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:19a89708-7569-4d02...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> >No we aren't. The right answer was given over 47 years ago. If people are
> >going to reject that, there's not much any of us can do for them.
> > They have their own agendas they promote. Like this one crazy told me to
> > go to his site >and read the Zavada report to find Life's account. So I
> > did that too. I read it three time and >didn't find one word on how "Life"
> > destroyed their copy. Another dead-end.
> >How is that different from every other dead end the CT's have followed
> >for the last 48 years?
>
> I'm not saying there was a CTer thought here. There is no difference, The
> LNers lead them astray on some false path and then condemn them for being
> sceptical. BTW I don't think I'm a CTer because I do think Oswald was
> involved, somehow.
You are a CTer unless you believe Oswald carried out the assassination all
> news:19a89708-7569-4d02...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> >No we aren't. The right answer was given over 47 years ago. If people are
> >going to reject that, there's not much any of us can do for them.
> > They have their own agendas they promote. Like this one crazy told me to
> > go to his site >and read the Zavada report to find Life's account. So I
> > did that too. I read it three time and >didn't find one word on how "Life"
> > destroyed their copy. Another dead-end.
> >How is that different from every other dead end the CT's have followed
> >for the last 48 years?
>
> I'm not saying there was a CTer thought here. There is no difference, The
> LNers lead them astray on some false path and then condemn them for being
> sceptical. BTW I don't think I'm a CTer because I do think Oswald was
> involved, somehow.
by himself unless you believe somebody else carried out the assassination
all by himslef and the authorities just got the wrong guy by mistake.
Anything else would amount to a conspiracy and if you believe anything
else, you are by definition a CTer.
> But yous guys don't make a convincing case.
> No I don't
> think he was a lone assassin.
> Every piece of evidence yous guys referenced
> has a stain about it.
dismiss the evidence of Oswald's guilt doesn't stain it. There can be only
one reason the body of evidence is what it is and that is if Oswald did
it.
> This or that is not as quite authenic as you claim.
> That leads to another piece of evidence that contridicts what you have
> said. But you insist it is correct. So what's new about that. All this
> drivil about what Life said years ago don't mean squat now unless the
> public has access to it. And you LNers want to defend what Life said but
> you don't know what it is. Where were you your 49 years ago? I don't
> remember anybody named BigDog doing or saying anything.
>
I don't remember saying a word in defense of Life Magazine. I also don't
> This or that is not as quite authenic as you claim.
> That leads to another piece of evidence that contridicts what you have
> said. But you insist it is correct. So what's new about that. All this
> drivil about what Life said years ago don't mean squat now unless the
> public has access to it. And you LNers want to defend what Life said but
> you don't know what it is. Where were you your 49 years ago? I don't
> remember anybody named BigDog doing or saying anything.
>
remember saying anything accusatory about them either. Why would I?
> > One character just said "most of us read it along time ago." Yea, big help
> > that dummy was.
> > So I have come to the conclusion there never was a Life report. It just a
> > bunch of know-nothang claiming they got the answers.
bigdog
Feb 12, 2012, 11:18:54 PM2/12/12
to
On Feb 12, 9:29 pm, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "burgundy" <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote in message
The ARRB didn't come to any findings. They weren't in the business of
reinvestigating the crime. Their mission was to get classified data
released to the public so independent researchers could reinvestigate the
crime if they chose to do so.
> "burgundy" <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote in message
reinvestigating the crime. Their mission was to get classified data
released to the public so independent researchers could reinvestigate the
crime if they chose to do so.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 13, 2012, 6:45:27 AM2/13/12
to
authentic.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 13, 2012, 6:45:33 AM2/13/12
to
On 2/12/2012 11:18 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> Every piece of evidence yous guys referenced
>> has a stain about it.
>
> Just because some wacky conspiracy theorist has dreamed up some excuse to
> dismiss the evidence of Oswald's guilt doesn't stain it. There can be only
> one reason the body of evidence is what it is and that is if Oswald did
> it.
>
Pamela Brown
Feb 13, 2012, 11:35:24 PM2/13/12
to
On Feb 11, 4:37 pm, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
film(s) was spliced in at least two places. That is alteration; whether
benign or with ill-intent, we do not know for sure. For anyone with
enough credentials to be trusted with showing this version, to have
'burned' it 'accidentally' is unprofessional at the least.
A second issue with the Z-film(s) is that there really is no provenance to
them. We are told this and that, but the timeline is incomplete and
questionable.
A third issue is the veil of protection that Time-Life claimed it was
according the Z-film(s). They were supposed to be suppressed for many
years, but as I and others have experienced and stated, there were clear
copies of at least one of the Z-film(s) being shown in private, and, in my
case, in a public small theatre venue, as early as the fall of 1964.
So, we need to ask objectively, what really happened to the Z- film(s).
Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Anthony Marsh
Feb 14, 2012, 12:46:05 AM2/14/12
to
old time theater and the film breaks or the frames start melting? That is
based on real life. You are not old enough to remember showing the old 8
mm and 16 mm films. They often got mangles in the projector. Was that a
deliberate "alteration." Did consumers spend $100 for a film and then
deliberately try to get mangled in the projector?
You need to get out into the real world sometime.
> A second issue with the Z-film(s) is that there really is no provenance to
> them. We are told this and that, but the timeline is incomplete and
> questionable.
>
> A third issue is the veil of protection that Time-Life claimed it was
> according the Z-film(s). They were supposed to be suppressed for many
> years, but as I and others have experienced and stated, there were clear
> copies of at least one of the Z-film(s) being shown in private, and, in my
> case, in a public small theatre venue, as early as the fall of 1964.
>
Questionin
Feb 17, 2012, 12:22:12 PM2/17/12
to
"Pamela Brown" <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52e8b69d-f887-49df...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
hid their so-called report? Cause the defenders quite frequently refer to
it and it don't exist. At least there is no report to read and refer to as
a piece of evidence. It's a dead end. Like some of the other evidence the
archives claims was lost or stolen. Other dead ends. So what if the brain
tissues suddenly re-appeared? DNA might prove it wasn't Kennedy on the
autopsy table. Like some of the researchers have claimed. Wouldn't
something like that blow out the lone nutters? So they claim it is stolen
but really isn't.
Like this Time-Life report the defenders stands behind when in fact there
is no report. It is all made up. There is no report. Maybe some
unsubstantiated statement made in a time of stress. But no report. It is a
fantasy.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2012, 7:08:57 PM2/17/12
to
call it a Double 8 mm. Then they split down the middle and spliced the
first half to the second half. That is alteration. So every home movie
from Double 8 mm is altered. They later added a lot of extra white leader
to help protect it. That is alteration.
> benign or with ill-intent, we do not know for sure. For anyone with
> enough credentials to be trusted with showing this version, to have
> 'burned' it 'accidentally' is unprofessional at the least.
>
mechanism. If you had ever projected 16 mm or 8 mm film you would know
that this is a common problem. But you have never had any real life
experience so you guess your way through life.
> A second issue with the Z-film(s) is that there really is no provenance to
> them. We are told this and that, but the timeline is incomplete and
> questionable.
>
Zapruder on live TV talking about it within minutes of the shooting.
> A third issue is the veil of protection that Time-Life claimed it was
> according the Z-film(s). They were supposed to be suppressed for many
CIA and anxious to cooperate in the cover-up. They saw it as their
patriotic duty to support the government.
> years, but as I and others have experienced and stated, there were clear
> copies of at least one of the Z-film(s) being shown in private, and, in my
> case, in a public small theatre venue, as early as the fall of 1964.
>
> So, we need to ask objectively, what really happened to the Z- film(s).
>
> That's what I was doing? I just simply wanted to know where Time-Life had
> hid their so-called report? Cause the defenders quite frequently refer to
issued a statement. I have posted it before.
> it and it don't exist. At least there is no report to read and refer to as
for more than 5 seconds.
> a piece of evidence. It's a dead end. Like some of the other evidence the
> archives claims was lost or stolen. Other dead ends. So what if the brain
> tissues suddenly re-appeared? DNA might prove it wasn't Kennedy on the
> autopsy table. Like some of the researchers have claimed. Wouldn't
then you can't use them to prove anything. The body was never out of the
control of the SS which verifies it was JFK.
> something like that blow out the lone nutters? So they claim it is stolen
> but really isn't.
>
Whether it was genuine or not when it was stolen does not negate the
fact that is was stolen. It's like art thieves stealing a fake painting
thing it is real.
> Like this Time-Life report the defenders stands behind when in fact there
> is no report. It is all made up. There is no report. Maybe some
> unsubstantiated statement made in a time of stress. But no report. It is a
> fantasy.
>
>
>
caeruleo
Feb 17, 2012, 10:10:30 PM2/17/12
to
On Feb 17, 11:22 am, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is an accepted fact that the so called 'camera original' of the Z-
> film(s) was spliced in at least two places.
Strange; the complete "unspliced" version of the film was posted on
> It is an accepted fact that the so called 'camera original' of the Z-
> film(s) was spliced in at least two places.
Youtube years (plural) ago. I've long ago lost count of how many
times I've watched it.
Questionin
Feb 18, 2012, 10:13:39 AM2/18/12
to
"caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:697ef5b8-2365-4c9e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
creditable are they? Anyone can post anything altered or not. Somebody
post and claim it authenic and the herd follows along.
John McAdams
Feb 18, 2012, 10:18:01 AM2/18/12
to
On 18 Feb 2012 10:13:39 -0500, "Questionin" <Ques...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:697ef5b8-2365-4c9e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 17, 11:22 am, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It is an accepted fact that the so called 'camera original' of the Z-
>> film(s) was spliced in at least two places.
>
>Strange; the complete "unspliced" version of the film was posted on
>Youtube years (plural) ago. I've long ago lost count of how many
>times I've watched it.
>
>
Bob Groden included an "unspliced" copy of the Z-film in THE
ASSASSINATION FILMS video.
It was the camera original, with the missing frames inserted from one
of the Secret Service copies. So all the frames were there.
Maybe that's what was on You-Tube.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>
>"caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:697ef5b8-2365-4c9e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 17, 11:22 am, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It is an accepted fact that the so called 'camera original' of the Z-
>> film(s) was spliced in at least two places.
>
>Strange; the complete "unspliced" version of the film was posted on
>Youtube years (plural) ago. I've long ago lost count of how many
>times I've watched it.
>
>
ASSASSINATION FILMS video.
It was the camera original, with the missing frames inserted from one
of the Secret Service copies. So all the frames were there.
Maybe that's what was on You-Tube.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
0 new messages