Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!
60 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Jun 25, 2018, 10:19:13 PM6/25/18
to
Far more intelligent believers than this forum's stump, Chuckly, Mark,
Timmy, and David Chester Pein, was Patrick Collins.
Here's a summary of Patrick's wacky reasoning to evade the obvious:
**********************************************************
Just for those who aren't following closely, here's the issue that
Patrick can't face.
The extant Z-film first shows motorcycles coming up the street, then
it abruptly changes to the President's limo. The last frame showing
the motorcycles is frame 132 - the first frame showing the limo is
frame 133. The contention of believers is that Zapruder stopped
filming, then started again when the limo was in view.
Due to the mechanical nature of the spring wound camera, the film, due
to inertia, cannot get up to speed instantly, and so is moving slower
for the first few split seconds... meaning that the first few frames
will be overexposed in comparison to the rest of the film. (as they
are traveling slower, and end up receiving more light from the open
shutter)
Patrick has admitted that he understands this issue. I've cited for
Dale's benefit experts who state that this is the issue, and is known
as 'first frame flash' for lack of a better term. It's PHYSICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE not to have overexposed frames on a mechanical camera,
because inertia will not allow the first frame to be moving at the
speed that the rest of the film will very soon be moving at.
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Camera designers work hard to minimize this
effect, but it cannot be entirely removed without repealing the laws
of inertia.
So Patrick KNOWS that in an unaltered film, when the camera is first
started, the first few frames will be over-exposed. He's admitted
this.
[And, I might add, Roland Zavada has also stated this... "First frame
density difference is seen at ALL tails to head transitions."]
This was the very same issue that proved the 'Alien Autopsy' film to
be a fake - as there wasn't any 'first frame flash' effects where
there should have been - thus proving that the film was a spliced
together creation.
Patrick has also admitted that he knows that Z-133 does NOT show any
overexposure... AS IT ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE. (Zavada is also on record
as stating this... that Z-133 shows no overexposure in comparison to
Z-132)
So Patrick has, absent any other theory, proven that the extant Z-film
has been DELIBERATELY cut and spliced together.
His first attempted solution was so silly that it's worth pointing out
again, just for laughs... Patrick speculated that "Hey well perhaps
Time Life damaged a preceding frame to Z133 and never mentioned
it......."
Of course, Patrick clearly hadn't had his morning cup of tea, since
any splicing that was done on the original film could not magically
transfer to the copies of the film.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Now, despite understanding that the laws of inertia were not magically
overcome in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and despite his admission that
the relevant first few frames do NOT show the 'first frame flash'
effect, Patrick has decided to pretend that he doesn't understand
these two points, and that for Zapruder, on that day, with that
camera, was able to do what the designers of the camera were unable to
do... completely remove the effects of inertia.
He does so by pretending that if the COPIES made of the film ALSO fail
to show the overexposure of Z-133 - then yes, Zapruder overcame the
laws of physics that day, and magically overcome inertia.
He has to rely on the official story that the copies were made in
Dallas, and that they are the ORIGINAL copies.
In other words, he's relying on the official story that the film is
legitimate in order to "prove" that the film is legitimate. (Henry
Sienzant must be desperately holding his tongue on this logical
fallacy!!)
Patrick knows full well the evidence that the film was at a top secret
film processing facility known as "Hawk Eye Works" the weekend of the
assassination, so his theory that the film is unaltered because the
copies are unaltered is just silly. You cannot logically argue that
the film is legitimate because the film is legitimate. Circular
arguments like this are just silly.
But that's the best Patrick can do.
He can't admit that first frame flash doesn't exist - he knows full
well that I can cite experts stating otherwise... including the
original designer of the Bell & Howell Zoomatic camera.
He can't admit that Z-133 shows an overexposure when HIS expert,
Zavada, said otherwise - and anyone can look today and see that it
doesn't.
So Patrick has to simply straddle the fence - unwilling to directly
contradict the laws of physics, unwilling to pretend to see
overexposure where none exists - yet unable to provide an alternate
CREDIBLE theory...
He's stuck.
And he's not honest enough to admit it.
*******************************************************
Patrick couldn't explain it, and Patrick runs rings around the morons
that pass for Warren Commission believers in this forum. Most of the
intelligent ones long since left for the safety of the censored forum.
Watch as not a *SINGLE* believer in this forum gives credible debate
on this topic.
chucksch...@gmail.com
Jun 25, 2018, 10:35:25 PM6/25/18
to
Yellow Pants is desperate to change the subject away from the Lady in Yellow Pants.
Until you can even prove what you allege is possible---scrubbing out a limo stop and extra bullet strikes from a 60s era 8mm home movie with editing equipment from that same period---you've got nothing.
You're too ashamed to even run any tests. So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think this would even be feasible.
You've got zilch. And you know it.
Ben Holmes
Jun 25, 2018, 11:12:33 PM6/25/18
to
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 19:35:24 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
What was the topic?
> Until you can even prove what you allege is possible---scrubbing out
> a limo stop and extra bullet strikes from a 60s era 8mm home movie
> with editing equipment from that same period---you've got nothing.
And you really *DO* believe that E.T. flew on that bicycle!!!
WHAT A MORON!!!
I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
equipment and expertise.
Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
> You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
> So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
> this would even be feasible.
Don't get out much, do you.
Seen any movies lately?
>You've got zilch. And you know it.
Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
wrote:
> Until you can even prove what you allege is possible---scrubbing out
> a limo stop and extra bullet strikes from a 60s era 8mm home movie
> with editing equipment from that same period---you've got nothing.
WHAT A MORON!!!
I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
equipment and expertise.
Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
> You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
> So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
> this would even be feasible.
Seen any movies lately?
>You've got zilch. And you know it.
chucksch...@gmail.com
Jun 25, 2018, 11:16:34 PM6/25/18
to
You're making the extraordinary claim, you have the extraordinary burden.
Mark Ulrik
Jun 26, 2018, 2:43:04 AM6/26/18
to
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 26, 2018, 6:27:10 AM6/26/18
to
Say, Holmes, BEFORE we get into this *First Frame Flash* red herring howsabout you explain your *Lady In Yellow Pants* theory?
After all you've only been skulking behind your killfilter for about TEN TEARS refusing to discuss the matter further, Holmes.
Let's deal with one <snicker> *Z film alteration* DISASTER before we move on to the next TRAIN WRECK of an idea, eh, Benny?
Your blithering IDIOCY on the matter of film alteration apparently knows no bounds, Yellow Pants!
Chortlin' Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Benny's lying hero Mark Lane lied!!
chucksch...@gmail.com
Jun 26, 2018, 9:09:00 AM6/26/18
to
>
> WHAT A MORON!!!
>
> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
> equipment and expertise.
Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. We're discussing the Zapruder film, not ET, not Hollywood special effects. Linking Hollywood to what you're alleging occurred with the Z film is logically fallacious.
> WHAT A MORON!!!
>
> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
> equipment and expertise.
>
> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
Of course a research photo lab would have equipment and expertise. You are now assuming your conclusion that this lab was involved in editing out bullet strikes and a limo stop from the Z film, so you're Begging the Question.
> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
>
> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
>
> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
Editing out your child molesting activities.
> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
>
> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
>
> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
> > this would even be feasible.
>
> Don't get out much, do you.
>
> Seen any movies lately?
>
>
> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
>
>
> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
> > this would even be feasible.
>
> Don't get out much, do you.
>
> Seen any movies lately?
>
>
> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
>
>
> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
Ben Holmes
Jun 26, 2018, 9:32:45 AM6/26/18
to
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:16:33 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
You're lying again, Chuckly. At no time in history has *ANYONE* ever
made that claim, let alone me.
That you lie so *BLATANTLY* shows that you know you've lost.
The only reason for such flagrant lying is that you realize that you
can't debate the facts.
YOU'RE A LIAR, CHUCKLY!
And you've lost.
> You're making the extraordinary claim, you have the extraordinary
> burden.
Au contraire... it's **YOU** that's making the extraordinary claim...
your claim is that inertia is not a scientific fact.
It's **YOUR** claim that the camera can be stopped, then started again
and defy the laws of inertia.
**MY** claim is a simple one. Zapruder's camera is subject to the same
laws of nature that everything is. A lack of 'first frame flash' shows
that frames were excised from the film... nothing more, and nothing
less.
Nothing "extraordinary" about that...
Why did you lie, Chuckly?
Can you *QUOTE* anyone at all saying what you claimed I'd said?
made that claim, let alone me.
That you lie so *BLATANTLY* shows that you know you've lost.
The only reason for such flagrant lying is that you realize that you
can't debate the facts.
YOU'RE A LIAR, CHUCKLY!
And you've lost.
> You're making the extraordinary claim, you have the extraordinary
> burden.
your claim is that inertia is not a scientific fact.
It's **YOUR** claim that the camera can be stopped, then started again
and defy the laws of inertia.
**MY** claim is a simple one. Zapruder's camera is subject to the same
laws of nature that everything is. A lack of 'first frame flash' shows
that frames were excised from the film... nothing more, and nothing
less.
Nothing "extraordinary" about that...
Why did you lie, Chuckly?
Can you *QUOTE* anyone at all saying what you claimed I'd said?
Ben Holmes
Jun 26, 2018, 9:51:01 AM6/26/18
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 06:08:59 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
Then you acknowledge that film editing is easily possible. Unless you
have *another* explanation for why E.T. was seen flying on a
bicycle...
> But you believe E.T. was involved in the JFK assassination.
You're lying again, Chuckly. There's absolutely *NOTHING* I've ever
said that would lead an intelligent and honest person to say such a
thing.
So tell us Chuckly, is it a lack of intelligence, or dishonesty that
makes you say that?
>> WHAT A MORON!!!
>>
>> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
>> equipment and expertise.
>
> Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. We're discussing the Zapruder film,
> not ET, not Hollywood special effects. Linking Hollywood to what
> you're alleging occurred with the Z film is logically fallacious.
This is like saying most Americans can drive a car... is a "sweeping
generalization fallacy."
Or perhaps you're claiming that only Hollywood can alter film...
That the Z-film was altered IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The lack of 'first
frame flash' proves it.
>> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
>
> Of course a research photo lab would have equipment and expertise.
AMAZING! I most certainly would have predicted that you'd not
publicly acknowledged this.
You can occasionally surprise me, Chuckly!
> You are now assuming your conclusion that this lab was involved
Nope. No "assumption" needed. Eyewitnesses have placed the film there
that weekend.
I consider it quite logical - since the proof that the film was
altered is scientifically unassailable.
I note for the record that you've **STILL** not addressed this fact
> in editing out bullet strikes and a limo stop from the Z film, so you're
> Begging the Question.
Nope. No "begging the question" is involved at all. Scientific
evidence, and eyewitnesses are all that are required at this point.
You're *DESPERATELY* jumping ahead, without addressing the prior
facts.
Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that the evidence PROVES that the
film was altered, and that the eyewitnesses support the theory that it
was done at "Hawkeye Works."
**THEN** ... and only then, can you debate what that alteration might
have consisted of.
>> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
>>
>> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
>
>Editing out your child molesting activities.
I pointed out that I've already had experience with film editing, and
all you could think of was gratuitous ad hominem.
That's merely an admission that you know you lost.
>> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
>> > this would even be feasible.
>>
>> Don't get out much, do you.
>>
>> Seen any movies lately?
>>
>>
>> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
>>
>>
>> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
>
>
>Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
LOL!!! You can't even acknowledge the very first point.
Perhaps we need to go back to basics.
Can you define "inertia?"
have *another* explanation for why E.T. was seen flying on a
bicycle...
> But you believe E.T. was involved in the JFK assassination.
said that would lead an intelligent and honest person to say such a
thing.
So tell us Chuckly, is it a lack of intelligence, or dishonesty that
makes you say that?
>> WHAT A MORON!!!
>>
>> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
>> equipment and expertise.
>
> Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. We're discussing the Zapruder film,
> not ET, not Hollywood special effects. Linking Hollywood to what
> you're alleging occurred with the Z film is logically fallacious.
generalization fallacy."
Or perhaps you're claiming that only Hollywood can alter film...
That the Z-film was altered IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The lack of 'first
frame flash' proves it.
>> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
>
> Of course a research photo lab would have equipment and expertise.
publicly acknowledged this.
You can occasionally surprise me, Chuckly!
> You are now assuming your conclusion that this lab was involved
that weekend.
I consider it quite logical - since the proof that the film was
altered is scientifically unassailable.
I note for the record that you've **STILL** not addressed this fact
> in editing out bullet strikes and a limo stop from the Z film, so you're
> Begging the Question.
evidence, and eyewitnesses are all that are required at this point.
You're *DESPERATELY* jumping ahead, without addressing the prior
facts.
Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that the evidence PROVES that the
film was altered, and that the eyewitnesses support the theory that it
was done at "Hawkeye Works."
**THEN** ... and only then, can you debate what that alteration might
have consisted of.
>> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
>>
>> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
>
>Editing out your child molesting activities.
all you could think of was gratuitous ad hominem.
That's merely an admission that you know you lost.
>> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
>> > this would even be feasible.
>>
>> Don't get out much, do you.
>>
>> Seen any movies lately?
>>
>>
>> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
>>
>>
>> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
>
>
>Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
Perhaps we need to go back to basics.
Can you define "inertia?"
chucksch...@gmail.com
Jun 26, 2018, 9:51:33 AM6/26/18
to
Tell us what was edited out of the Z film. Be specific. Don't say, "Proof of a conspiracy."
(That whoosh sound is little Benny strapping on his sneakers and running as fast as his stumpy, pint-sized legs can spin.)
Ben Holmes
Jun 26, 2018, 9:53:37 AM6/26/18
to
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:
If you think readers will not see your silly tactic for what it is -
you have a very low opinion of the average reader.
I'll be happy to explain my theories in the threads they were
introduced.
Why are you so terrified to explain why Z-133 doesn't have 'first
frame flash?'
wrote:
you have a very low opinion of the average reader.
I'll be happy to explain my theories in the threads they were
introduced.
Why are you so terrified to explain why Z-133 doesn't have 'first
frame flash?'
Ben Holmes
Jun 26, 2018, 9:54:46 AM6/26/18
to
Where's the 'A' team? Doesn't the Warren Commission demand the very
best defense?
Ben Holmes
Jun 26, 2018, 10:11:11 AM6/26/18
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 06:51:32 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
Anyone notice that Chuckly slunk away when his lie was pointed out?
No defense at all.
Chuckly simply lied, and got caught at it.
>> > You're making the extraordinary claim, you have the extraordinary
>> > burden.
>>
>>
>> Au contraire... it's **YOU** that's making the extraordinary claim...
>> your claim is that inertia is not a scientific fact.
>>
>> It's **YOUR** claim that the camera can be stopped, then started again
>> and defy the laws of inertia.
Anyone notice that Chuckly got spanked here?
Chuckly had nothing to say...
>> **MY** claim is a simple one. Zapruder's camera is subject to the same
>> laws of nature that everything is. A lack of 'first frame flash' shows
>> that frames were excised from the film... nothing more, and nothing
>> less.
>>
>> Nothing "extraordinary" about that...
>>
>>
>>
>> Why did you lie, Chuckly?
>>
>> Can you *QUOTE* anyone at all saying what you claimed I'd said?
>
>
>Well Ben here's your chance. Don't let me put words in your mouth.
How can **I** stop you? I merely point it out, and then you run away
as you've done in this post.
You didn't acknowledge your lies, nor have you apologized for them.
Why not, coward?
> Tell us what was edited out of the Z film. Be specific. Don't say,
> "Proof of a conspiracy."
You're once again putting the horse in front of the cart.
You're DESPERATE to change the topic, without addressing the
scientific PROOF that the film was altered.
I'll be *HAPPY* to answer your question as soon as you publicly
acknowledge that the film *WAS* altered.
So back to the basics... why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
> (That whoosh sound is little Benny strapping on his sneakers and
> running as fast as his stumpy, pint-sized legs can spin.)
Contrary to your ad hominem, you've *PROVABLY* lied and ran in this
post.
Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
You've acknowledged that I've had editing experience.
You've acknowledged that "Hawkeye Works" would have had the experience
and equipment to do the film alteration.
You've failed to refute the known facts (such as what Roland Zavada
stated about the film).
So why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
No defense at all.
Chuckly simply lied, and got caught at it.
>> > You're making the extraordinary claim, you have the extraordinary
>> > burden.
>>
>>
>> Au contraire... it's **YOU** that's making the extraordinary claim...
>> your claim is that inertia is not a scientific fact.
>>
>> It's **YOUR** claim that the camera can be stopped, then started again
>> and defy the laws of inertia.
Chuckly had nothing to say...
>> **MY** claim is a simple one. Zapruder's camera is subject to the same
>> laws of nature that everything is. A lack of 'first frame flash' shows
>> that frames were excised from the film... nothing more, and nothing
>> less.
>>
>> Nothing "extraordinary" about that...
>>
>>
>>
>> Why did you lie, Chuckly?
>>
>> Can you *QUOTE* anyone at all saying what you claimed I'd said?
>
>
>Well Ben here's your chance. Don't let me put words in your mouth.
as you've done in this post.
You didn't acknowledge your lies, nor have you apologized for them.
Why not, coward?
> Tell us what was edited out of the Z film. Be specific. Don't say,
> "Proof of a conspiracy."
You're DESPERATE to change the topic, without addressing the
scientific PROOF that the film was altered.
I'll be *HAPPY* to answer your question as soon as you publicly
acknowledge that the film *WAS* altered.
So back to the basics... why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
> (That whoosh sound is little Benny strapping on his sneakers and
> running as fast as his stumpy, pint-sized legs can spin.)
post.
Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
You've acknowledged that "Hawkeye Works" would have had the experience
and equipment to do the film alteration.
You've failed to refute the known facts (such as what Roland Zavada
stated about the film).
So why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
chucksch...@gmail.com
Jun 26, 2018, 10:14:34 AM6/26/18
to
>
> So tell us Chuckly, is it a lack of intelligence, or dishonesty that
> makes you say that?
False Choice fallacy. It's like asking you when you stopped molesting kids.
> So tell us Chuckly, is it a lack of intelligence, or dishonesty that
> makes you say that?
>
>
> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
> >>
> >> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
> >> equipment and expertise.
> >
> > Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. We're discussing the Zapruder film,
> > not ET, not Hollywood special effects. Linking Hollywood to what
> > you're alleging occurred with the Z film is logically fallacious.
>
>
> This is like saying most Americans can drive a car... is a "sweeping
> generalization fallacy."
No, because you're not making a comparison there is no generalization taking place. Most Americans of driving age probably do have the ability to drive a car. I'm sure there are reliable stats for it.
>
> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
> >>
> >> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
> >> equipment and expertise.
> >
> > Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. We're discussing the Zapruder film,
> > not ET, not Hollywood special effects. Linking Hollywood to what
> > you're alleging occurred with the Z film is logically fallacious.
>
>
> This is like saying most Americans can drive a car... is a "sweeping
> generalization fallacy."
>
> Or perhaps you're claiming that only Hollywood can alter film...
>
> That the Z-film was altered IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The lack of 'first
> frame flash' proves it.
No it doesn't prove it. You're Begging the Question. And first frame overexposure doesn't prove all of the things you hint happened with the Z film.
> Or perhaps you're claiming that only Hollywood can alter film...
>
> That the Z-film was altered IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The lack of 'first
> frame flash' proves it.
>
>
> >> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
> >
> > Of course a research photo lab would have equipment and expertise.
>
>
> AMAZING! I most certainly would have predicted that you'd not
> publicly acknowledged this.
>
> You can occasionally surprise me, Chuckly!
>
>
> > You are now assuming your conclusion that this lab was involved
>
> Nope. No "assumption" needed. Eyewitnesses have placed the film there
> that weekend.
If true, you're still Begging the Question.
>
> >> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
> >
> > Of course a research photo lab would have equipment and expertise.
>
>
> AMAZING! I most certainly would have predicted that you'd not
> publicly acknowledged this.
>
> You can occasionally surprise me, Chuckly!
>
>
> > You are now assuming your conclusion that this lab was involved
>
> Nope. No "assumption" needed. Eyewitnesses have placed the film there
> that weekend.
>
> I consider it quite logical - since the proof that the film was
> altered is scientifically unassailable.
That's not what the HSCA found. And Zapruder kept a copy.
> I consider it quite logical - since the proof that the film was
> altered is scientifically unassailable.
>
> I note for the record that you've **STILL** not addressed this fact
>
> > in editing out bullet strikes and a limo stop from the Z film, so you're
> > Begging the Question.
>
> Nope. No "begging the question" is involved at all. Scientific
> evidence, and eyewitnesses are all that are required at this point.
Yeah, it is Begging the Question. You're assuming a fringe theory correct [Z film alteration] that is disputed by even your fellow JFK Truthers and not borne out by an examination of the film, tests that were run, the timeline of the film, etc. I know you disagree with all of that, but you're not the standard.
> I note for the record that you've **STILL** not addressed this fact
>
> > in editing out bullet strikes and a limo stop from the Z film, so you're
> > Begging the Question.
>
> Nope. No "begging the question" is involved at all. Scientific
> evidence, and eyewitnesses are all that are required at this point.
>
> You're *DESPERATELY* jumping ahead, without addressing the prior
> facts.
>
> Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that the evidence PROVES that the
> film was altered, and that the eyewitnesses support the theory that it
> was done at "Hawkeye Works."
Why?
> You're *DESPERATELY* jumping ahead, without addressing the prior
> facts.
>
> Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that the evidence PROVES that the
> film was altered, and that the eyewitnesses support the theory that it
> was done at "Hawkeye Works."
>
> **THEN** ... and only then, can you debate what that alteration might
> have consisted of.
Why is the bar so incredibly high for what I need to stipulate to before you'll honor us with presenting your evidence? Why not just tell us how the film was altered, the editing equipment of the period that could've done the job, present tests, and so on?
> **THEN** ... and only then, can you debate what that alteration might
> have consisted of.
>
>
> >> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
> >>
> >> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
> >
> >Editing out your child molesting activities.
>
> I pointed out that I've already had experience with film editing, and
> all you could think of was gratuitous ad hominem.
>
> That's merely an admission that you know you lost.
Then present your case. This isn't a defense trial where you get to claim "first frame flash" and use one item to cancel out all of the evidence against Z film alteration.
>
> >> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
> >>
> >> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
> >
> >Editing out your child molesting activities.
>
> I pointed out that I've already had experience with film editing, and
> all you could think of was gratuitous ad hominem.
>
> That's merely an admission that you know you lost.
>
>
> >> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
> >> > this would even be feasible.
> >>
> >> Don't get out much, do you.
> >>
> >> Seen any movies lately?
> >>
> >>
> >> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
> >
> >
> >Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
>
> LOL!!! You can't even acknowledge the very first point.
Still running from the Lady in Yellow Pants, I see.
>
> >> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
> >> > this would even be feasible.
> >>
> >> Don't get out much, do you.
> >>
> >> Seen any movies lately?
> >>
> >>
> >> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
> >
> >
> >Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
>
> LOL!!! You can't even acknowledge the very first point.
>
> Perhaps we need to go back to basics.
Sure. Since you're challenging, explain why the Z film needed to be altered. Why not just destroy it? That would seem to be the most basic question, so let's start there.
> Perhaps we need to go back to basics.
>
> Can you define "inertia?"
Another Fringe Rest/Holmes Pivot.
Why not present your case instead of asking me to produce definitions for words that can be found in a dictionary?
Ben Holmes
Jun 26, 2018, 12:29:43 PM6/26/18
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:14:33 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
Of course not... **I** don't think film alteration is all that
difficult. It's done routinely.
**YOU** are the one trying to argue that film alteration is a
difficult thing... or even an impossible task...
Now, are you willing to acknowledge that film alteration is perfectly
possible?
>> So tell us Chuckly, is it a lack of intelligence, or dishonesty that
>> makes you say that?
>
>False Choice fallacy. It's like asking you when you stopped molesting kids.
Yet you refuse to offer any other explanation for your lies.
Why is that, Chuckly?
Do you think if you change the topic enough times, it won't be obvious
that you're running?
>> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
>> >>
>> >> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
>> >> equipment and expertise.
>> >
>> > Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. We're discussing the Zapruder film,
>> > not ET, not Hollywood special effects. Linking Hollywood to what
>> > you're alleging occurred with the Z film is logically fallacious.
>>
>> This is like saying most Americans can drive a car... is a "sweeping
>> generalization fallacy."
>
> No, because you're not making a comparison there is no
> generalization taking place. Most Americans of driving age probably do
> have the ability to drive a car. I'm sure there are reliable stats for
> it.
Okay... let's do it a different way. **YOU** assert the contrary, that
film cannot be easily manipulated, given the right equipment and
expertise.
*YOU* cite for your claim.
I've cited Hollywood movies as proof that it's generally acknowledged
that film can be easily manipulated... **YOU** make the extraordinary
claim that it cannot be.
IT'S YOUR BURDEN - CARRY YOUR BURDEN CHUCKLY!
>> Or perhaps you're claiming that only Hollywood can alter film...
>>
>> That the Z-film was altered IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The lack of 'first
>> frame flash' proves it.
>
> No it doesn't prove it. You're Begging the Question.
Then it's *YOUR BURDEN* to explain why Z-133 doesn't show 'first frame
flash.'
CARRY YOUR BURDEN!!!
These are FACTS that you're running from.
> And first frame overexposure doesn't prove all of the things you
> hint happened with the Z film.
I've already pointed out that you're lying on this topic.
The lack of 'first frame flash' proves just one thing... that the
camera was *NOT* started on that frame. That's the *ONLY* thing it
proves... this means that the film was *CUT* with scissors... frames
were excised.
THAT IS THE ONLY THING PROVEN BY A LACK OF 'FIRST FRAME FLASH'.
You've now lied twice on this same issue.
Are you stupid enough to do it again?
Time will tell.
>> >> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
>> >
>> > Of course a research photo lab would have equipment and expertise.
>>
>>
>> AMAZING! I most certainly would have predicted that you'd not
>> publicly acknowledged this.
>>
>> You can occasionally surprise me, Chuckly!
>>
>>
>> > You are now assuming your conclusion that this lab was involved
>>
>> Nope. No "assumption" needed. Eyewitnesses have placed the film there
>> that weekend.
>
> If true, you're still Begging the Question.
Pole.
A logical fallacy...
You cannot use the HSCA to make a point that they never addressed.
Unless you can CITE where they explained the lack of 'first frame
flash,' you can't use them to deny the lack of 'first frame flash.'
>> I note for the record that you've **STILL** not addressed this fact
>>
>> > in editing out bullet strikes and a limo stop from the Z film, so you're
>> > Begging the Question.
>>
>> Nope. No "begging the question" is involved at all. Scientific
>> evidence, and eyewitnesses are all that are required at this point.
>
> Yeah, it is Begging the Question. You're assuming a fringe theory
> correct [Z film alteration] that is disputed by even your fellow JFK
> Truthers and not borne out by an examination of the film, tests that
> were run, the timeline of the film, etc. I know you disagree with all
> of that, but you're not the standard.
Does Z-133 show the phenomena known as 'first frame flash?'
Yes or no...
>> You're *DESPERATELY* jumping ahead, without addressing the prior
>> facts.
>>
>> Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that the evidence PROVES that the
>> film was altered, and that the eyewitnesses support the theory that it
>> was done at "Hawkeye Works."
>
>Why?
Because you're clearly trying to evade the fundamental facts, and move
on beyond that...
>> **THEN** ... and only then, can you debate what that alteration might
>> have consisted of.
>
> Why is the bar so incredibly high for what I need to stipulate to
> before you'll honor us with presenting your evidence? Why not just
> tell us how the film was altered, the editing equipment of the period
> that could've done the job, present tests, and so on?
What bar?
Does Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
Yes or no?
You're DESPERATELY running from the main issue, and trying to change
the topic.
>> >> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
>> >
>> >Editing out your child molesting activities.
>>
>> I pointed out that I've already had experience with film editing, and
>> all you could think of was gratuitous ad hominem.
>>
>> That's merely an admission that you know you lost.
>
>Then present your case.
I have. And you keep running away.
Does Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
> This isn't a defense trial where you get to claim "first frame
> flash" and use one item to cancel out all of the evidence against Z
> film alteration.
You're lying again, Chuckly. You've not presented ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL
against film alteration.
NOT ONE!!!
Now, answer the question...
>> >> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
>> >> > this would even be feasible.
>> >>
>> >> Don't get out much, do you.
>> >>
>> >> Seen any movies lately?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
>> >
>> >Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
>>
>> LOL!!! You can't even acknowledge the very first point.
>
>Still running from the Lady in Yellow Pants, I see.
Feel free to bring it up in the original thread.
But you won't... you're a coward.
>> Perhaps we need to go back to basics.
>
> Sure. Since you're challenging, explain why the Z film needed to be
> altered. Why not just destroy it? That would seem to be the most basic
> question, so let's start there.
Why do fire engines have to be red?
Why not green?
Since you'll refuse to offer a credible explanation, then clearly,
fire engines aren't red.
Similarly, even though I've PROVEN that the film was altered, you want
to whine about why it needed to be altered...
I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE - IT'S A DONE DEAL - ALREADY
**ANSWERED**.
So stop rehashing old material, and answer the question, coward...
>> Can you define "inertia?"
>
>Another Fringe Rest/Holmes Pivot.
>
> Why not present your case instead of asking me to produce
> definitions for words that can be found in a dictionary?
I've made the case.
You've run from almost every single point made.
And until *YOU* can explain why Z-133 managed to evade the law of
inertia, you've failed.
It's proven.
The Z-film was altered.
That's a fact.
difficult. It's done routinely.
**YOU** are the one trying to argue that film alteration is a
difficult thing... or even an impossible task...
Now, are you willing to acknowledge that film alteration is perfectly
possible?
>> So tell us Chuckly, is it a lack of intelligence, or dishonesty that
>> makes you say that?
>
>False Choice fallacy. It's like asking you when you stopped molesting kids.
Why is that, Chuckly?
Do you think if you change the topic enough times, it won't be obvious
that you're running?
>> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
>> >>
>> >> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
>> >> equipment and expertise.
>> >
>> > Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. We're discussing the Zapruder film,
>> > not ET, not Hollywood special effects. Linking Hollywood to what
>> > you're alleging occurred with the Z film is logically fallacious.
>>
>> This is like saying most Americans can drive a car... is a "sweeping
>> generalization fallacy."
>
> No, because you're not making a comparison there is no
> generalization taking place. Most Americans of driving age probably do
> have the ability to drive a car. I'm sure there are reliable stats for
> it.
film cannot be easily manipulated, given the right equipment and
expertise.
*YOU* cite for your claim.
I've cited Hollywood movies as proof that it's generally acknowledged
that film can be easily manipulated... **YOU** make the extraordinary
claim that it cannot be.
IT'S YOUR BURDEN - CARRY YOUR BURDEN CHUCKLY!
>> Or perhaps you're claiming that only Hollywood can alter film...
>>
>> That the Z-film was altered IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The lack of 'first
>> frame flash' proves it.
>
> No it doesn't prove it. You're Begging the Question.
flash.'
CARRY YOUR BURDEN!!!
These are FACTS that you're running from.
> And first frame overexposure doesn't prove all of the things you
> hint happened with the Z film.
The lack of 'first frame flash' proves just one thing... that the
camera was *NOT* started on that frame. That's the *ONLY* thing it
proves... this means that the film was *CUT* with scissors... frames
were excised.
THAT IS THE ONLY THING PROVEN BY A LACK OF 'FIRST FRAME FLASH'.
You've now lied twice on this same issue.
Are you stupid enough to do it again?
Time will tell.
>> >> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
>> >
>> > Of course a research photo lab would have equipment and expertise.
>>
>>
>> AMAZING! I most certainly would have predicted that you'd not
>> publicly acknowledged this.
>>
>> You can occasionally surprise me, Chuckly!
>>
>>
>> > You are now assuming your conclusion that this lab was involved
>>
>> Nope. No "assumption" needed. Eyewitnesses have placed the film there
>> that weekend.
>
> If true, you're still Begging the Question.
You're lying again, Chuckly.
>> I consider it quite logical - since the proof that the film was
>> altered is scientifically unassailable.
>
>That's not what the HSCA found. And Zapruder kept a copy.
Neither did the HSCA find that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North
>> altered is scientifically unassailable.
>
>That's not what the HSCA found. And Zapruder kept a copy.
Pole.
A logical fallacy...
You cannot use the HSCA to make a point that they never addressed.
Unless you can CITE where they explained the lack of 'first frame
flash,' you can't use them to deny the lack of 'first frame flash.'
>> I note for the record that you've **STILL** not addressed this fact
>>
>> > in editing out bullet strikes and a limo stop from the Z film, so you're
>> > Begging the Question.
>>
>> Nope. No "begging the question" is involved at all. Scientific
>> evidence, and eyewitnesses are all that are required at this point.
>
> Yeah, it is Begging the Question. You're assuming a fringe theory
> correct [Z film alteration] that is disputed by even your fellow JFK
> Truthers and not borne out by an examination of the film, tests that
> were run, the timeline of the film, etc. I know you disagree with all
> of that, but you're not the standard.
Yes or no...
>> You're *DESPERATELY* jumping ahead, without addressing the prior
>> facts.
>>
>> Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that the evidence PROVES that the
>> film was altered, and that the eyewitnesses support the theory that it
>> was done at "Hawkeye Works."
>
>Why?
on beyond that...
>> **THEN** ... and only then, can you debate what that alteration might
>> have consisted of.
>
> Why is the bar so incredibly high for what I need to stipulate to
> before you'll honor us with presenting your evidence? Why not just
> tell us how the film was altered, the editing equipment of the period
> that could've done the job, present tests, and so on?
Does Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
Yes or no?
You're DESPERATELY running from the main issue, and trying to change
the topic.
>> >> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
>> >
>> >Editing out your child molesting activities.
>>
>> I pointed out that I've already had experience with film editing, and
>> all you could think of was gratuitous ad hominem.
>>
>> That's merely an admission that you know you lost.
>
>Then present your case.
Does Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
> This isn't a defense trial where you get to claim "first frame
> flash" and use one item to cancel out all of the evidence against Z
> film alteration.
against film alteration.
NOT ONE!!!
Now, answer the question...
>> >> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
>> >> > this would even be feasible.
>> >>
>> >> Don't get out much, do you.
>> >>
>> >> Seen any movies lately?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
>> >
>> >Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
>>
>> LOL!!! You can't even acknowledge the very first point.
>
>Still running from the Lady in Yellow Pants, I see.
But you won't... you're a coward.
>> Perhaps we need to go back to basics.
>
> Sure. Since you're challenging, explain why the Z film needed to be
> altered. Why not just destroy it? That would seem to be the most basic
> question, so let's start there.
Why not green?
Since you'll refuse to offer a credible explanation, then clearly,
fire engines aren't red.
Similarly, even though I've PROVEN that the film was altered, you want
to whine about why it needed to be altered...
I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE - IT'S A DONE DEAL - ALREADY
**ANSWERED**.
So stop rehashing old material, and answer the question, coward...
>> Can you define "inertia?"
>
>Another Fringe Rest/Holmes Pivot.
>
> Why not present your case instead of asking me to produce
> definitions for words that can be found in a dictionary?
You've run from almost every single point made.
And until *YOU* can explain why Z-133 managed to evade the law of
inertia, you've failed.
It's proven.
The Z-film was altered.
That's a fact.
chucksch...@gmail.com
Jun 26, 2018, 3:37:50 PM6/26/18
to
Ben Holmes
Jun 26, 2018, 4:04:05 PM6/26/18
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 12:37:49 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
Dead silence.
Chuckles is AFRAID to acknowledge this simple fact.
>> >> So tell us Chuckly, is it a lack of intelligence, or dishonesty that
>> >> makes you say that?
>> >
>> >False Choice fallacy. It's like asking you when you stopped molesting kids.
>>
>> Yet you refuse to offer any other explanation for your lies.
>>
>> Why is that, Chuckly?
>>
>> Do you think if you change the topic enough times, it won't be obvious
>> that you're running?
Again, Chuckles ran away...
>> >> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
>> >> >> equipment and expertise.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. We're discussing the Zapruder film,
>> >> > not ET, not Hollywood special effects. Linking Hollywood to what
>> >> > you're alleging occurred with the Z film is logically fallacious.
>> >>
>> >> This is like saying most Americans can drive a car... is a "sweeping
>> >> generalization fallacy."
>> >
>> > No, because you're not making a comparison there is no
>> > generalization taking place. Most Americans of driving age probably do
>> > have the ability to drive a car. I'm sure there are reliable stats for
>> > it.
>>
>> Okay... let's do it a different way. **YOU** assert the contrary, that
>> film cannot be easily manipulated, given the right equipment and
>> expertise.
>>
>> *YOU* cite for your claim.
>>
>> I've cited Hollywood movies as proof that it's generally acknowledged
>> that film can be easily manipulated... **YOU** make the extraordinary
>> claim that it cannot be.
>>
>> IT'S YOUR BURDEN - CARRY YOUR BURDEN CHUCKLY!
Not surprisingly, Chuckles ran...
>> >> Or perhaps you're claiming that only Hollywood can alter film...
>> >>
>> >> That the Z-film was altered IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The lack of 'first
>> >> frame flash' proves it.
>> >
>> > No it doesn't prove it. You're Begging the Question.
>>
>> Then it's *YOUR BURDEN* to explain why Z-133 doesn't show 'first frame
>> flash.'
>>
>> CARRY YOUR BURDEN!!!
>>
>> These are FACTS that you're running from.
Dead silence again...
>> > And first frame overexposure doesn't prove all of the things you
>> > hint happened with the Z film.
>>
>> I've already pointed out that you're lying on this topic.
>>
>> The lack of 'first frame flash' proves just one thing... that the
>> camera was *NOT* started on that frame. That's the *ONLY* thing it
>> proves... this means that the film was *CUT* with scissors... frames
>> were excised.
>>
>> THAT IS THE ONLY THING PROVEN BY A LACK OF 'FIRST FRAME FLASH'.
>>
>> You've now lied twice on this same issue.
>>
>> Are you stupid enough to do it again?
>>
>> Time will tell.
Looks like Chuckles decided to run away instead of lying again.
>> >> >> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course a research photo lab would have equipment and expertise.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> AMAZING! I most certainly would have predicted that you'd not
>> >> publicly acknowledged this.
>> >>
>> >> You can occasionally surprise me, Chuckly!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > You are now assuming your conclusion that this lab was involved
>> >>
>> >> Nope. No "assumption" needed. Eyewitnesses have placed the film there
>> >> that weekend.
>> >
>> > If true, you're still Begging the Question.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckly.
>>
>>
>> >> I consider it quite logical - since the proof that the film was
>> >> altered is scientifically unassailable.
>> >
>> >That's not what the HSCA found. And Zapruder kept a copy.
>>
>>
>> Neither did the HSCA find that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North
>> Pole.
>>
>> A logical fallacy...
>>
>> You cannot use the HSCA to make a point that they never addressed.
>>
>> Unless you can CITE where they explained the lack of 'first frame
>> flash,' you can't use them to deny the lack of 'first frame flash.'
Looks like my simple logic shut Chuckles up.
>> >> I note for the record that you've **STILL** not addressed this fact
>> >>
>> >> > in editing out bullet strikes and a limo stop from the Z film, so you're
>> >> > Begging the Question.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. No "begging the question" is involved at all. Scientific
>> >> evidence, and eyewitnesses are all that are required at this point.
>> >
>> > Yeah, it is Begging the Question. You're assuming a fringe theory
>> > correct [Z film alteration] that is disputed by even your fellow JFK
>> > Truthers and not borne out by an examination of the film, tests that
>> > were run, the timeline of the film, etc. I know you disagree with all
>> > of that, but you're not the standard.
>>
>>
>> Does Z-133 show the phenomena known as 'first frame flash?'
>>
>> Yes or no...
Chuckles was too terrified to even say "boo."
>> >> You're *DESPERATELY* jumping ahead, without addressing the prior
>> >> facts.
>> >>
>> >> Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that the evidence PROVES that the
>> >> film was altered, and that the eyewitnesses support the theory that it
>> >> was done at "Hawkeye Works."
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>>
>> Because you're clearly trying to evade the fundamental facts, and move
>> on beyond that...
Once again, my simple answer shut Chuckles up.
Such AMUSING cowardice!!!
>> >> **THEN** ... and only then, can you debate what that alteration might
>> >> have consisted of.
>> >
>> > Why is the bar so incredibly high for what I need to stipulate to
>> > before you'll honor us with presenting your evidence? Why not just
>> > tell us how the film was altered, the editing equipment of the period
>> > that could've done the job, present tests, and so on?
>>
>> What bar?
>>
>> Does Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
>>
>> Yes or no?
>>
>> You're DESPERATELY running from the main issue, and trying to change
>> the topic.
And now, won't even answer! WHAT A COWARD!!!
>> >> >> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
>> >> >
>> >> >Editing out your child molesting activities.
>> >>
>> >> I pointed out that I've already had experience with film editing, and
>> >> all you could think of was gratuitous ad hominem.
>> >>
>> >> That's merely an admission that you know you lost.
>> >
>> >Then present your case.
>>
>> I have. And you keep running away.
>>
>> Does Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
TERRIFIED, Chuckles was last seen running away with a big yellow
stripe down his back...
>> > This isn't a defense trial where you get to claim "first frame
>> > flash" and use one item to cancel out all of the evidence against Z
>> > film alteration.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckly. You've not presented ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL
>> against film alteration.
>>
>> NOT ONE!!!
>>
>> Now, answer the question...
Dead silence.
>> >> >> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
>> >> >> > this would even be feasible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don't get out much, do you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Seen any movies lately?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
>> >> >
>> >> >Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
>> >>
>> >> LOL!!! You can't even acknowledge the very first point.
>> >
>> >Still running from the Lady in Yellow Pants, I see.
>>
>>
>> Feel free to bring it up in the original thread.
>>
>> But you won't... you're a coward.
Another perfect prediction fulfilled.
>> >> Perhaps we need to go back to basics.
>> >
>> > Sure. Since you're challenging, explain why the Z film needed to be
>> > altered. Why not just destroy it? That would seem to be the most basic
>> > question, so let's start there.
>>
>> Why do fire engines have to be red?
>>
>> Why not green?
>>
>> Since you'll refuse to offer a credible explanation, then clearly,
>> fire engines aren't red.
>>
>> Similarly, even though I've PROVEN that the film was altered, you want
>> to whine about why it needed to be altered...
>>
>> I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE - IT'S A DONE DEAL - ALREADY
>> **ANSWERED**.
>>
>> So stop rehashing old material, and answer the question, coward...
Still a coward... eh Chuckles??
>> >> Can you define "inertia?"
>> >
>> >Another Fringe Rest/Holmes Pivot.
>> >
>> > Why not present your case instead of asking me to produce
>> > definitions for words that can be found in a dictionary?
>>
>> I've made the case.
>>
>> You've run from almost every single point made.
>>
>> And until *YOU* can explain why Z-133 managed to evade the law of
>> inertia, you've failed.
>>
>> It's proven.
>>
>> The Z-film was altered.
>>
>> That's a fact.
>
>Begging the Question. Show your tests. Carry your burden.
You're running like the coward you are...
How embarrassing it must be for you!
Chuckles is AFRAID to acknowledge this simple fact.
>> >> So tell us Chuckly, is it a lack of intelligence, or dishonesty that
>> >> makes you say that?
>> >
>> >False Choice fallacy. It's like asking you when you stopped molesting kids.
>>
>> Yet you refuse to offer any other explanation for your lies.
>>
>> Why is that, Chuckly?
>>
>> Do you think if you change the topic enough times, it won't be obvious
>> that you're running?
>> >> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've long accepted that film can easily be manipulated, given
>> >> >> equipment and expertise.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. We're discussing the Zapruder film,
>> >> > not ET, not Hollywood special effects. Linking Hollywood to what
>> >> > you're alleging occurred with the Z film is logically fallacious.
>> >>
>> >> This is like saying most Americans can drive a car... is a "sweeping
>> >> generalization fallacy."
>> >
>> > No, because you're not making a comparison there is no
>> > generalization taking place. Most Americans of driving age probably do
>> > have the ability to drive a car. I'm sure there are reliable stats for
>> > it.
>>
>> Okay... let's do it a different way. **YOU** assert the contrary, that
>> film cannot be easily manipulated, given the right equipment and
>> expertise.
>>
>> *YOU* cite for your claim.
>>
>> I've cited Hollywood movies as proof that it's generally acknowledged
>> that film can be easily manipulated... **YOU** make the extraordinary
>> claim that it cannot be.
>>
>> IT'S YOUR BURDEN - CARRY YOUR BURDEN CHUCKLY!
>> >> Or perhaps you're claiming that only Hollywood can alter film...
>> >>
>> >> That the Z-film was altered IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The lack of 'first
>> >> frame flash' proves it.
>> >
>> > No it doesn't prove it. You're Begging the Question.
>>
>> Then it's *YOUR BURDEN* to explain why Z-133 doesn't show 'first frame
>> flash.'
>>
>> CARRY YOUR BURDEN!!!
>>
>> These are FACTS that you're running from.
>> > And first frame overexposure doesn't prove all of the things you
>> > hint happened with the Z film.
>>
>> I've already pointed out that you're lying on this topic.
>>
>> The lack of 'first frame flash' proves just one thing... that the
>> camera was *NOT* started on that frame. That's the *ONLY* thing it
>> proves... this means that the film was *CUT* with scissors... frames
>> were excised.
>>
>> THAT IS THE ONLY THING PROVEN BY A LACK OF 'FIRST FRAME FLASH'.
>>
>> You've now lied twice on this same issue.
>>
>> Are you stupid enough to do it again?
>>
>> Time will tell.
>> >> >> Do you suppose that "Hawkeye Works" had equipment and expertise?
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course a research photo lab would have equipment and expertise.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> AMAZING! I most certainly would have predicted that you'd not
>> >> publicly acknowledged this.
>> >>
>> >> You can occasionally surprise me, Chuckly!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > You are now assuming your conclusion that this lab was involved
>> >>
>> >> Nope. No "assumption" needed. Eyewitnesses have placed the film there
>> >> that weekend.
>> >
>> > If true, you're still Begging the Question.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckly.
>>
>>
>> >> I consider it quite logical - since the proof that the film was
>> >> altered is scientifically unassailable.
>> >
>> >That's not what the HSCA found. And Zapruder kept a copy.
>>
>>
>> Neither did the HSCA find that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North
>> Pole.
>>
>> A logical fallacy...
>>
>> You cannot use the HSCA to make a point that they never addressed.
>>
>> Unless you can CITE where they explained the lack of 'first frame
>> flash,' you can't use them to deny the lack of 'first frame flash.'
>> >> I note for the record that you've **STILL** not addressed this fact
>> >>
>> >> > in editing out bullet strikes and a limo stop from the Z film, so you're
>> >> > Begging the Question.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. No "begging the question" is involved at all. Scientific
>> >> evidence, and eyewitnesses are all that are required at this point.
>> >
>> > Yeah, it is Begging the Question. You're assuming a fringe theory
>> > correct [Z film alteration] that is disputed by even your fellow JFK
>> > Truthers and not borne out by an examination of the film, tests that
>> > were run, the timeline of the film, etc. I know you disagree with all
>> > of that, but you're not the standard.
>>
>>
>> Does Z-133 show the phenomena known as 'first frame flash?'
>>
>> Yes or no...
>> >> You're *DESPERATELY* jumping ahead, without addressing the prior
>> >> facts.
>> >>
>> >> Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that the evidence PROVES that the
>> >> film was altered, and that the eyewitnesses support the theory that it
>> >> was done at "Hawkeye Works."
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>>
>> Because you're clearly trying to evade the fundamental facts, and move
>> on beyond that...
Such AMUSING cowardice!!!
>> >> **THEN** ... and only then, can you debate what that alteration might
>> >> have consisted of.
>> >
>> > Why is the bar so incredibly high for what I need to stipulate to
>> > before you'll honor us with presenting your evidence? Why not just
>> > tell us how the film was altered, the editing equipment of the period
>> > that could've done the job, present tests, and so on?
>>
>> What bar?
>>
>> Does Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
>>
>> Yes or no?
>>
>> You're DESPERATELY running from the main issue, and trying to change
>> the topic.
>> >> >> > You're too ashamed to even run any tests.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually, I was altering film as a freshman in HS.
>> >> >
>> >> >Editing out your child molesting activities.
>> >>
>> >> I pointed out that I've already had experience with film editing, and
>> >> all you could think of was gratuitous ad hominem.
>> >>
>> >> That's merely an admission that you know you lost.
>> >
>> >Then present your case.
>>
>> I have. And you keep running away.
>>
>> Does Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
stripe down his back...
>> > This isn't a defense trial where you get to claim "first frame
>> > flash" and use one item to cancel out all of the evidence against Z
>> > film alteration.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckly. You've not presented ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL
>> against film alteration.
>>
>> NOT ONE!!!
>>
>> Now, answer the question...
>> >> >> > So is Fetzer, Healy from Dealey, and the other nutcases who think
>> >> >> > this would even be feasible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don't get out much, do you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Seen any movies lately?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >You've got zilch. And you know it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
>> >> >
>> >> >Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
>> >>
>> >> LOL!!! You can't even acknowledge the very first point.
>> >
>> >Still running from the Lady in Yellow Pants, I see.
>>
>>
>> Feel free to bring it up in the original thread.
>>
>> But you won't... you're a coward.
>> >> Perhaps we need to go back to basics.
>> >
>> > Sure. Since you're challenging, explain why the Z film needed to be
>> > altered. Why not just destroy it? That would seem to be the most basic
>> > question, so let's start there.
>>
>> Why do fire engines have to be red?
>>
>> Why not green?
>>
>> Since you'll refuse to offer a credible explanation, then clearly,
>> fire engines aren't red.
>>
>> Similarly, even though I've PROVEN that the film was altered, you want
>> to whine about why it needed to be altered...
>>
>> I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE - IT'S A DONE DEAL - ALREADY
>> **ANSWERED**.
>>
>> So stop rehashing old material, and answer the question, coward...
>> >> Can you define "inertia?"
>> >
>> >Another Fringe Rest/Holmes Pivot.
>> >
>> > Why not present your case instead of asking me to produce
>> > definitions for words that can be found in a dictionary?
>>
>> I've made the case.
>>
>> You've run from almost every single point made.
>>
>> And until *YOU* can explain why Z-133 managed to evade the law of
>> inertia, you've failed.
>>
>> It's proven.
>>
>> The Z-film was altered.
>>
>> That's a fact.
>
>Begging the Question. Show your tests. Carry your burden.
How embarrassing it must be for you!
borisba...@gmail.com
Jun 26, 2018, 5:47:38 PM6/26/18
to
Ben Holmes
Jun 26, 2018, 5:58:05 PM6/26/18
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:47:37 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
And amusingly, these morons think that they're winning the debate.
They wouldn't DARE let their friends read this thread - they'd be far
too embarrassed when their friends explained what "inertia" means.
They wouldn't DARE let their friends read this thread - they'd be far
too embarrassed when their friends explained what "inertia" means.
0 new messages