Jump to content


Spartacus

JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake is Costella's!


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 Sherry Gutierrez

Sherry Gutierrez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Trophy Club, Texas

Posted 19 February 2006 - 12:37 PM

JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake


Why I am qualified to respond:
I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. Presently, I am retired yet still do limited consultation for attorneys and law enforcement officials. When I retired I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on IAIs subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction.

I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and have taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels. I published my findings concerning the Kennedy Assassination on the web originally in 1995 and have yet for one expert in my field to review my work and find my methods in error.

Based upon my training and experience I feel I am more than qualified as an expert to address the claims made by the web page.

Hoax Claim:
More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film. But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether:

The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314.

If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast!

My Response:
Unfortunately, we are not discussing lead weights. The blood is being forcefully expelled from the wound and is traveling at a higher rate of speed than that of falling velocity. Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Therefore, it satisfies one of the main criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts - that the evidence has as its basis in sound scientific methodology. Data collection for the analysis was accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers.

Videotape is used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. The videotape used records 30 frames per second. The video utilized approximately 4-5 frames to capture the forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacted a large volume of blood. This means that partiular pattern was created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second. Faster projectiles resulted in patterns that were created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 2-3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6 of a second or less. A time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile.

Another criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts is that the analysis used have the ability to be duplicated. This test for the speed of a spatter pattern being created and disipating can be duplicated by placing a video camera at a 90 degree to a bloody target. Fake blood in a sponge secured in a small zip lock bag will work, since all liquids respond in the same manner to forceful impact. You can attach the bag to a pole or other upright item. Hanging a dark surface behind the target will provide better viewing contrast. Use a high velocity projectile to shoot the target. Count the number of frames it takes for the spatter to be created and dissipate.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up?
It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all:

My Response:
It is amazing that the writer of this article would not consider there were other methods than viewing a single frame of the Zapruder film to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Especially when there are numerous statements documenting blood being deposited both within and outside the limo. A google search for limo images will result in several photographs of the limo containing blood. One such photograph can be seen here: http://www.jfklancer.../limo/ce353.jpg
Here's one of the limo exterior being cleaned at Parkland Hospital http://jfk.iefactory...os/limohosp.jpg

Additionally, there are many statements of witnesses that indicate blood was found outside the 2 frames in the Zapruder film:

Nellie Connally "I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car." Nellie Connally; Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees.


Roy Kellerman:
Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over.
Senator COOPER. What was that?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Body matter; flesh..
Mr. SPECTER. When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter?
Mr. KELLERMAN. When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.
Testimony Of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service Beginning At 2H61


Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney, the driver of the vehicle behind the President. "my windshield and left arm were hit with blood and brain matter immediately after the head shot."


Police Officer Seymore Weitzman in his Warren Commission testimony stated he discovered a piece of skull bone lying in the street, just inches from the South curbing, and roughly 20 feet to Kennedy's left.


Officer William Joseph "B. J." Martin Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. BALL: Did you notice any stains on your helmet?
Mr. MARTIN: Yes, sir; during the process of working traffic there, I noticed that there were blood stains on the windshield, on my motor, and then I pulled off my helmet and I noticed there were blood stains on the left side of my helmet.


Bobby Hargis " ...it was like a bucket of blood was thrown from his head"


Robert A. Frazier testified on 2-21 & 2-22-1969 in the Clay Shaw trial. During his testimony he discussed what was found when the limo was searched at 1am on 11-23. "We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area."



Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not enter the investigation with a pre-disposed idea and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all possible information and then form conclusions based upon your findings. The information contained at this page of JFK assassination film hoax is incorrect in its scientific basis. They are guilty of not doing sufficent research on their subject of blood spatter. There are numerous books available at public libraries, and for purchase on the web, that address this subject and support my statements here. Additionally, good research should have indicated a need to determine if witnesses had made statements concerning deposited blood.

I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to help them in determining the validity of the Zapruder film. And I encourage the writers of JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake to reconsider the contents of their page because it's their mistake.


Review of work posted at http://www.assassina...ntro/blood.html

#2 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,313 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 19 February 2006 - 01:51 PM

The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"

#3 Craig Lamson

Craig Lamson

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,956 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2006 - 02:17 PM

The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"


Two down....

#4 Guest_James H. Fetzer_*

Guest_James H. Fetzer_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 February 2006 - 07:40 PM

I love it when one member of Tink's little gang (Lamson) compliments another (Cobly). Something I don't understand about Sherry's discussion is that, during a Lancer Conference which I co-chaired, she explained how her work supported the position that the shots had come from the front, not the back. Perhaps she has changed her position or could otherwise elaborate upon it, because I am left in a state of uncertaintly as to where she stands. Perhaps John will have a chance to respond directly to Sherry's line of argument. The book itself, of course, presents more than a dozen proofs of alteration, including Homer McMahon's report of having observed six to eight impacts from at least three directions, Secret Service reports of agents having been nauseated by the brains and blood debris across the trunk, and witness reports of having watched a more complete version of the film that includes an abrupt limo stop, which was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. I understand why there is a desperate search for at least some sliver of error in the research that leads to the conclusion that the film has been recreated, an undertaking that involved reshooting most of the frames (lest the sprocket hole images give the game away), because--in spite of the gang's best efforts--the evidence has proven to be remarkably robust. (Anyone who wants to learn more should go to http://www.assassinationscience.com and review John Costella's introduction to Zapruder film alteration, which is under discussion here, but also the "Zapruder Film Hoax Debate", where the gang does its best to refute our work, which we--principally John--patiently rebut, one by one.) I never tire of observing how many critics never bother to read the book and therefore never cite the specifics of the arguments presented there. But of course John's video is "fair game", so I am certainly not objecting to its discussion here, even if, as I have observed here on more than one occasion, it might be instructive for members of this forum to actually study the arguments presented there. One of the more amusing of recently attempts to "disprove" alteration comes from Tink himself and reflects his gross misunderstanding of his own favorite issue:

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:15:27 -0800
From: David Mantik
Reply-To: David Mantik
Subject: RE: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Jim,

Of course, your description of our experiment and of the significance of
our numbers is completely correct. To go further, I would have to dig
through my old files for the data. They are now in storage.

As I recall, however, my last detailed study of this issue (some years ago),
including margin of error analysis (partly based on simple experiments I did),
was still consistent with Mary in the street. This data and analysis was shared
with Tink.

To the best of my memory, we discussed this briefly, but I don't recall any
significant quantitative refutation from him re. this particular
data set. If he has something new, I have not seen it.

David Mantik

-----Original Message-----
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:25 PM
To: David Mantik
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .

David,

This silly man (aka TT) has popped up on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com,
which is moderated by one Barbara Junk (who implies that you and she
are great friends, having stayed at your home or you at hers at some
point in the distant past). I was drawn onto the site by an abusive
remark from Shackelford in response to the suggestion by a reasonable
fellow, Greywolf, who suggested that, relative to ULTIMATE SACRIFICE,
it might be worth the members' time to listen to a critique that I'd
given on black op radio. So Martin said something like "Fetzer on a
book is like Bozo the Clown on foreign affairs"! (As Len Osanic, who
hosts blackopradio.com, said to me, "Jim denies he has ever worn those
big shoes!") Anyway, Junk piled on, saying something like, "She had
met me and I suckled paranoia!", which I thought was a bit much for
the moderator of a forum, who is supposed to be neutral and impartial.

Anyway, she said that Greywolf could not post on my behalf and if I
wanted to reply, then I had to join the forum. So I did. And what
you or I or anyone who knew anything at all would predict, who pops
up but the man himself! Incredible as it may seem, he resurrected
the Moorman all over again in relation to the question of Zapruder
film alteration. I explained that it was complex, convoluted, and
not easy to understand, but he insisted that it is actually a very
simple situation. So far as I can tell, he does not even understand
the difference between verification and falsification, and seems to
believe that, if this specific line of attack on the authenticity of
the film is unsuccessful, then the film has been proven to be authen-
tic! Unbelievable that this guy actually has Ph.D. in philosophy
from Yale, but that's the story. He has been recycying every argu-
ent he ever made, most recently claiming that your notes about our
measurements prove that we committed major blunders in our research!

He had suggested that we had made the mistake of measuring heights
relative to the grass, which is soft and mushy and therefore not a
suitable base of reference. I explained that we used the mid-point
of the curb (between the street and the grass), which for some odd
reason he did not understand until I drew a diagram, explaining it
would be "monumental stupidity" to have used the grass (meaning of
course as the basis for our experiment, since we needed a reference
point that was solid and relatively immobile, which the mid-point
on the curb supplied). So I thought I had settled this (again),
but today, in a mood of triumph, he posted copies of notes that
you had lent him, which included the following kinds of notation:

.......on grass (distance......elevation of
............from curb).................LOS

...............3 ft.........................3'3"
...............2 ft.........................3'5"
...............1 ft.........................3'8"

.............1 1/2 ft...................3'6 3/4"
..........(not measured but interpolated)

What you are not going to believe is that he thinks this shows
we were measuring on the grass and therefore vindicates his
claim that we committed a blunder! Can you believe how stupid
that is? I mean, this is supposed to be his strongest attack
upon our work, and he doesn't even understand the difference
between (a) having a firm base on the curb as the foundation
for establishing the line of sight and (;) using that line of
sign to determine its elevation above the grass if the photo
had been taken somewhere on the grass rather than somewhere
in the street! Of course, we would not have completed our
work if we hand done (a) but not (B)! He appears to have
forgotten that we are looking for evidence as to where Mary
must have been, when Mary was 5"2" tall (actually, 5'1 1/2"
in her bare feet). So if she was holding her camera up to
her eye level, or about 4" below the top of her head, the
line of sight should have been about 4" below 5'2", which
is 62", leaving the LOS at about 58", far too high to be
on the grass at any point, given your measurements on the
grass! Tink seems to have completely lost his marbles on
this one. I think there are signs of mental deterioration.

Unless Mary was a midger, she cannot have been on the LOS
we determined anywhere on the grass but has to have been
in the street. I have suggested that the members of this
forum actually read Jack's chapter, "Was Mary Standing in
the Street?", in HOAX, but so far as I can see, no one has
done that. They seem to think that Tink can lead them to
the promised land, but he has gone bonkers and thinks the
line of argument I have sketched here PROVES THAT WE WERE
WRONG! It's an interesting tag-team performance around
here, moreover, where Martin pipes off whenever he feels
like it and other shady characters are lurking just off
stage. Junk interevenes every now and them to support
Tink by implying that his questions and arguments are so
clear and obvious, whilel my explanations are convoluted
and complex! Really fascinating! Well, I just wanted to
let you know what's happening and ask you to write back
confirming everything I am saying here about your numbers
in relation to their significance within the context of
our experiment. I have the feeling that, when the men
in white coats finally come to take him away to a home
for the mentally bewildered, he will still be muttering
under his breath, "Moorman! Fetzer! Goddamn him!" but
no one will understand him and no one will even care.

Jim

P.S. Don't rush back with a reply. In the meanwhile,
Tink will be boasting about how he ran me off the
forum with a devastating argument! (Just for an
example of how bizarre this gets, one morning I
awakened to discover that, since my last post,
Martin had put up exactly thirty-two (32) replies!

----- Forwarded message from josiah@direcway.com -----
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:27:25 -0000
From: gumshoe882000 <josiah@direcway.com>
Reply-To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [jfk-research] PHOTOS POSTED UNDER "FILES" SECTION
To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

The "Photos" section has been useless to me. Instead, I went to
the "Files" section. I set up a folder under "Moorman Photo" and
then added the following photos:

(1) Mantik's Notes.
(2) Moorman Segment.
(3) Perfect line-up with location in Z-film (53.75")
(4) Red lines and without.
(5) Zapruder frame 303 showing Moorman and Hill.

I'm sorry I couldn't figure this out earlier, everyone. But there
you are, Len. Mantik's notes in living color and all the rest!

I ask you, Len. How the heck is Fetzer going to get out of this one?

Josiah Thompson

-- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, "Leonard" <lenbrasil@y...> wrote:
>
> Tink - I'd like to see those (Mantik's)notes although I'm not sure
> Fetzer does! I'd also like to see you LOS photo. I remember you
> attaching something to a previous post but attachments don't go
> through on Yahoo groups. The best thing to do would be to upload the
> images to this group's `Photos' section .
>
> Jim - You think your publisher would pop for a professional surveyor
> to verify the LOS? Even if they don't you might want to consider
> paying out of your own pocket. If you are so sure of the result it
> would worth it to humiliate your nemesis. Of course if his findings
> agree with Tink's you might not want to show your face in public for a
> while. Not afraid of the results I hope!
>
> If anybody from the 6th Floor or Conspiracy Museums is reading this
> maybe you might want to pay the surveyor.
>


The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"


Two down....


Edited by James H. Fetzer, 19 February 2006 - 07:41 PM.


#5 David G. Healy

David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,156 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 07:57 PM

I love it when one member of Tink's little gang (Lamson) compliments another (Cobly). Something I don't understand about Sherry's discussion is that, during a Lancer Conference which I co-chaired, she explained how her work supported the position that the shots had come from the front, not the back. Perhaps she has changed her position or could otherwise elaborate upon it, because I am left in a state of uncertaintly as to where she stands. Perhaps John will have a chance to respond directly to Sherry's line of argument. The book itself, of course, presents more than a dozen proofs of alteration, including Homer McMahon's report of having observed six to eight impacts from at least three directions, Secret Service reports of agents having been nauseated by the brains and blood debris across the trunk, and witness reports of having watched a more complete version of the film that includes an abrupt limo stop, which was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. I understand why there is a desperate search for at least some sliver of error in the research that leads to the conclusion that the film has been recreated, an undertaking that involved reshooting most of the frames (lest the sprocket hole images give the game away), because--in spite of the gang's best efforts--the evidence has proven to be remarkably robust. (Anyone who wants to learn more should go to http://www.assassinationscience.com and review John Costella's introduction to Zapruder film alteration, which is under discussion here, but also the "Zapruder Film Hoax Debate", where the gang does its best to refute our work, which we--principally John--patiently rebut, one by one.) I never tire of observing how many critics never bother to read the book and therefore never cite the specifics of the arguments presented there. But of course John's video is "fair game", so I am certainly not objecting to its discussion here, even if, as I have observed here on more than one occasion, it might be instructive for members of this forum to actually study the arguments presented there. One of the more amusing of recently attempts to "disprove" alteration comes from Tink himself and reflects his gross misunderstanding of his own favorite issue:

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:15:27 -0800
From: David Mantik
Reply-To: David Mantik
Subject: RE: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Jim,

Of course, your description of our experiment and of the significance of
our numbers is completely correct. To go further, I would have to dig
through my old files for the data. They are now in storage.

As I recall, however, my last detailed study of this issue (some years ago),
including margin of error analysis (partly based on simple experiments I did),
was still consistent with Mary in the street. This data and analysis was shared
with Tink.

To the best of my memory, we discussed this briefly, but I don't recall any
significant quantitative refutation from him re. this particular
data set. If he has something new, I have not seen it.

David Mantik

-----Original Message-----
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:25 PM
To: David Mantik
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .

David,

This silly man (aka TT) has popped up on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com,
which is moderated by one Barbara Junk (who implies that you and she
are great friends, having stayed at your home or you at hers at some
point in the distant past). I was drawn onto the site by an abusive
remark from Shackelford in response to the suggestion by a reasonable
fellow, Greywolf, who suggested that, relative to ULTIMATE SACRIFICE,
it might be worth the members' time to listen to a critique that I'd
given on black op radio. So Martin said something like "Fetzer on a
book is like Bozo the Clown on foreign affairs"! (As Len Osanic, who
hosts blackopradio.com, said to me, "Jim denies he has ever worn those
big shoes!") Anyway, Junk piled on, saying something like, "She had
met me and I suckled paranoia!", which I thought was a bit much for
the moderator of a forum, who is supposed to be neutral and impartial.

Anyway, she said that Greywolf could not post on my behalf and if I
wanted to reply, then I had to join the forum. So I did. And what
you or I or anyone who knew anything at all would predict, who pops
up but the man himself! Incredible as it may seem, he resurrected
the Moorman all over again in relation to the question of Zapruder
film alteration. I explained that it was complex, convoluted, and
not easy to understand, but he insisted that it is actually a very
simple situation. So far as I can tell, he does not even understand
the difference between verification and falsification, and seems to
believe that, if this specific line of attack on the authenticity of
the film is unsuccessful, then the film has been proven to be authen-
tic! Unbelievable that this guy actually has Ph.D. in philosophy
from Yale, but that's the story. He has been recycying every argu-
ent he ever made, most recently claiming that your notes about our
measurements prove that we committed major blunders in our research!

He had suggested that we had made the mistake of measuring heights
relative to the grass, which is soft and mushy and therefore not a
suitable base of reference. I explained that we used the mid-point
of the curb (between the street and the grass), which for some odd
reason he did not understand until I drew a diagram, explaining it
would be "monumental stupidity" to have used the grass (meaning of
course as the basis for our experiment, since we needed a reference
point that was solid and relatively immobile, which the mid-point
on the curb supplied). So I thought I had settled this (again),
but today, in a mood of triumph, he posted copies of notes that
you had lent him, which included the following kinds of notation:

.......on grass (distance......elevation of
............from curb).................LOS

...............3 ft.........................3'3"
...............2 ft.........................3'5"
...............1 ft.........................3'8"

.............1 1/2 ft...................3'6 3/4"
..........(not measured but interpolated)

What you are not going to believe is that he thinks this shows
we were measuring on the grass and therefore vindicates his
claim that we committed a blunder! Can you believe how stupid
that is? I mean, this is supposed to be his strongest attack
upon our work, and he doesn't even understand the difference
between (a) having a firm base on the curb as the foundation
for establishing the line of sight and (;) using that line of
sign to determine its elevation above the grass if the photo
had been taken somewhere on the grass rather than somewhere
in the street! Of course, we would not have completed our
work if we hand done (a) but not (B)! He appears to have
forgotten that we are looking for evidence as to where Mary
must have been, when Mary was 5"2" tall (actually, 5'1 1/2"
in her bare feet). So if she was holding her camera up to
her eye level, or about 4" below the top of her head, the
line of sight should have been about 4" below 5'2", which
is 62", leaving the LOS at about 58", far too high to be
on the grass at any point, given your measurements on the
grass! Tink seems to have completely lost his marbles on
this one. I think there are signs of mental deterioration.

Unless Mary was a midger, she cannot have been on the LOS
we determined anywhere on the grass but has to have been
in the street. I have suggested that the members of this
forum actually read Jack's chapter, "Was Mary Standing in
the Street?", in HOAX, but so far as I can see, no one has
done that. They seem to think that Tink can lead them to
the promised land, but he has gone bonkers and thinks the
line of argument I have sketched here PROVES THAT WE WERE
WRONG! It's an interesting tag-team performance around
here, moreover, where Martin pipes off whenever he feels
like it and other shady characters are lurking just off
stage. Junk interevenes every now and them to support
Tink by implying that his questions and arguments are so
clear and obvious, whilel my explanations are convoluted
and complex! Really fascinating! Well, I just wanted to
let you know what's happening and ask you to write back
confirming everything I am saying here about your numbers
in relation to their significance within the context of
our experiment. I have the feeling that, when the men
in white coats finally come to take him away to a home
for the mentally bewildered, he will still be muttering
under his breath, "Moorman! Fetzer! Goddamn him!" but
no one will understand him and no one will even care.

Jim

P.S. Don't rush back with a reply. In the meanwhile,
Tink will be boasting about how he ran me off the
forum with a devastating argument! (Just for an
example of how bizarre this gets, one morning I
awakened to discover that, since my last post,
Martin had put up exactly thirty-two (32) replies!

----- Forwarded message from josiah@direcway.com -----
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:27:25 -0000
From: gumshoe882000 <josiah@direcway.com>
Reply-To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [jfk-research] PHOTOS POSTED UNDER "FILES" SECTION
To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

The "Photos" section has been useless to me. Instead, I went to
the "Files" section. I set up a folder under "Moorman Photo" and
then added the following photos:

(1) Mantik's Notes.
(2) Moorman Segment.
(3) Perfect line-up with location in Z-film (53.75")
(4) Red lines and without.
(5) Zapruder frame 303 showing Moorman and Hill.

I'm sorry I couldn't figure this out earlier, everyone. But there
you are, Len. Mantik's notes in living color and all the rest!

I ask you, Len. How the heck is Fetzer going to get out of this one?

Josiah Thompson

-- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, "Leonard" <lenbrasil@y...> wrote:
>
> Tink - I'd like to see those (Mantik's)notes although I'm not sure
> Fetzer does! I'd also like to see you LOS photo. I remember you
> attaching something to a previous post but attachments don't go
> through on Yahoo groups. The best thing to do would be to upload the
> images to this group's `Photos' section .
>
> Jim - You think your publisher would pop for a professional surveyor
> to verify the LOS? Even if they don't you might want to consider
> paying out of your own pocket. If you are so sure of the result it
> would worth it to humiliate your nemesis. Of course if his findings
> agree with Tink's you might not want to show your face in public for a
> while. Not afraid of the results I hope!
>
> If anybody from the 6th Floor or Conspiracy Museums is reading this
> maybe you might want to pay the surveyor.
>



The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"


Two down....


Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are --

Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT....

#6 Frank Agbat

Frank Agbat

    Advanced Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPip
  • 467 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:05 PM

... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts...


...and one who never adjusts and re-tests their hypothesis when evidence directs them to do so is not a researcher that is employing the scientific method...

#7 David G. Healy

David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,156 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:14 PM

'Craig Lamson' wrote and supports:
'Len Colby' - Lied (course if he posts a cite to the effect; * none of them are "photo experts" * I'll retract.... LOL

The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

dgh01: apparently this dude feels the need to lie on occasion...

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

dghj01: what you "didn't say" is apparently what you DID say - GOD what children!

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"

Two down....

Two down, what? Come on Craig, no one knows if you've ever taken a picture in your life -- sit down, watch and learn. Of course you can prove expertise at any time.... supporting a liar isn't what I expect from of you, you should be ashamed of yourself

Edited by David G. Healy, 19 February 2006 - 08:15 PM.


#8 Sherry Gutierrez

Sherry Gutierrez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Trophy Club, Texas

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:23 PM

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='Feb 19 2006, 08:40 PM' post='55710']
Something I don't understand about Sherry's discussion is that, during a Lancer Conference which I co-chaired, she explained how her work supported the position that the shots had come from the front, not the back. Perhaps she has changed her position or could otherwise elaborate upon it, because I am left in a state of uncertaintly as to where she stands.

The book itself, of course, presents more than a dozen proofs of alteration, including Homer McMahon's report of having observed six to eight impacts from at least three directions, Secret Service reports of agents having been nauseated by the brains and blood debris across the trunk...

Response:
I have never stated or spoken about any direction of fire for the fatal headshot other than it being from the front. I have not changed my stance. However, I have published and lectured since 1993 confirming my position and I am at a loss as to how my post concerning the web page under discussion could have given that impression. Of course I could elaborate here, but I really prefer to stay focused on the topic at hand; the errors on the web page I cited. But here is a link that addresses that question: http://www.jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/

You wrote in your post that the book states "Secret Service reports of agents having been nauseated by the brains and blood debris across the trunk..."

If this is the case, why does the web page in question state "It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all:" Didn't the person who wrote this page read the book?

As an aside:
Post that try to deflect the intended topic do no service to those seeking the truth. Additionally, if the web page is not corrected in a reasonable time frame, then the writer is guilty of disseminating false and misleading information. I believe that has been referred to as "disinformation agent" activities.

#9 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:38 PM

Is it mere coincidence that a family member of Debra Conway comes
to the forum to defend the authenticity of the Zfilm? I seem to recall
Mary Ferrell saying that Sherry and Deb are related. And, of course,
Deb is an ardent supporter of Tink Thompson.

Jack

#10 Sherry Gutierrez

Sherry Gutierrez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Trophy Club, Texas

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:12 PM

Is it mere coincidence that a family member of Debra Conway comes
to the forum to defend the authenticity of the Zfilm? I seem to recall
Mary Ferrell saying that Sherry and Deb are related. And, of course,
Deb is an ardent supporter of Tink Thompson.

Jack

Response:

My sister is Debra Conway, but being her sister does not diminish my expertise in the field of bloodspatter analysis. And I have no idea what her beliefs are concerning Tink Thompson; and they are not relevant as they add no information to the subject at hand - the errors on the web page in question.

As an aside, I was completely unaware of the web page in question until you posted a link to it.

Post #27 "Who is Bill Miller" Where you stated:

The inauthenticity of the Zapruder is NOT A THEORY any longer.
It is proved beyond any doubt that it is NOT AUTHENTIC.
For the proof, go to:
http://www.assassina...ella/jfk/intro/I have no quarrel with anyone holding whatever viewpoint they wish. I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary.


So, thank you, Mr. White, for pointing me in the direction of that page so I could reveal the truth concerning blood spatter in the Kennedy Assassination.

Edited by Sherry Gutierrez, 19 February 2006 - 09:31 PM.


#11 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,313 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:45 PM

If blowing smoke was an Olympic sport Fetzer would have a lock on the gold medal. His high school teacher buddy writes and article in which he proclaims that Kennedy’s blood shouldn’t have dissipated at a rate any faster than free fall speed, as if it being blown out by a 1000 - 2000 ft/sec bullet wouldn’t accelerate it!! Then when someone highly qualified points out his obvious blunder and provides data to back it up, Fetzer rather than countering her argument, which he can’t, starts spewing irrelevant BS like the supposed limo “stop” and even drudges up his Moorman LOS argument with Tink.

As for the LOS I suggested he or his publisher pop for a surveyor to settle the question once and for all, you’d think if he was so confident of the results he would have taken me up on it.

The whole bit about witnesses saying the limo stopped has been pretty well debunked on other threads. As Duke Lane showed of the 59 witnesses cited by Fetzer IIRC only 23 or so actually said the LIMO stopped and as Al (IIRC) pointed out many of them were far from the limo at the time. Rather than go off topic I suggest that Fetzer try to rebut this in the appropriate threads.

Most of the other “proofs” he talks about have already be refuted but that is irrelevant because none of them relate to issue of blood splatter following frame 313 neither Costela’s sloppy analysis nor Shelly’s through debunking of it. Fetzer seems so desperate to save the sinking ship that his alteration theory has become that he drudges up irrelevant points when one of his “proofs” is blown out of the water.

Even if Shelly believed that Kennedy was hit from the front that does not necessarily mean she though that the shot in 313 came from the front and even if she did blood being ejected away from the point of entry would be accelerated by the force of the bullet.

A word of advice Jim - You should try to find some real experts to back you claims. You get a VIDEOgrapher to write about the possibilities of FILM post-production and a school teacher with a PHD in particle physics to expound on blood splatter etc. LOL

I love it when one member of Tink's little gang (Lamson) compliments another (Cobly)


1) Funny how when the credibility of one of the member’s of Fezter’s little gang is challenged the others show up and try to come to his defense. I pointed this out before

2) I’m not part of Tink’s “gang”

3) Craig didn’t compliment me as slag you and your silly theories which are sinking like a mob victim in cement galoshes

Len



'Craig Lamson' wrote and supports:
'Len Colby' - Lied (course if he posts a cite to the effect; * none of them are "photo experts" * I'll retract.... LOL

The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

dgh01: apparently this dude feels the need to lie on occasion...

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

dghj01: what you "didn't say" is apparently what you DID say - GOD what children!

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"

Two down....

Two down, what? Come on Craig, no one knows if you've ever taken a picture in your life -- sit down, watch and learn. Of course you can prove expertise at any time.... supporting a liar isn't what I expect from of you, you should be ashamed of yourself



David I know you are around 60 but that is much to young to be going senile, can't you even remember what you wrote less than a week ago!!! LOL

I wouldn't worry about acquiring/finding photo experts. None on this board would be consulted, for either side...IMHO



http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6096&view=findpost&p=54805

Fetzer, Mantik, Costella, White and you are all members of this forum. So who are the photo experts in TGZFH? ROTFLMHO

So when is that retraction coming? LOL

#12 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:59 PM



... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts...


...and one who never adjusts and re-tests their hypothesis when evidence directs them to do so is not a researcher that is employing the scientific method...




and one who never adjusts and re-tests their hypothesis when evidence directs them to do so is not a researcher that is employing the scientific method



Occassionally, my faith in the human species is restored!


And, anyone who conducts "blood splatter analysis" by looking at the Z-film and then utilizing witness testimony, is participating in a form of "VooDoo Science" and/or the Amazing Kresgin method of problem resolution.

The Z-313 shot to the head sent materials up into the flowing air mass, which by all accounts could have eliminated most of the matter from having carried forward into the forward motion/moving limo, as well as aiding in dissapation of the material beyond the realm of the camera's capability.

And, since the last/third/final shot was not fired until such time as JFK's head was well below the flow of air over the limo, as stated by Nellie Connally, there was little difficulty in the blood; brain tissue; etc; being blown forward over occupants within the presidential limo.*

(*recognizing that it will take history to either negate or verify this one)

So, not unlike the "Magic Bullet" in which the injuries sustained by two separate impacts to the head now being blamed on a single bullet, attempting to explain the blood splatter of two separate shots to the head, into a single shot, is another of those futile efforts to make the evidence fit the persons scenario and interpertation of the facts.

Seems as that is what the WC did, is it not?????

#13 Craig Lamson

Craig Lamson

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,956 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:59 PM

'Craig Lamson' wrote and supports:
'Len Colby' - Lied (course if he posts a cite to the effect; * none of them are "photo experts" * I'll retract.... LOL

The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

dgh01: apparently this dude feels the need to lie on occasion...

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

dghj01: what you "didn't say" is apparently what you DID say - GOD what children!

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"

Two down....

Two down, what? Come on Craig, no one knows if you've ever taken a picture in your life -- sit down, watch and learn. Of course you can prove expertise at any time.... supporting a liar isn't what I expect from of you, you should be ashamed of yourself


Ashamed? Why? AS for my ability to take photographs..well,..lets see you claim expert status at film composition and yet we have no proof you can even composite a single frame of film...ashamed...why that should be you.

Bow Wow!

#14 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,059 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 19 February 2006 - 10:01 PM

JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake


Why I am qualified to respond:
I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. Presently, I am retired yet still do limited consultation for attorneys and law enforcement officials. When I retired I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on IAIs subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction.

I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and have taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels. I published my findings concerning the Kennedy Assassination on the web originally in 1995 and have yet for one expert in my field to review my work and find my methods in error.

Based upon my training and experience I feel I am more than qualified as an expert to address the claims made by the web page.

Hoax Claim:
More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film. But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether:

The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314.

If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast!

My Response:
Unfortunately, we are not discussing lead weights. The blood is being forcefully expelled from the wound and is traveling at a higher rate of speed than that of falling velocity. Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Therefore, it satisfies one of the main criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts - that the evidence has as its basis in sound scientific methodology. Data collection for the analysis was accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers.

Videotape is used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. The videotape used records 30 frames per second. The video utilized approximately 4-5 frames to capture the forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacted a large volume of blood. This means that partiular pattern was created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second. Faster projectiles resulted in patterns that were created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 2-3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6 of a second or less. A time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile.

Another criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts is that the analysis used have the ability to be duplicated. This test for the speed of a spatter pattern being created and disipating can be duplicated by placing a video camera at a 90 degree to a bloody target. Fake blood in a sponge secured in a small zip lock bag will work, since all liquids respond in the same manner to forceful impact. You can attach the bag to a pole or other upright item. Hanging a dark surface behind the target will provide better viewing contrast. Use a high velocity projectile to shoot the target. Count the number of frames it takes for the spatter to be created and dissipate.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up?
It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all:

My Response:
It is amazing that the writer of this article would not consider there were other methods than viewing a single frame of the Zapruder film to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Especially when there are numerous statements documenting blood being deposited both within and outside the limo. A google search for limo images will result in several photographs of the limo containing blood. One such photograph can be seen here: http://www.jfklancer.../limo/ce353.jpg
Here's one of the limo exterior being cleaned at Parkland Hospital http://jfk.iefactory...os/limohosp.jpg

Additionally, there are many statements of witnesses that indicate blood was found outside the 2 frames in the Zapruder film:

Nellie Connally "I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car." Nellie Connally; Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees.


Roy Kellerman:
Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over.
Senator COOPER. What was that?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Body matter; flesh..
Mr. SPECTER. When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter?
Mr. KELLERMAN. When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.
Testimony Of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service Beginning At 2H61


Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney, the driver of the vehicle behind the President. "my windshield and left arm were hit with blood and brain matter immediately after the head shot."


Police Officer Seymore Weitzman in his Warren Commission testimony stated he discovered a piece of skull bone lying in the street, just inches from the South curbing, and roughly 20 feet to Kennedy's left.


Officer William Joseph "B. J." Martin Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. BALL: Did you notice any stains on your helmet?
Mr. MARTIN: Yes, sir; during the process of working traffic there, I noticed that there were blood stains on the windshield, on my motor, and then I pulled off my helmet and I noticed there were blood stains on the left side of my helmet.


Bobby Hargis " ...it was like a bucket of blood was thrown from his head"


Robert A. Frazier testified on 2-21 & 2-22-1969 in the Clay Shaw trial. During his testimony he discussed what was found when the limo was searched at 1am on 11-23. "We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area."



Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not enter the investigation with a pre-disposed idea and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all possible information and then form conclusions based upon your findings. The information contained at this page of JFK assassination film hoax is incorrect in its scientific basis. They are guilty of not doing sufficent research on their subject of blood spatter. There are numerous books available at public libraries, and for purchase on the web, that address this subject and support my statements here. Additionally, good research should have indicated a need to determine if witnesses had made statements concerning deposited blood.

I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to help them in determining the validity of the Zapruder film. And I encourage the writers of JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake to reconsider the contents of their page because it's their mistake.


Review of work posted at http://www.assassina...ntro/blood.html


Sherry, could you take a look at this please?

My idea here is that the blood and brain matter belongs in a color group and similarly the background, predominately green, belongs in another.


I've taken frames 312 to 319 and subtracted 311 from each. Then I've selected the blood brain group and put them in one image. Consider this as a grid of 9 squares.

The frame sequence runs from top left to bottom right.

The first frame is 311 subtracted from itself so ignore that one.

So what one sees here is the blood spatter pattern as selected, (which does not mean that further application of such a technique will not reveal greater detail) over 8 frames, the first, before the head shot and the next 7, after. 313,314,315,316,317,318 and 319 all subtracted from 311.

I see two possible 'eruptions'.

#15 Sherry Gutierrez

Sherry Gutierrez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Trophy Club, Texas

Posted 19 February 2006 - 10:06 PM

Even if Shelly believed that Kennedy was hit from the front that does not necessarily mean she though that the shot in 313 came from the front and even if she did blood being ejected away from the point of entry would be accelerated by the force of the bullet.


Hi Len,

You are absolutely correct in your statement that the blood is traveling at an accelerated rate. And let me say thanks for your interest in this subject. Just so you know my thoughts on the head shot - I do believe the head wound at frame 313 came from the front, but not the grassy knoll. But where the shot came from is not the focus of this review of the web page in error.

Therefore, I don't feel this particular thread is the place to expound on the trajectory as it would divert the focus from the intended topic. Instead, I am just going to provide a link so you can see where I stand on that issue. Trajecetory analysis is a common part of bloodstain pattern analysis and crime scene reconstuction. http://jfklancerforu...sherryg/images/ You may have to download the file to your computer before opening it, since it is a big file (12.3M )

In closing..
In an earlier post you wrote: "Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing." Len, most experts in any field welcome questions because it provides an opportunity for the expert to expound upon their analysis and/or findings; clear up any confusion their published findings may have presented; and/or present the analysis and documented findings in a different way - often using time and space the initial publication or lecture did not offer. So ask away!

Good luck to you as you investigate the Kennedy assassination,
Sherry




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users