Jump to content
The Education Forum

Larry Peters

JFK
  • Content Count

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Larry Peters

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,692 profile views
  1. Hello, the site's URL is: http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=3 Hope you like it. Larry
  2. biography? rofl --- buy the book and read it! David, why should anyone read a book that has been debunked to get an answer on a forum that is supposed to offer free discussion? Larry
  3. Nowhere in the book does anyone refer to filming the pilot film on a DIFFERENT STREET! That would make NO SENSE!!!! Apparently the pilot film was taken from the Zapruder pedestal perhaps 20 minutes before the motorcade arrival. It was NOT doctored, but shows the crowd as they were 20 minutes before the arrival of the limo. That is why the spectators on the north sidewalk SHOW ABSOLUTELY NO EMOTION NOR MOVEMENT DESPITE THE PRESIDENT PASSING BY. NOBODY WAVES, NOBODY MOVES. This is completely abnormal. If Colby wonders why his asinine challenges go unanswered, he should consider the ineptness of his questions. Jack Mr, White, I am shocked that Mr. Simkin allows you to get away with talking down to another forum member the way you did here, especially when he has to know that you are in error yourself. You just told this forum, without a shred of evidence to support it, that the alleged "pilot film" was taken 20 minutes before the motorcades arrival. So you have just implied that you have evidence that all those people seen in the Zapruder film were already at the curb just as we see them as the limo comes down Elm Street some 20 minutes later. Do you care to tell this forum just what you did to be able to make such a statement? Let's start with A.J.Millican - Are you saying that Millican is on record somewhere saying that he stood at the curb with arms his crossed and looking at the street some 20 minutes before Kennedy's arrival ... of course he didn't say this - you just made that up! How about Mary Woodward ... where is she on record saying that she too stood along Elm Street's curb looking at the street some 20 minutes before Kennedy's arrival ... of course she didn't say this - you just invented that scenario off the top of your head. Something else in what you said in your response doesn't make sense to me. You said when talking about the people seen along the sidewalk in the Zapruder film that "NOBODY MOVES". Not only is that statement false, but you are implying that those people stood along the Elm Street curb 20 minutes before Kennedy's arrival and did so while standing motionless. Now why would people stand along the curb and not move 20 minutes before the President arrived? And just how close have you looked at the Zapruder film to make such a statement that these people didn't move. I have posted a clip here that I got off another forum that exposed this claim of yours as also being in error. Both the man in the hat and the woman next to him move in the Zapruder film. This forum also showed other women's heads turning and it pointed out some witnesses hands moving as they clapped. Now having seen this information, please tell this forum why Mr. Colby's challenges are asinine and why your claims are not? Larry
  4. I see that Mr.Peters is back amongst the living.... and is sounding the same, boring. ....Nice to know that Larry can read, and that is fine, as I have already read all of his posts, tit for tat is fair...and so is the fact that Mr.Colby had his say, I had mine, and now Mr. Peters has also had his.. All somewhat different, but that is what this is all about...or is it??... the right to our opinion.. The differences lie in that I presented evidence, Mr. Colby called for the discloser of evidence, and you didn't address either, but just ran up replies like this one - no pictures - no facts - just cheerleading from the sidelines. I do hope Mr.Peters keeps reading until he comes to the first day evidence Zapruder information, and then hestitates long enough to read some documentation and real information, not mine, but the witnesses, Doctors and such from Parkland ..he may even learn a few things. Anytime you wish to address Zapruder film alteration by way of the Parkland doctors statements or any other means, please feel free to and I will gladly respond accordingly. Fine "overreaction", gee I do wonder why?? the truth must hurt... This is known as "over kill" some seem to think that the louder and nastier they are, the more scared others will be, so that they will hush and disappear...been there, seen that, and read it all before.... it doesn't work with all...never has...some even have the intelligence to ask and wonder "Why" ?? and come back, Lord forbid...with perhaps even more information, and reasonings.. Mr.Peters, and Mr.Colby......Calm down...I don't stress much on anything now because, "A" Type personalities such as you are exhibiting ,die young..... You must have our post mixed up with David Healy's. You have been presented information, if you disagree with it, then offer a sensible debate and stop wasting everyones time. You people continually respond with ramblings that never once address the actual alleged alteration evidence and I am somewhat surprized that Mr. Simkin allows it to go on. I have lived quite a long time now, too late for me to concern myself about such, but not too late for you..so do take a deep breath and get over it, you would think that this is the very first time on a Forum that Mr. Colby had been called on what he stated...and or the first time that Mr Peters has read a post that he did not agree with..?? Good for you that you stick up for your friend, Mr.Peters, and nice to see after you have done so, that Mr. Colby becomes brave enough to have his say and reply to moi.. Continue and keep in mind, that after all we alterationists housewives are a dangerous lot .... we will not be shut up... If by calling yourself "dangerous" and by that you mean someone who replies to this forum with ridiculous say-nothing responses that offer not a single piece of data one way or the other concerning the actual alleged alteration claims being presented, then I agree with your assessment of yourself. Larry
  5. David, I would appreciate it if you called me by my name. If Bill or someone else wishes to put up with your game playing, then play with them, until then I will ask that you address me by my name - Larry. I would also appreciate that if you are going to stand-up and support the alteraionist, despite your claiming to have never seen evidence of alteration to the Zapruder film yourself, that you at least respond to the alteration claims being presented. The issue I have raised is over the allegations being made that have been easily proven inaccurate by those who sought to test them. I would enjoy seeing it shown that the Zapruder film was altered, but I want to know that it was shown to be done by solid evidence. I might also add that if you think the frames need to be de-interlaced, then by all means you want to be sure to remind the alterationist of this for we don't want them making false claims by using faulty evidence - do we? Again, you come across as a hypocrite for sitting back and say nothing about your concerns for accuracy when alteration claims are being made, but rather only when the very evidence that was used to make an alteration claim is now being debunked do you seem to worry about such details. And that is good advice that you have for Bernice. It is always best to say nothing when you don't have anything to counter with. How proud Mr. Simkin must be to have your input on this forum. Larry Good grief...PETERS/MILLER is back! I thought John had banned him from participation. Jack Well Mr. White, like everything you claim about Zapruder film alteration - you are wrong once again. Larry
  6. LOL........You speak of arrogance: You admit ,you have not the knowledge of a JFK researcher, yet presume to be a "debunker of nonsense" and continue to attack those that do, and have researched and obtained such....??? Bernice, are you really a researcher or just a mouth piece for the alteration crowd? I have seen your responses in the past and they are little more than what you just did here. How much of a researcher does one need to be to see Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's shadows on the curb in Altgens number six photo? How much of a researcher does one need to be to see where it is written in the Zapruder Hoax book that Altgens number six is considered genuine? How much of a researcher does one need to be to apply a simple rule of perspective to see that Zapruder was looking down on the south pasture which would make Foster look taller than she really was against a line stretched between two lamppost and that had the view of been from ground level then the line and the top of her head would separate further apart? How much of a researcher does one need to be to know that if Moorman's photo was filmed just 30 minutes after the assassination and shown on television by 3:30 that afternoon, that there was not a window of time there for it to be altered? How much about the Kennedy case does one need to know to just have done a simple overlay of the Franzen's to see why Mrs. Franzen appeared taller between frames ... because you know don't you that is what happens when you step backwards when being viewed from a high elevation like that Zapruder had. By the way, how much of a researcher does one need to be to do the same for Charles Brehm and his son to see that Brehm's upper body turned away from his son which caused both little Joe and Oliver to be seen behind him from Zapruder's location? Here is a clip I saved from Lancer when the Hoax book was being reviewed there. Please tell everyone how much does one need to know about the Kennedy case to see that Mr. Franzen stepped forward while his wife stepped backward, which gave off a false illusion that she somehow had grown between those film frames mentioned in the Great Zapruder Hoax? Here is another clip showing why Brehm's son showed up from behind his father so quickly. How much does one need to know about the Kennedy case to understand how this happened and why it looked the way it did on the Zapruder film? Notice how Brehm's upper body rotation not only assisted in his son being seen so quickly, but also allowed more of beverly Oliver to become visible to Zapruder as well without her even moving her feet. I get a sick feeling when I see people like yoyrself flaming others for showing a little common sense as if it takes some vast knowledge of the Kennedy case to have basic reasoning skills. It's a black eye on this forum and a black eye on yourself when you show more loyalty to poor research than you do to President Kennedy's right to a fair and accurate inquiry done on his behalf. The points made above are things we all were taught in high school, so why does one need to be a seasoned researcher to understand these simple principals? Now prove me wrong and address the issues or prove me right and just continue on as nothing more than a mouth piece. Larry
  7. Anyone who is serious about the issues of alteration--and those who are arguing without looking at the evidence presented in the book are not--should go to my public issues web site and study the Intro to Zapruder Film Alteration presented there by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who is the leading expert on technical issues related to the film. I cannot imagine how anyone who studies the evidence he presents could possibly continue to deny that the film has been massively altered--actually, recreated, because otherwise ghost- images in the sprocket areas, which link successive frames toget- ther, would have revealed the deception immediately! Mr. Fetzer, can you provide this forum with any names of photographic experts who have peer reviewed Costells'a work and agreed with it? It seems to me that I read once that his formula for how he reached is conclusions was solicited so it could be validated, but he had declined to share it. Larry
  8. All the hot air around here regarding (non-alteration) the Zapruder film is just that, HOT air -- get other pros here or read the 1964 standard for the art craft -- what's a matter with you guys, lazy? If you don't understand how it works, ask... When the other non alteration side of the argument re the camera original Zapruder Film chain of posession/custody time line is understood, I'll be open to meaningful discussion -- David, You are on record on this very Forum stating that you have not seen any proof that the Zapruder film has been altered. Your position was only that the ability to alter the film was present at the time of the assassination. So if you are going to start talking about "hot air" when mentioning non-alterationist, just remember that you in a sense have said the same things they have. Larry
  9. Hello, John. I see Fetzer mentions that Bill Miller is untrustworthy, well allow me to show you why Fetzer says what he does and you can judge who is untrustworthy for yourself. In the Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Jack White, along with Fetzer said they had shown that Moorman was in the street when she took her number five Polaroid. Miller pointed out to these guys a couple of years before the book came out that Moorman's camera was above the windshields of the cycles passing by her. Miller knew this because the cycles stacked upward across her photo. Miller confirmed his opinion when he was the only researcher who bothered to find out that the standing height for a DPD cycle was 58" from the ground to the top of the windshield. White gave Moorman's camera lens height off the street as lower than 54". Now let me stop and show you a caption that is written in the Great Zapruder Hoax book about James Altgens photograph number six - At a time when Fetzer and White were saying that Moorman and Hill were in the street, Altgens photo which they claim is genuine proves them to be in serious error, yet they ignored this evidence when presented to them and they pushed a known falsehood in their book. Study the photo for yourself. There are three shadows in the lower right hand corner. One belongs to Charles Brehm, the other two belong to Hill and Moorman. Some time ago I posted the above information on this forum and added that Jean Hill was on record as saying that she stepped back out of the street by the time Mary took her photograph. I even gave the reference to Jean Hill's interview on Black Op Radio where Jean was asked point blank by a caller if she was standing in the street when the President passed her? Jean replied that she had stepped in the street, but before the first shot sounded she had gotten back out of it. How did Jack White then reply ------ Jack countered with a carefully edited film clip where Jean told someone she had stepped into the street. Jack made sure to have stopped the clip before one could see what point in time Jean was talking about, as well as he totally ignored Jean's own words telling the listener to the radio show that she was back out of the street before the first shot was fired. So now who is unstrustworthy and who is credible enough to stand up and tell it like it is? These guys bad mouth Miller because he stood up to them and systematically debunked all their ridiculous claims. They bad mouth Conway because she has banned both men from ever speaking at another one of Lancer's conferences because they have ruined their credibilty amoung the JFK research community, which by the way John Simkin was a speaker at Lancer this year. The same can be said for Copa because they won't have White or Fetzer as speakers either. Kevin Costener said in the JFK movie while portraying Jim Garrison, "Let justice be done, though the Heavens fall!" Now watch them guys try and paint you a different picture, but the truth is the truth just like a tree is a tree and a rock is a rock, regardless of what ever name they try to give it. Larry
  10. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, I believe Benson's book has been revised and reissued, maybe last year? Larry
  11. I have watched Bill present the evidence concerning this matter over an extended period of time and he refers to it as circumstantial evidence. I have also noticed that certain things you had relied on to reach your conclusion was shown to be in error from time to time and yet your opinion never changes. One of the latter errors was in thinking that the sunlight was hitting off the man's neck, thus making it appear light in tone. As Bill pointed out - this was not the case. I'm sorry, but the man in Moorman's photograph appears to be wearing an overseas cap. The man Bill shows from the rear and on the walkway also has on what looks like an overseas cap. The wide "V" shape Bill shows us is quite discernible IMO. His left sleeve doesn't appear to be rolled up, nor does the skin on his neck look dark enough to be the black man in the Bell film.
  12. The man in the Bell film looks like a black man to me and his hat comes way down on the side of his head as Bill pointed out.
×
×
  • Create New...