Jump to content
The Education Forum

Larry Peters

JFK
  • Content Count

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Larry Peters

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,716 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
  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
  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 e
  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 writt
  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-
  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
  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
  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 an
  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...