Craig Lamson Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 You really do like making yourself look foolish don't you davie jo. Here we are again... BullSh!t personified... since you can't prove anything, make others prove what you know cannot even be accessed... Why not look at what your buddy Zavada writes? Rollie needs ever standard procedure to have been scraped and even then he can't explain the problems with the film called the "camera-original" He needs the actual personnel who stood next to the SS agents and actually processed and developed and copied the films all to be wrong... ALL of them. He needs them wrong about edge printing, he needs them to be wrong about bracketing, he also needs the SS to be wrong as to which film was where and when... So your entire play here is, "You go first" ?? That's the best you can do to provide evidence of authenticity? "Read Zavada" you even imply... but have you even bothered to? Doubt it highly... Yea it is BS again..yours. Zavada has the facts and you are simply can't follow them. Because they destroy your fantasy world. But let play along with your siilly game. Let's start with easy stuff for you... the length and physical condition of the "original" taken from a 33 foot, max length, roll of film. http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1c.pdf Zavada tells us that the film at the Archives has 8 inches of white leader, SPLICE, 6 feet 3 inches of "assassination film", then 2 feet 7 inches of black film (no image), SPLICE, then 19 feet 3 inches of black film that flashes to clear, SPLICE, 6 feet 2 inches of black film, SPLICE, and 5 feet 8 inches of black film, SPLICE, then 6 feet 9 inches of "Light - Struck Leader. The home movie side... side "A" is 32'7" in length (a standard roll of film has 25 feet of usuable film and 8 feet of leader for a total of 33') Side "B" has 8" + 6'3" = 6'11" + 19'3" = 26'2" + 6'2" = 32'5" + 5'8" = 38'1" + 6'9" = 44'10"; so side "B" of a 33' roll of film with NO SPLICES winds up being almost 45 feet of film SPLICED 5 times. (EDIT: I missed the 2'7" for a total of 47 feet 5 inches... even worse for ya ) and THIS is what you claim is the original film? which does not even include the test frames taken on side B adding even MORE length to the film... ooops. I know all of this is way too much for you to follow davie joe, but try anyways. What makes you think this is how the film came off the processor davie jo? Its the original at NARA, which means it has passed through the hands of the lab techs at LIFE. Opps, davie makes a major league blunder. What a surprise. As usual you just make up crap thinking it means something. shall we look a little deeper? The "Original" has no ID number 0183 The copies have 0183 in the wrong place if it was copied from the original The employees state repeatedly that the film was NOT PROCESSED using bracketing - that a single setting was agreed upon and used... the three copies are bracketed Same mistake as above and you missed it again. Surprise. BTW, you don't "bracket" Kodachrome processing. Welcome to the real world. The three copies have the EXPOSURE bracketed not the processing. Again you prove you don't have the first clue. The copies 0185 and 0187 do NOT have these numbers anywhere on them and finally... Max Philips sends Rowley a note with the Zfilm he mails the evening of 11/22 explaining that Sorrels has 2 copies, Zap has the "master" and the Third Print is forwarded... except we all know that Zapruder "retained the best first day copy for himself" and subsequently gives it to Stolley on the 25th... he supposedly projected an 8mm film on 11/23 - surely NOT the original... yet even IF it was the original, it would have been in 8mm format... not 16mm. So we come to learn the identified "original" was indeed split to 8mm (and rec'd by Dino the night of 11/23 afterwhich it simply disappears) 0186, seen by the FBI the morning of 11/23 is a 16mm version shown at Kodak with no documentation of what occurs with this 16mm version. More complete bs. Please show us the details that prove the original was slit. Oh wait, this was your best try and you failed. McMahon creates his briefing boards (which are not the same as what Dino/Lundahl created the day before) from a 16mm original delivered by an SS agent who tells them the film was produced in Rochester. a 16mm original... take a look at the enlargements... do they appear of a quality that would come from a 16mm original? and can you explain how CIA450 details these boards EXACTLY... and goes on to show that internegs were to be shot and 3 prints were to be made... - coincidence, right? So we need to address - Would a COPY have been left in 16mm format for any reason - 0186 is acknowledged as the film given to the FBI, yet they viewed a 16mm film at Kodak... and why on the SS copies does the edge print info read BACKWARD when viewing the film correctly? Try and address the questions and evidence BEFORE you launch into ad-homs and misdirection CL... just this once. BRING the evidence of authenticity and POST IT or is that simply too much for you? 16mm ORIGINAL? ROFLMAO! Once more you post dogma and call it fact. And you have NOTHING of value to back up yet another silly claim. Its pretty clear you don't have the first understanding of basic photo lab processes or limitation. That's why you make this silly claims and then make a complete fool of yourself. Why not leave the copy unslit? Oh wait, it won't fit your fantasy. BTW do you know what a contact print is and how it works? I guess not. Zavada provides the evidence the film us authentic. And you can't refute it. The one without evidence is you. And of course you know that, which is why you created this massive piece of bullsnit. Sorry but you failed again. Maybe you should stick to something you know? What no scratch off lottery tickets inthe JFK case? Well I guess that leave you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Why no splices on the family side of the film?????. The only portion of this case NOT a national security issue... ?? I also found in Zavada's attachments the letter from Phil Chamberlain explaining the FBI watched their film on an "Analyst" projector, which is a 16mm device that allows for running the film forward/backward and to stop on individual frames.. His footnotes states he knows the Analyst projector is 16mm yet "I'm pretty sure we were doing this in 8mm, so it must ahve been another projector" 27 years after the fact the change CLEANS things up a bit.... During the entire letter Phil holds fast to remembering only TWO (2) IIa copies, not three.... but since there are three, he states "I believe three copies have been accounted for" These footnotes are added NOT in the 70's when written but within a few days of sending the notes to Rollie... in 1997. http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-11.pdf The footnotes remain a nother classic example of, "That was the first story... it needed to be changed" You fail basic common sense 101 davie jo. Welcome to unreliable witness testimony. Its why you look so foolish every time you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Thanks CL... always a pleasure when you post and show yourself for who you are... I always know I'm right whenever you show up to grandstand... so please, continue exposing yourself, seems to be the only thing you're any good at.... Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Gallup Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 ...and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw. EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure. Maybe to you, Craig, but remember, your argument is not with me, but with the witnesses. Laugh at them if you will, but they were there, and you and I weren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 As well as with Zavada and Horne and the personnel involved with the Zfilm.... Refute the evidence big man, the messenger had nothing to do with the creation of the evidence or the many analyses you neither bother withwhich to familiarize yourself...or understand if you ever got around to it... but hey, your opinion is worth something, to someone, somewhere... maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Thanks CL... always a pleasure when you post and show yourself for who you are... I always know I'm right whenever you show up to grandstand... so please, continue exposing yourself, seems to be the only thing you're any good at.... Cheers You can't even deal with reality when its right here in front of you davie jo. Witht this post you show everyone want a fantasy wrold you live. I was already here. It was YOU who showed up (right on cue). It was you who did the "grandstanding" it was YOU who got it all wrong. (as usual) Your fantasy world is betraying you davie jo. Must be all that silver scratch-off paint.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 ...and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw. EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure. Maybe to you, Craig, but remember, your argument is not with me, but with the witnesses. Laugh at them if you will, but they were there, and you and I weren't. Yea, trot out those witnesses and see them all over the block on what happened. Simply people being people, and being quite unreliable when it comes to recollections. But hey if you want to place value in this kind of stuff, have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 As well as with Zavada and Horne and the personnel involved with the Zfilm.... Refute the evidence big man, the messenger had nothing to do with the creation of the evidence or the many analyses you neither bother withwhich to familiarize yourself...or understand if you ever got around to it... but hey, your opinion is worth something, to someone, somewhere... maybe. Refute Zavada davie jo. Have at it. Oh wait, you tried and failed, and so did Horne and HIS fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) deleted Edited April 4, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Gallup Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 ...and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw. EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure. Maybe to you, Craig, but remember, your argument is not with me, but with the witnesses. Laugh at them if you will, but they were there, and you and I weren't. Yea, trot out those witnesses and see them all over the block on what happened. Simply people being people, and being quite unreliable when it comes to recollections. But hey if you want to place value in this kind of stuff, have at it. Thanks, I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 So Mr Lamson has not seen the in camera original either?. What's in the vault ? ,anybody know?. Has anybody here seen "the kings new clothes"?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 So Mr Lamson has not seen the in camera original either?. What's in the vault ? ,anybody know?. Has anybody here seen "the kings new clothes"?. Many people have. Why don't you ask Zavada, he has seen it a number of times including under a microscope. Or Mo Weitzman. He has some interesting things to say about alterationists. He contacted me out of the blue some time ago and we had a nice chat. So Ian, what exactly do YOU base your "misgivings" on? And why do you think you or anyone else should be able to drag the original out of storage when forensic copies exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) Edit Edited April 4, 2013 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The only way to begin to understand what was done. Compare it to CE884 entries for frame 161-166. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The only way to begin to understand what was done. Compare it to CE884 entries for frame 161-166. chris GIGO...as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now