Zapruder, Four questions..

[Larry Peters]

I had heard you were arrogant but hadn't noticed myself until now.

Be careful, Mr. Fetzer. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Whether one is a Christian or not, there is truth in that message.

Larry

[David G. Healy]

Larry er, yeah.... wrote:

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.

__________________

Mr. Peter's it is incumbent on YOU to find a photo expert and/or Physicists that will dispute Dr. Costella,s work. As of this date in time, you've had well over two going on 3 year's to produce ONE --In all your efforts you can't produce one that'll go on the record ----

Noise Mr. Peter's.....

Get to work champ!

I had heard you were arrogant but hadn't noticed myself until now.

Be careful, Mr. Fetzer. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Whether one is a Christian or not, there is truth in that message.

Larry

roflmfao!

that 9mm getting to heavy?

[John Dolva]

Larry, thank you for taking the time to post that. I'll read it a few times. I'm a bit hesitant to comment while the temp remains high.

______________________________

I just want to go into a bit on my mindset first so we know where we are.

My 'natural' inclination is to trust my eyes and reason. I know from experience that that is sometimes not a good thing. With regards to zfilm alterations I have an attachment to the idea that it is not altered.

(I realise here a clear definition of what I mean by altered is necessary: I don't mean missing or mixed up frames or different frame rates or even necessarily format or enhancements as far as color goes unless say a green becomes a red etc. In other words an enhancement that isolates or defines a region need not necessarily be regarded as an alteration as long as it serves some purpose and is presented as such. Which ties in to what a lot of this is to me: amatter of presentation. If a particular film version has frames missing or put in wrong order it is just a matter of presentation and can easily be dealt with. If values are changed by removing blemishes or scratches, or if the frames are distortion corrected, then that is an alteration which creates a baseline that cannot be in some issues dealt with. It can't be used to prove or disprove some things. Now, the creation of an alternative version and presenting that as the original is something else entirely. It's NOT an alteration, it's a new film used in a deceptive way. And there no good is expected in using it to analyse events EXCEPT in order to look at conspiracy.)

So like I said I am attached to the idea that the zfilm as we know it is not a 'new film', and apart from some versions such as for example those distortion corrected by Costella, are not altered, however this is not deception as it is acknowledged that it is altered and can in some instances be useful.

I don't care if frames are missing or jumbled up, it just makes things more difficult while at the same time exposing deceptions, so a win win in the end.

Now I understand that the basic argument is that the zfilm as we know it is not the zfilm, rather a 'new film', and that the reasons for saying so are the result of scientists analyzing the film. Further it is argued that only scientists can credibly discuss the theories put forward. All I can say there at the moment is that it is not an argument for alteration but rather substitution of one film with another that has been created for the purpose of replacing the original with a false one in order to show or not show something. If it's to show that there is a lone nut its obviously a flawed recreation. If it's to show something else like to hide something then a lot can be crossreferenced to other films and photos.

Well, I'm not a scientist. But I know that scientists write papers that are made available to other scientists through independent respectable scientific publications, other scientists then take those results and attempt test them and then publish their results and so on.

Therefore the only way I can say anything about this hypothesis is to read those papers, and I'm asking for a listing under subject heading, abstract listings, scientist etc etc before going further. These must necessarily also be from outside the group that supports this theory as any hint of promotional ventures or lobbying etc don't wash on that level. Background papers that establish the credibility of the scientists that contribute to this theory discussion of would be nice, but a list of contributors and their field can be enough, it just makes a search more difficult, so if this is available then a good first step is to publish that list here.

Thank you.

[David G. Healy]

Larry, thank you for taking the time to post that. I'll read it a few times. I'm a bit hesitant to comment while the temp remains high.

______________________________

I just want to go into a bit on my mindset first so we know where we are.

My 'natural' inclination is to trust my eyes and reason. I know from experience that that is sometimes not a good thing. With regards to zfilm alterations I have an attachment to the idea that it is not altered.

(I realise here a clear definition of what I mean by altered is necessary: I don't mean missing or mixed up frames or different frame rates or even necessarily format or enhancements as far as color goes unless say a green becomes a red etc. In other words an enhancement that isolates or defines a region need not necessarily be regarded as an alteration as long as it serves some purpose and is presented as such. Which ties in to what a lot of this is to me: amatter of presentation. If a particular film version has frames missing or put in wrong order it is just a matter of presentation and can easily be dealt with. If values are changed by removing blemishes or scratches, or if the frames are distortion corrected, then that is an alteration which creates a baseline that cannot be in some issues dealt with. It can't be used to prove or disprove some things. Now, the creation of an alternative version and presenting that as the original is something else entirely. It's NOT an alteration, it's a new film used in a deceptive way. And there no good is expected in using it to analyse events EXCEPT in order to look at conspiracy.)

So like I said I am attached to the idea that the zfilm as we know it is not a 'new film', and apart from some versions such as for example those distortion corrected by Costella, are not altered, however this is not deception as it is acknowledged that it is altered and can in some instances be useful.

I don't care if frames are missing or jumbled up, it just makes things more difficult while at the same time exposing deceptions, so a win win in the end.

Now I understand that the basic argument is that the zfilm as we know it is not the zfilm, rather a 'new film', and that the reasons for saying so are the result of scientists analyzing the film. Further it is argued that only scientists can credibly discuss the theories put forward. All I can say there at the moment is that it is not an argument for alteration but rather substitution of one film with another that has been created for the purpose of replacing the original with a false one in order to show or not show something. If it's to show that there is a lone nut its obviously a flawed recreation. If it's to show something else like to hide something then a lot can be crossreferenced to other films and photos.

Well, I'm not a scientist. But I know that scientists write papers that are made available to other scientists through independent respectable scientific publications, other scientists then take those results and attempt test them and then publish their results and so on.

Therefore the only way I can say anything about this hypothesis is to read those papers, and I'm asking for a listing under subject heading, abstract listings, scientist etc etc before going further. These must necessarily also be from outside the group that supports this theory as any hint of promotional ventures or lobbying etc don't wash on that level. Background papers that establish the credibility of the scientists that contribute to this theory discussion of would be nice, but a list of contributors and their field can be enough, it just makes a search more difficult, so if this is available then a good first step is to publish that list here.

Thank you.

Nice dance, John! Might you post your bonifides declaring your scientic expertise in photo/film interpretation? So there's no misunderstanding, if your a weekend warrior at this "photo" stuff I'd like to know that going in.

"Well I'm no scientist..." your quote, not mine -- Is this the best the Lone Neuter's can do, I've asked for a Physicist from their side for 2-3 years - review JCostella's work. Nothing! ZIP, NADA, ZILTCH --

You might try contacting JCostella, if he tells you to buzz off, well, what then....? Or has he already told you that? If you know what scientists write -- send Costella's chapter to one, one that has a few credentials in optics, get his comments, bonifides AND permission to quote then go on the record with them -- John Costella's theory is on the record for the whole world to see -- spring for it -- buy the book, I understand it might be in a few library's downunder....

Oh, a background paper that establishes YOUR credibility might be in order here, also. What say you?

[John Dolva]

David, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I have no qualifications, none whatsoever. Therefore I cannot evaluate the theory that Costella is presenting to the scientific community, of which I am not one. I have never claimed to be one nor to have any qualifications as should be clear from my numerous attempts at learning/contributing etc to this to a largre part non scientific community here. Jim on the other hand is on another level.

However, I do understand that scientists that present theories for evaluation to the scientific community according to an established method. This seems to me the only way to follow this side of the debate. I'm just asking to be provided whith the necessary references to use in searching abstracts.

Edited January 17, 2006 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

David, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I have no qualifications, none whatsoever. Therefore I cannot evaluate the theory that Costella is presenting to the scientific community, of which I am not one. I have never claimed to be one nor to have any qualifications as should be clear from my numerous attempts at learning/contributing etc to this to a largre part non scientific community here. Jim on the other hand is on another level.

However, I do understand that scientists that present theories for evaluation to the scientific community according to an established method. This seems to me the only way to follow this side of the debate. I'm just asking to be provided whith the necessary references to use in searching abstracts.

let me ask you something -- IF this were a scientific court of inquiry, reviewing a case of film validation and authentication - one side submitted JCostella's brief as a case for alteration and the other side submitted NOTHING other than their classic quote; "the Zapruder film is not altered. there wasn't time, the Dealey Plaza films are seamless".

What's determined?

Edited January 17, 2006 by David G. Healy

[John Dolva]

David, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I have no qualifications, none whatsoever. Therefore I cannot evaluate the theory that Costella is presenting to the scientific community, of which I am not one. I have never claimed to be one nor to have any qualifications as should be clear from my numerous attempts at learning/contributing etc to this to a largre part non scientific community here. Jim on the other hand is on another level.

However, I do understand that scientists that present theories for evaluation to the scientific community according to an established method. This seems to me the only way to follow this side of the debate. I'm just asking to be provided whith the necessary references to use in searching abstracts.

let me ask you something -- IF this were a scientific court of inquiry, reviewing a case of film validation and authentication - one side submitted JCostella's brief as a case for alteration and the other side submitted NOTHING other than their classic quote; "the Zapruder film is not altered. there wasn't time, the Dealey Plaza films are seamless".

What's the outcome?

The outcome would be of no value.

JCostellas paper would have to be disected and evaluated and some statement made. That's one thing. The quote would similarly have to be evaluated and some statement made. That's another thing. Probably there would be relevant overlaps. But if I understand your question then it doesn't seem to me the way to proceed.

The important thing though would be to have an involvement by scientists wherever a point is made that clearly in such a court situation can only be answered by those with established credientials.

However, this is hypothetical, it is not such a forum.

As Jim has pointed out there are scientists reading the forum, on for example the xray issues and they have seen no reason to contribute. I think it's a good thing to know this as if and when they do so we can feel more secure in our theorising, conversely their non involvement is good in that we can feel secure that we could very well be wrong. That in itself is direction.

One thing that is important in any forum, scientific and otherwise is to have a dialogue. I have preference that that dialogue should be with an aim of progressing towards truth. For this to happen I think a dispassionate, rational dialogue environment is best. Perhaps that could be seen at least as an attempt at such a 'court of enquiry' you are proposing.

[David G. Healy]

David, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I have no qualifications, none whatsoever. Therefore I cannot evaluate the theory that Costella is presenting to the scientific community, of which I am not one. I have never claimed to be one nor to have any qualifications as should be clear from my numerous attempts at learning/contributing etc to this to a largre part non scientific community here. Jim on the other hand is on another level.

However, I do understand that scientists that present theories for evaluation to the scientific community according to an established method. This seems to me the only way to follow this side of the debate. I'm just asking to be provided whith the necessary references to use in searching abstracts.

let me ask you something -- IF this were a scientific court of inquiry, reviewing a case of film validation and authentication - one side submitted JCostella's brief as a case for alteration and the other side submitted NOTHING other than their classic quote; "the Zapruder film is not altered. there wasn't time, the Dealey Plaza films are seamless".

Progressing towards the truth -- What about; the TRUTH period?

What's the outcome?

The outcome would be of no value.

JCostellas paper would have to be disected and evaluated and some statement made. That's one thing. The quote would similarly have to be evaluated and some statement made. That's another thing. Probably there would be relevant overlaps. But if I understand your question then it doesn't seem to me the way to proceed.

The important thing though would be to have an involvement by scientists wherever a point is made that clearly in such a court situation can only be answered by those with established credientials.

However, this is hypothetical, it is not such a forum.

As Jim has pointed out there are scientists reading the forum, on for example the xray issues and they have seen no reason to contribute. I think it's a good thing to know this as if and when they do so we can feel more secure in our theorising, conversely their non involvement is good in that we can feel secure that we could very well be wrong. That in itself is direction.

One thing that is important in any forum, scientific and otherwise is to have a dialogue. I have preference that that dialogue should be with an aim of progressing towards truth. For this to happen I think a dispassionate, rational dialogue environment is best. Perhaps that could be seen at least as an attempt at such a 'court of enquiry' you are proposing.

The alteration camp has such a scientist, with the credentials -- whose made a case, and PUBLISHED same. BTW, I suspect he's not theorizing -- let the other side find a scientist or group of scientists (with credentials) have them evaluate his case. By ALL means!

Progressing towards the truth? What about the TRUTH period?

Why are THEY dragging their feet? F E A R?

Edited January 17, 2006 by David G. Healy

[John Dolva]

David, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I have no qualifications, none whatsoever. Therefore I cannot evaluate the theory that Costella is presenting to the scientific community, of which I am not one. I have never claimed to be one nor to have any qualifications as should be clear from my numerous attempts at learning/contributing etc to this to a largre part non scientific community here. Jim on the other hand is on another level.

However, I do understand that scientists that present theories for evaluation to the scientific community according to an established method. This seems to me the only way to follow this side of the debate. I'm just asking to be provided with the necessary references to use in searching abstracts.

let me ask you something -- IF this were a scientific court of inquiry, reviewing a case of film validation and authentication - one side submitted JCostella's brief as a case for alteration and the other side submitted NOTHING other than their classic quote; "the Zapruder film is not altered. there wasn't time, the Dealey Plaza films are seamless".

What's the outcome?

The outcome would be of no value.

JCostellas paper would have to be disected and evaluated and some statement made. That's one thing. The quote would similarly have to be evaluated and some statement made. That's another thing. Probably there would be relevant overlaps. But if I understand your question then it doesn't seem to me the way to proceed.

The important thing though would be to have an involvement by scientists wherever a point is made that clearly in such a court situation can only be answered by those with established credientials.

However, this is hypothetical, it is not such a forum.

As Jim has pointed out there are scientists reading the forum, on for example the xray issues and they have seen no reason to contribute. I think it's a good thing to know this as if and when they do so we can feel more secure in our theorising, conversely their non involvement is good in that we can feel secure that we could very well be wrong. That in itself is direction.

One thing that is important in any forum, scientific and otherwise is to have a dialogue. I have preference that that dialogue should be with an aim of progressing towards truth. For this to happen I think a dispassionate, rational dialogue environment is best. Perhaps that could be seen at least as an attempt at such a 'court of enquiry' you are proposing.

The alteration camp has such a scientist, with the credentials -- whose made a case, and PUBLISHED same. BTW, I suspect he's not theorizing -- let the other side find a scientist or group of scientists (with credentials) have them evaluate his case. By ALL means!

Progressing towards the truth? What about the TRUTH period?

Why are THEY dragging their feet? F E A R?

Well, we probably mean the same thing. However, the world, as I see it, is not particularly precise and an aim of 'TRUTH period' will always fail. (This of course does not include a discussion of ultimate truth, which is a separate issue involving a study of self.) But for practical purposes: dialectics or empiricism? I think with a medium such as frozen time in the form of 2d representations of a 3d timeline strung togehter to form a true representation of reality is an impossibility. Particularly when that representation is captured in the imprecise way that it is captured. There can only be theories. To be utterly convinced personally about those theories is another thing. I feel to say otherwise is a divergence of scientific principle.

Fear? yes I think that is an important consideration that relates to such things as identification, attachment and ego..again, in this context, basically unscientific. However, it is a reality and I think an acknowledgment of it as factor allows one to begin to own it and not spread it.

Edited January 17, 2006 by John Dolva

[Pat Speer]

If studying something for two years full time and coming to a different conclusion than someone with a lot more overall experience than myself makes me arrogant so be it. I'm arrogant. But what you seem unwilling to realize is that no matter what side anyone takes on photo alteration, Z-film alteration, x-ray alteration, etc. one has to reject an expert. The question becomes "which expert do I reject?" Does one merely look at the credentials of the different sides of an argument and choose the person with the stronger credentials? Or does one do one's best to analyze the data on one's own and come to an informed decision? George Bush has more experience in politics than you or I ever will; does that mean we should blindly trust his judgement and analysis on all things political? I respect Dr. Mantik. I've read his chapters in Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza, as well as his paper on his "20 Conclusions". He obviously knows much more about x-rays in general than I ever will. But I believe in this instance my analysis is correct and his is wrong. My mother was an RN; my sister has been an RN in county hospitals for over 20 years; my brother has been a respected Bio-med tech for over 20 years; my sister-in-law is the head delivery nurse in a large hospital. All of them support the idea that doctors make mistakes. They've spent a lot of their lives FIXING these mistakes. Why, oh why, should I automatically defer to Dr. Mantik when you won't defer to Dr. Baden or Dr. Humes? Because he's YOUR expert? Well, that's not good enough....

The refusal of certain elements of the "research" (or should I say "Pet Theory") community to explore new ideas that differ from their own has been quite disheartening. My analysis was built on the hard work of others, including men like yourself and Dr. Mantik. I wanted to share my research and analysis with them, which is one of the reasons why I put it up on the internet. That much of the "community" has been fractured into cliques that refuse to learn or read anything new is to me perplexing. Rather than treating me as an enemy, I had hoped you would be congratulating me on my debunking Canning's trajectories, or my attacking the single-bullet theory. I don't demand or expect anyone to acccept everything in my presentation. But this blanket rejection by men like yourself and Lifton because I disagree with elements of your research (and lack the support of meaningless letters after my name) is incredibly annoying. (After all, if we took all the doctors in the country and asked them about the assassination, we would almost certainly have the inverse of the 70% pro-conspiracy numbers we see in the general public, now wouldn't we?) Whatever happened to the free marketplace of ideas?

As far as the Z-film, the focus of this thread, I never claimed to be any kind of expert. I just asked if there is a widely-accepted timeline available that theorizes what was changed, where it was changed, and how it was changed. I also asked what was meant by "re-staging." By your personal attack I assume you refuse to answer such questions.

I had heard you were arrogant but hadn't noticed myself until now. You are suggesting that you have the competence and the expertise to interpret X-rays; in particular, that your competence and expertise is even greater than that of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.? I am astounded. Let me ask: How many trips into the National Archives have you made? How extensively have you tested the "original" X-rays using optical densitometry? Have you ever even studied David's chapters on the X-rays in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And is your vast compentence supposed to extent to issues of alteration of the Zapruder film as well? You must be some kind of mental giant! Why don't you explain to us how optical denistometry works and how David was able to ascertain empirically that the X-rays were altered? I would like to see a demonstration of your expertise. Believe it or not, I actually asked him to come to this forum and review claims that have been made about the X-rays. He has scanned many posts but has yet to find something that merits comment. So why don't you make a condensed case for your own views and I will share them with him, right after you show us the extent of your own competence to render these findings. Are you aware that David is Board Certified in Radiation Oncology? Are you Board Certified in Radiation Oncology? Frankly, I think all these issues are far beyond your competence, that you are completely out of your depth, but that some fantastic egoistic motivation drives you to pretend that you know things you don't and possess skills you never had. That is simply stupifying. And are you implying that you can understand the alteration issues with regard to the film WITHOUT studying Costella's work, which is visually displayed on my web site? You are truly an amazing guy! You appear to be ignorant of the most basic issues.

Edited January 17, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Len Colby]

Mr. Colby,

What, I say WHAT version (split or unsplit) of the Zapruder film did Dan Rather/Mr. Stolley of LIFE magazine see see -- can't quite find your answer amongst the clutter above.... You've had well over a week now to detmine the answer -- we can go on from there......

Mr. Peter's er, Bill Miller or vice-versa is present -- give 'em a call

Dave – It seems like you share Fetzer's and White's difficulties in understanding what you read. I answered that in my first post on this forum after you asked me. I told you I was going away for a few days You complained, incorrectly, that I had not answered your question after a week, that's ironic because I asked you questions months ago that you haven't answered yet. The only logical inference is that you are afraid to answer them. Why do you continue to prefer to discuss irrelevant details to issues of substance? Must be because you want to distract people from simple truths that undermine claims the film was altered. What do the questions you’ve been asking me have to do with whether or not the Z-film is authentic?

<a href=" target="_blank">

.

IIRC the camera original which was split at Kodak was shown by Zapruder (and possibly his business partner Erwin Schwartz) to Stolley and Secret Service agents at about 8 AM the morning after the assassination…

I believe Rather saw an unsplit Secret Service 1st generation contact print at KRLD with some Secret Service agents. I have no idea who else was present or how many times it was shown

</a>

LOL

Edited January 17, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

let me ask you something -- IF this were a scientific court of inquiry, reviewing a case of film validation and authentication - one side submitted JCostella's brief as a case for alteration and the other side submitted NOTHING other than their classic quote; "the Zapruder film is not altered. there wasn't time, the Dealey Plaza films are seamless".

What's determined?

I don't think Costella's musings would be accepted in the first place. He has no qualifications in any related feild nor has he ever published a peer reviewed article*.

Your statement that "the other side submitted NOTHING ..." is incorrect as I'm sure you know, which means you lied, ask Fetzer he knows all about lying. The following link is to one of several sites that counter the claims made in TGZFH. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/

*The only possible exceptions were 3 articles in the same magazine for physics teachers about teaching various asspects of particle physics, I don't think they were peer reviewed..

[Len Colby]

I had heard you were arrogant but hadn't noticed myself until now.

Speaking of arrogance or more accurately over inflated egos, here is what Fetzer had to say about himself and his own work on another forum recently.

"I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of

achievements exceeds my own!

[…]

…MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, perhaps the best book ever published on the

death of JFK. And the conference I organized in Duluth in 2003 led

to the publication of THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX. It may have been

the most important small conference on any subject in history"

J. Fetzer Dec. 26 2005

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858

"I know of few faculty members anywhere whose combination of

achievements exceeds my own!"

J. Fetzer 1 hour and 45 minutes later

"No, Craig. I decided there were a few who may have accomplished

more, so I corrected a single sentence in the interest of truth."

J. Fetzer a little bit later

Fetzer I think the thousands upon thousands of faculty members who have managed to get jobs at far more prominent schools than U of Minn. Duluth would beg to disagree. How many non assassination books have you written that weren't text books?

Edited January 17, 2006 by Len Colby

[Bernice Moore]

Len Colby:Quote..

""First of all I never claimed to be a JFK researcher. I think of myself as a debunker of nonsense and it is very self serving of Jack to state that "all real JFK researchers have read" a book to which he is a contributor. I doubt ALL real researchers have read it from what I gather most serious JFK researchers dismiss all of Fetzer's books as junk so they are not exactly first on my reading list. I am sure Fetzer, White and Healy would use circular logic and say anyone who hasn't read their books isn't a "real researcher" by definition. ""

Len Colby:"Quote..

"Speaking of arrogance or more accurately over inflated egos, here is what Fetzer had to say about himself and his own work on another forum recently."

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....???

Are you presuming that you are being open minded ??

You presume to know how many serious researchers have read "The Great Zaprduer Hoax"...???

You also presume "gather " to know that most serious researchers regard all of Dr.Fetzer's books as junk.".???

So because you presume such they are not on your reading list...???

To continue to ignore, any information in any book, any evidence, documentation, witnesses recollections, of first day....regarding the Assassination of the President.....and yet presume that you have the knowledge to rebut same...

Is the epitomy of "arrogance"....Touche' you win the prize of the day, for the most nonsensical post, I have read in a long, long time......

Congratulations..

Keep up the good work Mr.Colby....you are way out of your league..as you have admitted...and are capable of showing you have the ability to copy and paste......

and have many "thinkies"....

Thanks for the best laugh I have had in many a day..

page 10....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pic=5708&st=135

B.......

Edited January 17, 2006 by Bernice Moore

[Larry Peters]

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

Edited January 17, 2006 by Larry Peters