Guest James H. Fetzer Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Tom, I would be interested in an overview of your findings, if you could provide one. Thanks. Jim For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here..._______________ and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David; Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain. The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, Tom -- the very reason I sent you a email years back -- thanking you for your in-depth Elm Street - DP research, in particular- FBI/SS recreation limo positioning re the final fatal shot... David <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Knew we had discussed things. Forgot what it was! That happens more and more. Surely it can not be AGE? Did I also provide the information relative as to why Mr. Z should have been able to see the top 10 inches of JFK also? Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here..._______________ and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David; Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain. The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, Tom -- the very reason I sent you a email years back -- thanking you for your in-depth Elm Street - DP research, in particular- FBI/SS recreation limo positioning re the final fatal shot... David <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Knew we had discussed things. Forgot what it was! That happens more and more. Surely it can not be AGE? Did I also provide the information relative as to why Mr. Z should have been able to see the top 10 inches of JFK also? Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tom -- Well, for me, it is age... and NO, I haven't seen your specific research re AZapruder, if you'd be so kind to post it here or, email to me... Thanks, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Healy whined: "Error? We've noticed the physicists running to defended your position, what were their names again? Just for the record...? roflmao! Anybody find those .pov files yet?" THIS is the best the "gang" can do... Be happy, the Shuttle is UP!" Yes an error...in fact a massive one. Somehow I'm not surpised you dont understand. One that wipes out the very foundation of his most important claims. And I dont need a physicist. Just a simple expert photographer. In fact the major weakness of your "horde" is your physicist. Never mind that he is quite the kook (but in great company in your little group) the problem is that your physicist...er math teacher seems to have failed photography 101, if in fact he ver took it. Now you guys might have had a chance in getting it right if you would have had a competent photographer on board to keep your wacky PhD's in check. But alas all you had was White and lets just say that history has shown over and over and over again that Jack White is anything competent in regards to photography. And finally to you David. You have the pov ray files, they were given to you in 2003. Do I need to quote the entire usenet thread? WHy not do something useful for a change other than read a book about optical printers. Why not use the pov ray files to prove that the sign MUST not move. After all your PhD,-physicist,-math teacher says that the way it has to be. It should be a snap for you to prove him right. BTW, you might want to suggest to Costella that he start telling the truth when he writes his replies. From his last: "I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this point, " This is quite an untruth. In fact its the second request he has replied to in the last few weeks, the other was on a different public forum. He told a blatant untruth in that reply as well. If needed I will be happy to supply the exact links to his untruth if needed. Seems in addition to being in error on the Zapruder fillm, you vaulted physicist cant seem to even tell the truth on very simple matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 (edited) Just for the record, as Lamson continues to shoot off his mouth, Costella said that he might have not received the requests that Lamson claims to have sent because he had terminated email from Lamson--a rational response to continuous harassment! Read any of the posts Lamson puts up and measure their ad hominem quotient. He spends practically all of his time berating or attacking or trivializing students of the case who are making enduring contributions! The post on another forum concerns work that Costella and I have done on the death of Paul Wellstone, where I asked John to clarify some technical points related to radar reports and the like. Lamson is just as nasty and crude on that forum as he is here. Anyone interested in our work on the Wellstone crash might want to check out fromthewilderness.com, where our new study, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", appeared on 6 July 2005. (It should be out in hardcopy in FROM THE WILDERNESS this week!) Everyone should judge for himself, of course, but my extensive experience with Lamson has been uniformly negative. Healy whined:"Error? We've noticed the physicists running to defended your position, what were their names again? Just for the record...? roflmao! Anybody find those .pov files yet?" THIS is the best the "gang" can do... Be happy, the Shuttle is UP!" Yes an error...in fact a massive one. Somehow I'm not surpised you dont understand. One that wipes out the very foundation of his most important claims. And I dont need a physicist. Just a simple expert photographer. In fact the major weakness of your "horde" is your physicist. Never mind that he is quite the kook (but in great company in your little group) the problem is that your physicist...er math teacher seems to have failed photography 101, if in fact he ver took it. Now you guys might have had a chance in getting it right if you would have had a competent photographer on board to keep your wacky PhD's in check. But alas all you had was White and lets just say that history has shown over and over and over again that Jack White is anything competent in regards to photography. And finally to you David. You have the pov ray files, they were given to you in 2003. Do I need to quote the entire usenet thread? WHy not do something useful for a change other than read a book about optical printers. Why not use the pov ray files to prove that the sign MUST not move. After all your PhD,-physicist,-math teacher says that the way it has to be. It should be a snap for you to prove him right. BTW, you might want to suggest to Costella that he start telling the truth when he writes his replies. From his last: "I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this point, " This is quite an untruth. In fact its the second request he has replied to in the last few weeks, the other was on a different public forum. He told a blatant untruth in that reply as well. If needed I will be happy to supply the exact links to his untruth if needed. Seems in addition to being in error on the Zapruder fillm, you vaulted physicist cant seem to even tell the truth on very simple matters. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Edited July 27, 2005 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 (edited) Lamson dronnes on: Healy whined: "Error? We've noticed the physicists running to defended your position, what were their names again? Just for the record...? roflmao! Anybody find those .pov files yet?" THIS is the best the "gang" can do... Be happy, the Shuttle is UP!" Yes an error...in fact a massive one. Somehow I'm not surpised you dont understand. One that wipes out the very foundation of his most important claims. And I dont need a physicist. Just a simple expert photographer. In fact the major weakness of your "horde" is your physicist. Never mind that he is quite the kook (but in great company in your little group) the problem is that your physicist...er math teacher seems to have failed photography 101, if in fact he ver took it. Now you guys might have had a chance in getting it right if you would have had a competent photographer on board to keep your wacky PhD's in check. But alas all you had was White and lets just say that history has shown over and over and over again that Jack White is anything competent in regards to photography. And finally to you David. You have the pov ray files, they were given to you in 2003. Do I need to quote the entire usenet thread? dgh01: please do -- and please comment on the following: without the topos and the conversion files you, YOU and JOE used, the .pov files are useless -- but you know that don't you -- NO topo files, no - zip - nada confirmation. WHy not do something useful for a change other than read a book about optical printers. Why not use the pov ray files to prove that the sign MUST not move. After all your PhD,-physicist,-math teacher says that the way it has to be. It should be a snap for you to prove him right. dgh01: read the above, AGAIN -- get me the topos and conversion files YOU used and I'll confirm it. Simple request, one that YOUR side I suspect, has willfully neglected. WHY is that? BTW, you might want to suggest to Costella that he start telling the truth when he writes his replies. From his last: dgh01: call John what you like -- seems thats the best you can do -- show us what you got, confirm to me and the rest of the world, "...the Zapruder film is not altered, here's WHY..."? "I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this point, " This is quite an untruth. In fact its the second request he has replied to in the last few weeks, the other was on a different public forum. He told a blatant untruth in that reply as well. If needed I will be happy to supply the exact links to his untruth if needed. Seems in addition to being in error on the Zapruder fillm, you vaulted physicist cant seem to even tell the truth on very simple matters. dgh01: still, no physicist to confirm to YOUR findings? All this noise over research? Which by-the-way, the entire symposium is available on DVD. Your .pov files AND conversion topo files available on DVD? They'll never see the light of day! Will they? Edited July 27, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Tom,I would be interested in an overview of your findings, if you could provide one. Thanks. Jim For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here..._______________ and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OVERVIEW: The Zapruder film as presented can not physically be a complete and un-altered version of the original item. altered: to make or become different (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Tom P.S. Math is generally accepted as "Factual Evidence" by virtually all courts. David; Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain. The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, Tom -- the very reason I sent you a email years back -- thanking you for your in-depth Elm Street - DP research, in particular- FBI/SS recreation limo positioning re the final fatal shot... David <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Knew we had discussed things. Forgot what it was! That happens more and more. Surely it can not be AGE? Did I also provide the information relative as to why Mr. Z should have been able to see the top 10 inches of JFK also? Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Lamson dronnes on:Healy whined: "Error? We've noticed the physicists running to defended your position, what were their names again? Just for the record...? roflmao! Anybody find those .pov files yet?" THIS is the best the "gang" can do... Be happy, the Shuttle is UP!" Yes an error...in fact a massive one. Somehow I'm not surpised you dont understand. One that wipes out the very foundation of his most important claims. And I dont need a physicist. Just a simple expert photographer. In fact the major weakness of your "horde" is your physicist. Never mind that he is quite the kook (but in great company in your little group) the problem is that your physicist...er math teacher seems to have failed photography 101, if in fact he ver took it. Now you guys might have had a chance in getting it right if you would have had a competent photographer on board to keep your wacky PhD's in check. But alas all you had was White and lets just say that history has shown over and over and over again that Jack White is anything competent in regards to photography. And finally to you David. You have the pov ray files, they were given to you in 2003. Do I need to quote the entire usenet thread? dgh01: please do -- and please comment on the following: without the topos and the conversion files you, YOU and JOE used, the .pov files are useless -- but you know that don't you -- NO topo files, no - zip - nada confirmation. WHy not do something useful for a change other than read a book about optical printers. Why not use the pov ray files to prove that the sign MUST not move. After all your PhD,-physicist,-math teacher says that the way it has to be. It should be a snap for you to prove him right. dgh01: read the above, AGAIN -- get me the topos and conversion files YOU used and I'll confirm it. Simple request, one that YOUR side I suspect, has willfully neglected. WHY is that? BTW, you might want to suggest to Costella that he start telling the truth when he writes his replies. From his last: dgh01: call John what you like -- seems thats the best you can do -- show us what you got, confirm to me and the rest of the world, "...the Zapruder film is not altered, here's WHY..."? "I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this point, " This is quite an untruth. In fact its the second request he has replied to in the last few weeks, the other was on a different public forum. He told a blatant untruth in that reply as well. If needed I will be happy to supply the exact links to his untruth if needed. Seems in addition to being in error on the Zapruder fillm, you vaulted physicist cant seem to even tell the truth on very simple matters. dgh01: still, no physicist to confirm to YOUR findings? All this noise over research? Which by-the-way, the entire symposium is available on DVD. Your .pov files AND conversion topo files available on DVD? They'll never see the light of day! Will they? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 9 messages in topic - view as tree GordonD Nov 16 2003, 8:19 pm show options Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: gordondavid...@hotmail.com (GordonD) - Find messages by this author Date: 16 Nov 2003 20:19:34 -0500 Local: Sun,Nov 16 2003 8:19 pm Subject: Great Zapruder Film HOAX contributors have answered the GANG... Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Here's the URL for those interested in first hand responses to the GANG'S website: http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax Point by point! Anything further Joe, David Wimp, Ron Hepler, Tink Thompson, Craig Lamson, Barb J., James Gordon and the others. We're around to please, answer questions, clear up ANY and all confusion that YOU may have.... No one is answering my PovRay concerns from your camp yet, been what, a week now, what's up? DHealy -- aka gd Joe Durnavich Nov 16 2003, 10:56 pm show options Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: Joe Durnavich <j...@earthlink.net> - Find messages by this author Date: 16 Nov 2003 22:56:17 -0500 Local: Sun,Nov 16 2003 10:56 pm Subject: Re: Great Zapruder Film HOAX contributors have answered the GANG... Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse USENET THREAD: GordonD writes: >Here's the URL for those interested in first hand responses to the >GANG'S website: >http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax >Point by point! Anything further Joe, David Wimp, Ron Hepler, Tink >Thompson, Craig Lamson, Barb J., James Gordon and the others. >We're around to please, answer questions, clear up ANY and all >confusion that YOU may have.... Thanks. That reminds me: I should point out that Dave Perry just contributed an article on John Costella's theory that the rain sensors are really listening devices. It is worth it alone just for the quotes from Costella: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm >No one is answering my PovRay concerns from your camp yet, been what, >a week now, what's up? David, my responses must have not made it to you. I'll respond here: ---------------------- >Message from David Healy >Can you pass this on to the guy's, I haven't heard from them since I asked >for the URL regarding the .pov file... >Need clarification on David Wimps lens distortion >note: below parts extracted from JoeD's dealeyplaza.pov/.ini >btw Joe, I inserted the ini file into the POV file for [my tests] as info >only [POV3.5 has a problem with Wimps orth camera - I'll have to load 3.1 >back in in a few day's], you'll notice I've commented it out - on the Apple >side of things - the .ini is a menu function. Haven't wrote an .ini file >since version 1 in DOS I rewrote the .pov to work with POV-Ray 3.5: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/sign.pov >The .ini and .pov file your site posted, is not enough! I need to see how >Wimp came to the code for the lens and the viewing angle -- in short how did >he code for the Z-camera "full zoom" lens distortion factors and his >corrections for the pincushion corrections, etc. >Fustrum size/viewing angle ain't enough. >Is the correction applied to the whole [Hunt] world or the [Hunt] world >through the lens? David Wimp's writeup on lens distortion is here: http://home.att.net/~joliraja2/DistortionDiscussion.html Note that lens distortion is a 2D transform, so we just corrected the Zapruder frames first using a separate application and worked with those. For the "Pincushion distortion Test" section, we did apply a distortion transform to the generated 3D image files. >And, >/* >* The cameras are setup to use the right-handed coordinate system. >* This allows the use of coordinate values that closely resemble* >* the coordinates on John Hunt's HSCA map. Coordinates here are in >* feet, so divide the x and y values on the map by 10 to get feet*. >* Also, make the y value negative. >* >*/ >* emphasis mine - dgh >ah ---- closely resemble? resemble -- feet? we should be talking inches >here, shouldn't we [at the outside most]? -- Elevations on the map are given to a precision of 0.1 feet. For example, the top of the pedestal is labeled as "101.2" feet. For convenience, we specified the x and y coordinates the same way, except that the "y" values are negative--thus the "closely resembles" remark. >Let me make myself clear, when you deal with optical printing and >compositing we're dealing with one thousandTH of an inch .001 tolerances --- A frame of 35 mm film is less than an inch wide, though. Dealey Plaza is thousands of cubic feet in volume. There is no point in an accuracy of 0.001 inch. >POVRay in the scientific world has been known to map 'dna strands' and other >molecules. Certainly your measurements can do better than this? >Needs a little more work, yes? -- Better placement of the Zapruder camera, >perhaps. Keep in mind that John Costella is claiming certain changes like the change in sign width are impossible. We are merely demonstrating that moving the virtual camera back does change the sign width and that this is a natural consequence of perspective. As we point out on the web page, it is a qualitative analysis, but that is all that is necessary in this case. >Of course when you place the camera in the world "accurately" in the exact >"Z" spot >what's to stop you from dropping the camera { location *-y ; a tad when you >make your run? -- >Actually if one wants, one can fine tune the camera till you get the exact >results one wants! ! Isn't that correct? No. The laws of projective geometry control the outcome. In other words, if you move the virtual camera towards the rear of the pedestal to shift the sign rightwards, the sign is also going to get smaller whether you want it to or not. As a cameraman, I am sure you are very well aware that this is just how the world works. John Costella denied that in his article, and that is what we took issue with. >Where's the .inc file for Hunt's data? Can't be , what? couple of megs -- >.dxf file perhaps? >Thanks, >David Healy >oh -- you using a frontend on Pov? If so, make and version # please John Costella can provide you with a copy of John Hunt's HSCA map. You have been given the pov file, and the conventions used to input the topo data along with the data set that was used and how to get it. Now it seems to me with your great wealth of experience putting all of this together should be within your grasp. So do it and quit whining. Your appeal to authority on the subject of physicists is duly noted, not that it means anything. Your "physicist" have made two documented errors concering photograhy ... moorman and that shadow in the Apollo 11 photo. These errors alone discount your "physicist" as any sort of authority on photography. His latest blunder, not understanding how moving a camera works, puts him into woowoo land. Clearly your team has the horsepower to provide a simple emperical proof of concept demonstration. Rest assured I will be posting very soon the same showing in easy to view form exactly why Mr. Math Teacher is dead wrong. In the mean time perhaps you might actually do some real work for a change rather than being the "hordes" guard dog. Like doing a pov ray work? Have a great day David...it looks like you could use one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 (edited) For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here..._______________ and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David; Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain. The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why. Tom Edited April 25, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 (edited) For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here..._______________ and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David; Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain. The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why. Tom Edited April 25, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here..._______________ and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David; Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain. The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why. Tom TESTIMONY OF LOUIE STEVEN WITT aka The Umbrella Man Mr, Witt: The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things No, sir. I--my view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella being open. And my--the next time I saw the car after I saw it coming down on my left traveling west, the next time I saw the ear was when this activity of the car stopping, one car rushing up on another, the motorcycle patrolman stopping, there was this screeching of tires, this sort of thing This pink thing stood out in my mind, and all of this happened in very rapid order. The--as soon as the one car ran up behind this one, a man jumped off and I think the first car was pulling out about the time he had jumped on the back. I was not aware of what was happening, even though I had heard the shots, until the movement, all this activity with the cars. That was my first awareness, and it was at this point that I just sat down. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Witt, is it your testimony that at no time did the Dallas police or the FBI contact you about your presence at Dealey Court Plaza at this time Mr. WITT. No. In later years--after all this came up, I have always wondered why they didn't, but no one ever--so far as I know, no one ever made any attempt to find out who I was or why I was there Mr. FAUNTROY. So that--is it your testimony that you did not learn that somebody was concerned about the umbrella man until 10 or 15 years after, until 1978--only in 1978 were you aware? Mr. WITT. Well, as far as I know, no one was concerned with me The things that I do remember are the things where there was repetition, the multiple shots, this person repeating themselves, the woman repeating herself. Naturally the activity of the cars, that sticks with me. (emphasis added) If I said anything to the person sitting to my right, I don't recall what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Witt mentioned twice the screeching of tires: "At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes...." ".....there was this screeching of tires, this sort of thing." Were there other witnesses in Dealey Plaza that mentioned the screeching of tires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 (edited) and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ David, must I keep reminding you that you have seen the alteration site, just as you read "TGZFH" book and yet you claimed that you have seen no proof of alteration ... so why push a site that obviously didn't convince you of film alteration? You have missed your calling as a politician because you are pretty good at playing both sides of the fence. Bill You say you have the explainations Costella, so produce them. I've asked more times than I can count and yet you have not provided anything. What exactly is your word worth these days? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What's you and Jack's word worth, Jim? I think the overlay speaks for itself - don't you! Mark Oakes, who sells autographed photo copies of Moorman's photo for Mary, had asked her what she thought about the claim that she was standing in the street when she took her famous Polaroid. According to Oakes - Mary replied, "I think the whole thing is silly ... I was in the grass." Edited April 26, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 'Bill Miller' David, must I keep reminding you that you have seen the alteration site, just as you read "TGZFH" book and yet you claimed that you have seen no proof of alteration ... so why push a site that obviously didn't convince you? You have missed your calling as a politician because you are pretty good at playing both sides of the fence. what are you whinning about now? -- you bounce around like a puppet on a string.... course we're all familiar with LONE NUTTER dodging and weaving, especially when the going gets rough....but don't let that slow you down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 what are you whinning about now? -- you bounce around like a puppet on a string.... course we're all familiar with LONE NUTTER dodging and weaving, especially when the going gets rough....but don't let that slow you down David, I believe there was a conspiracy, so when you address my remarks - don't waste everyone's time talking about LNrs and how the going gets tough ... save that nonsense for the looney forum for it has nothing to do with you stating to this forum that you have not seen any proof of alteration in the Zapruder film. Bill 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