Len Colby

One of the historically short sighted aspects of US foreign policy has that been the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” philosophy which led to backing some very unsavory regimes and groups. Members of this forum and other progressives have justifiably condemned the results of this policy. Unfortunate some suffer from the same myopia and use the same fallacious algebra: Bush = bad, Ahmaninejad = enemy of Bush, Ahmaninejad = good. Some times “a pox on both your houses” is the best philosophy. Debating Ahmaninejad Would be a bad idea because for all his faults Bush is the most important and powerful political leader on the planet. Him debating the Iranian president would increase his (Ahmaninejad’s) status.

Thats Roland Zavada Dawn, the guy who invented Kodakchrome 2, He has some delayed (though ill health) work being published on why the N/A copy of Zapruder is the in camera original, and not a copy. Thanx Dawn. It should also be noted that will be his 3rd report on why the film isn't a copy. The 1st was very technical and couched becaused of restrictions put on him by Kodak, the 2nd is more accessable to lay people and more direct because he had since retired. There are excerpts from and a link to it in my last post. David shows his intellectual dishonesty by constantly referring to Zavada's 1st report as if he had never released the 2nd. He has yet to explain his false claim that Zavada promised his 3rd report soon. 1st he cited an e-mail Zavada (also known as Rollie) sent him, perhaps he forgot that I got a copy of the same message. In that message Rollie said the opposite, that it would take him "some time". Now Healy claims that Zavada promised the report "soon" publicly but refuses to say when or where or provide a citation. IIRC the alterationists always claimed that the copy of the film screened in Zapruder's office the next morning was altered. IIRC Costella said that. Do you not back that theory? If not when do you think "the switch" was made? Costella also claimed that some of the stills from Life were from the altered film

Funny previously you cited the e-mail that he only sent to you and me as when he promised he new treatise. Where and when did "he announced it publicly after the first of this year"? Can you explain your changing story? Please try and give us a straight answer to both questions. dgh: only a idiot would think the JFK assassination WASN'T a political conspiracy Show me exactly where I said otherwise? The point was that you bring this up on threads that have nothing to do with the Z-film and sometime not even the assassination. I think you need to take remedial reading compression classes. of course you don't want a thread started regarding the the authenticity of the Z-film! You'd have to display something here other than hot air -- of course we know you're incapable of discourse when it comes to the film/photos of Dealey Plaza, unless you can take a few swings at JackW. No, I stated that a new thread would be pointless, how many times have we been over the same crap? Most the points the points I raise in this reply I've raised on numerous previous occasions but you continue to make the same debunked points. Ray did? Funny he's not published anywhere, that I know of saying that, won't comment on anything.... Try here as stated previously if you think I made it up you can contact him yourself http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=55431 Please provide where I QUOTE Ray Fielding in HOAX regarding ANYTHING. Quick glance in the index shows Fielding's name twice, pg. 120 and 292, And page 120 is from your chapter, I said cited not quoted. You also repeatedly cited his book on this forum. the reader may be interested in Ray Fieldings quote on page 292 [in the same HOAX] "Raymond Fielding (A History of the American Motion Picture Newsreel, Univ of So. Cal 1961, pp5-6 reports: 'Apparently there was NOT a single major [film] producer in the period 1894 to 1900 that did NOT fake newsfilm as a matter common practice...' So Leonard, it appears the art of film fakery was a much practiced for quite some time -- straight from a 1961 Ray Fielding dissertation... We haven't even touched commercial films yet.... What's with the strawman fetish? No one is dening that fakery wasn't possible long before 1963. What's disputed is that the fakery alleged in Hoax was possible. Is that distinction too complicated for you to understand? John Costella, one of the main contributors to Hoax who Fetzer claims is "the leading technical expert on the film" and "an expert in optics and the way things move" wrote, "They could cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did [ http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/fast.html ]. Where exactly do we see anything like that in turn of the century newsreels or even Mary Poppins? dgh: I do believe he (Zavada) confirmed the in-camera Zapruder film to be original Kodacolor II film as well as the original Jamieson prints [whats left of them] And I suspect Doug Horne's new book will have comments regarding same. I doubt Roland Zavada is competent enough to comment on ANY optical film printing technique. An area certainly beyond his original reports mandate... How many times have we been over this? That's just 2 paragraphs of a 6 page treatise I don't trust Robert Groden any further than I can throw him... I imagine most forum members would beg to differ. dgh: "very complicated process..." LOL who said ANY film was altered on Kodachrome film? That's where rank Lone Nutter amateurishness becomes apparent.... Classic 'nutter' disinformation. The preservers of DP film/photo history can't give us a date as to when Shaneyfelt [if it was him] numbered the Z-frames. How can we expect them to undertake the subject of film alteration when they can't even determine when the frames were numbered.... So you think the film that was seen in Zapruder's office the next morning wasn't Kodakchrome? Obviously the finished product including the copies were on Kodakcrome. IIRC Stoley took possession of the films then an there and stills were printed in Life 2 or 3 days later. dgh: LMFAO! Nothing has been debunked, Here for starters http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/ David unless you can move forward, I see no point in further discussing this with you.

Dawn you raise a good point: why do so many threads on this forum inevitably get hijacked into debates about the authenticity Z-film? The answer to that is very simple, David Healy. The guy is positively obsessed it seems with Roland Zavada's (the inventor of Kodakchrome II) latest treatise (he has already written 2) on why the National Archives copy of the film can not be a copy. He is so obsessed with this question he brings it up on most threads I post on even when, as in this case, the issue is totally off topic. He has even brought it up on threads in the "Political Conspiracies" section that aren't even about the assassination! The digression began with this post of David's http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=73308 Proof that the Z-film is authentic is a complex question, I don't think starting a new thread is the answer because it would end up being a repeat of the existent ones. My main reason for believing it's authentic are: 1) The technology and know how probably didn't exist in 1963/4 to make the alterations alleged by the authors of "Hoax". Healy and White etc have yet to cite a single movie from that period or earlier where such extensive effects are employed. Zavada said the technology and know how didn't exist back then and Ray Fielding, author of one the most important books about special effects, who Healy cited said such alteration were not possible at the time. The director of "The Commission" and Oliver Stone likewise have said such alterations were impossible. 2) Zavada examined the film and stated in no uncertain terms that the copy held by the National Archives is definitely a "camera original" and not a copy. 3) Robert Groden also examined the film and said he believes it's an original and not a copy. 4) The film was shot on Kodakchrome II. Kodakchrome is very complicated to develop at the time the assassination only a handful of labs (3 Kodak and 3 independents IIRC) were able to develop it, the "alterationist" haven't explained where the altered copy might have been developed. It also took several hours to develop, the alterationist have yet to come up with a chronology that leaves enough lime for an altered copy to have reached Zapruder's office early the next morning. Presumably if the plotters were going to such a thing they would want to process the film at a lab they controlled, in that case they would have used Ektachrome which is much simpler to develop. 5) All the supposed anomalies have been debunked 6) The alterationist can't find a single film postproduction expert to back their claims; the closet they get is Healy who is a videographer. Len

Truth be told I first asked you a few weeks ago to defend this rather extraordinary theory of yours and you didn’t previously say how long you would be occupied with other matters. I am always amused when people spend as much time making an excuse not to reply as they would replying. Interesting that despite your claimed lack of time you found the time to make that post about the arrested seaman. I didn’t attack your statement as much as I questioned it. Is there some rule or ethical bar about questioning a members statements on a more appropriate section of the forum then where they were made? I never indicated I thought anything of the sort. It's your theory it's up to you to do the research. You’ve got that a bit backwards, you are the one who made an extraordinary claim. A claim not backed AFAIK by any legitimate historian (but quite popular with neo-Nazis and other apologists for Hitler). Since you think it merits discussion perhaps you can oblige yourself. The way I look at it a person who makes an extraordinary claim but presents no evidence to back it up and then tells someone who questions that claim to debunk him is a “lazy xxxxx”. The burden of proof lies with you. How can I (or anybody else) debunk a claim that hasn’t been articulated? A few questions for you. Was Hitler manipulated into invading the USSR and other countries into Eastern Europe? Didn’t his pact with Stalin indicate his intention to fight the western Allies? Wasn’t Britain and France’s entry into the war a predictable outcome of his invasion of Poland? Was he manipulated into invading Norway, Denmark and the Low Countries? Was he manipulated into aiding Japan’s attack on the US? http://www.trivia-library.com/a/pearl-harb...mily-part-1.htm

No Davie I act on no one's behalf, I contacted Roland and Ray on my own initiative and didn't inform (let alone consult) anyone before hand. (I can't get the quote function to work properly, the rest of David's comments are in bold) I figure that gives a step up on the rest of the Lone Nut loons around here Using strawmen and making baseless accusations (see above) is the sign of being on the loosing side of an argument; you keep falsely trying to frame this as a LN vs. CT battle when you know that's not the case. Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, Bill Miller, David Groden, Martin Shakleford etc etc etc are all CTs. If you think that was a compliment, you're spending way to much time running around that jungle down there Are you really that unperceptive? I was being facetious. that by no means means you pass anything of photographic interpretation value here …Come to think of it, you haven't issued or put forth any, ANY type of photo research for us to evaluate regarding the JFK assassination. As they would say down here "Congratulations…you just discovered Brazil!" i.e. you're saying something obvious as if it were a revelation. As stated above I claim no special expertise. My criticism has been more to the logical holes in the arguments made by your side. I guess you are to strawmen was Dom Quixote was to windmills. You're just another cheerleader Josiah recognized -- makes on wonder what the hell your wasting all this valuable bandwidth for? Me wasting bandwidth, you live in a glass house. Actually all Lone Nutters on this board appear to do nothing but *scramble*, play catch up to JackW. -- gotta be 5000 posts to this board refuting Jack White -- makes one wonder whose dangling on the end of a string..... LMAO – Below you complain there isn't enough refutation of your nonsense. Of course if no one rebutted Jack's foolishness you guys would crow victory too, so I guess you want to make this a dammed if you do and dammed if don't type situation. The large number of posts refuting Jack is due the large number of absurd claims he makes. If Jack has made more than a reply or two to his repeated often humiliating debunkings I missed them. I've been proven wrong? -- Colby you've proven absolutely Z E R O, NADA, Ziltch No, I proven that you were flat out wrong when you said Zavada had promised to complete his paper soon. Did you lie or were you simply mistaken? ... You Miller, Lamson and a few others are a JOKE when it comes to the film/photos of Nov 22nd 1963. We also know, you and the rest of the gang would never appear on a public forum [for the cameras] to debate Dealey Plaza film/photo issues... I can't speak for the others but I'm in Brazil and claim no expertise on the subject. When have Craig, Tink and Bill etc ever refused to debate you guys in person? They don't shy away from doing so on the Net Muwah, proven wrong, vindicated ? -- ask RZavada, hey, ask Ray Fielding if they've proven me wrong, post their comments right here! Remember what I said about strawmen bub? I was referring to your false claim that Zavada said he would complete his latest refutation of your nonsense "soon". He has already released two. Since Ray Fielding was the only authority you cited to support your contention that the technology and know how existed back then his declaration that it didn't alone is pretty daming. Your proven nothing, you been asked repeatedly to cite a contemporary (or older) movie which employed the effects alleged in "Hoax", the list is below Oh and let's not forget you promise, made publicly to make your "formal claim soon" a month before Zavada privately (just to you and me) said would write a dissertation but that it would "take sometime". We're still waiting for that aren't we? BTW, how many books during the past 20 years were published stating the films/photos of Dealey Plaza and other assassination related images (including x-ray's) were altered, and/or labelled as outright fraud (another coming out soon)? Perhaps you'll compile a list for us. How many of those books were put out by the same circle of people? How many of those books are considered credible with in the assassination community? Go take a look at the lists of recommended books here and on the Lancer forum, very few people cite them. How many books have published claiming that: Elvis is alive, lizard people run the Earth etc. How many books published countering those claims? I know of at least one (David Wrone's) how many books have been published countering the claims about Elvis and "shape-shifting reptilians"? You are a 'tard' when it comes to the photographic record, nothing to be ashamed of -- you're out of your league..... hell, that never stopped Miller either.... don't sweat it, just don't expect respect from those that do have subject expertise. Do you really think I care one wit what YOU think of me? Guess again!

Please show where I have claimed to be especially knowledgeable about the subject. I've never seen Jack admit error here. I belong to another JFK forum (along with Tink, Fetzer, Craig and Martin Shakleford) but Jack doesn't post there. If you know of any cases where he admitted error here or elsewhere perhaps you can enlighten us. What qualifications along those lines do Jack or you have? Then you are not nearly as clever as you imagine. You really couldn't figure it out? You claimed that an increasing number of people doubt the authenticity DP images and suggested that this vindicated your position. I pointed out that people believe all manners of nonsense so just because people believe something doesn't mean it's true or even resonable. You used to dismiss me as a "tard" now it seems I've grown in your estimation I don't whether I should he honored or ashamed So ah, you want me to give ya a medal, or sumthin? Does he know you misquoted him. Isn't it time you did what you claim Jack does and admit your error when proven wrong.

you're new to this Evan Evan maybe "new" to this part of the forum but he is an old hand regarding Jack's claims about the Apollo missions, "chemtrails" and 9/11 Can you cite an occasion when Jack has admitted error in his photo-analysis? I don't remember a single case, what I remember him frequently doing is simply ignoring instances when his errors have been pointed (or questions raised) out or attacking the messenger. Whether the person questioning his conclusions is polite or not seems to make no difference. There is no idea so absurd that some people won't believe it, there are people who believe Elvis is still alive and people who believe the British royal family, the Bushes and the Rothchilds (among others) are shape shifting "lizard people" a member of the forum is a Holocaust "revisionist" Obviously the people who believe these things think their fellow believers have "good reason" for believing them to be true. Back to the questionof you apperant misquoting of Zavada, when exactly can we expect you to a) tell us when he said his paper would be completed soon or admit you were wrong.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6655&view=findpost&p=72145 I asked the author of this curious statement to elaborate but thus far he hasn’t, since he thinks it “merits discussion” perhaps he could present his evidence. Len

David I think your memory is playing tricks on you, either that or you're making stuff up again. I also received most if not all the e-mails Rollie sent you about this back in February. I went through them and in none of them did he say he would complete his paper "soon", quite to the contrary he indicated at least twice it would take a while: 1) In his February 20 e-mail to us entitled 'A invitation for discussion re: The Zapruder Film' he wrote "This will still require significant writing on my part which will take some time." I think this is the message you were referring to because he "informed (you) of Fielding's recruitment" in it. 2) In his Feb. 21 email to us he said "I'm willing to take the time to put together a dissertation of why the Zapruder film was not and could not have been altered...this project will not be done "tomorrow" – it will take some time." Please cite when he said he would complete it soon or admit that you were wrong. I think you confused your promised time frame with Rollie's Soon? 30 days? Uuuh David that was 7 months ago, 1 month before Rollie said privately his work would "take some time" ever hear that adage about people who live in glass houses? Also what's with your Pavlovic tendency to bring up Zavada's paper on just about every thread I post on even when it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic? You seem absolutely obsessed. Len

I guess you have a point OK Jack comes in 2nd or 3rd. In any case he attacks others enough he has little basis for complaint. I think Jack's critics often ridicule him because he makes nonsensical points and then refuses to answer legitimate questions raised; he then often brings up the same points again as if no questions had been raised. Such behavior is considered trolling on other forums. He has also been caught pulling stunts like cropping the flames out of a picture of the Pentagon and claiming it was taken after the fire was extinguished. Jack often lashes out when no obvious provocation has been directed at him, what for example triggered him accusing 4 members of the forum of being accessories to the assassination, he accused Evan of being a xxxx for correctly citing his position that the Moon landings had been faked. Yes you are incorrect. I suggest you research the issue a little more [start here http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html ] a certain Dr. James Van Allen (RIP) said the belts would NOT be a problem. The effects of radiation exposure are a determined by the strength of the radiation and time of exposure. The Apollo spacecraft passed through the belts quickly and were heavily shielded. Also NASA timed the missions so that they would pass through thinner parts of the belts. Consider the Russian cosmonauts who have spent months in the inner Van Allen Belts (where admittedly radiation levels are much lower but you have to consider several months of exposure vs. a couple of hours). Cite me one scientist with applicable credentials who says the radiation levels in the belts is too high for astronauts to have survived. I imagine your name is Charles Robbins, how many people do think have the same name as yours around the world? Let’s pretend that one of the people who died on 9/11 was named Charles Robbins, could one say it’s an obvious hoax because you are alive and well? Like wise the hijackers “PROVEN to have been alive and well after” 9/11 were either unconfirmed or cases of different people with the same name [ http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html ] consider for instance that a dozen Mohammed Attas are registered to vote in Britain [ http://tinyurl.com/fvhxc ]. This always struck me as a silly theory do you really think if the CIA or whoever orchestrated such a thing they wouldn’t have made sure to bump their patsies off beforehand? I have investigated the claims of the "truth" movement and found them to be of little consequence as finding some guy in Saudi Arabia who happens to have the same name as one of the hijackers. In any case I didn’t mention 9/11, but Apollo and “chemtrails” do you believe Jack’s theories about the latter. Len

The “obvious joke” might have been vaguely humorous if it hadn’t made a person who regularly makes bases accusations against his detractors such as saying they are liars, government agents or accessories to murder. Can you cite any instances when Evan made “personal attacks on those who question” what you consider to be hoaxes*? You accused him of being a xxxx doesn’t that count as a “personal attack” you accused four members of this forum of being “”accessories to murder” what is that if not a personal attack? What about when you stated several threads to attack Gary Mack? What about when you said your critics were “stupid provocateurs”? What about when you accused Bill Miller of really being someone else? I can think of no other member of this forum who levels more personal attacks against his critics than you Jack. * It should be noted that even here very few people agree with you that “chemtrails” or the moon landings were “obvious hoaxes”

I don’t know one of my teachers told me I was “faster than a three legged turtle in a tar pit”. I think this tangent has run it’s course don't you agree?

According to an article linked to the article you linked, it seems like he was spying for Russia. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108986&ran=36156 he doesn’t sound like your typical spy having deserted for a few months before returning to the US with classified material in his posestion, this doesn’t sound like a Mossad operation to me. But even if he was spying for Israel how does this back your thesis that an “Israeli spy ring” was busted after 9/11 and was allowed to leave the US scot free and that this somehow indicates Israeli involvement in 9/11?

For once I agree with you this thread is disruptive and the initial post vituperative slander, Jack should be roundly criticized for starting it.

No, that's jack's territory

59.106.128.138 Record Type: IP Address OrgName: Asia Pacific Network Information Centre OrgID: APNIC Address: PO Box 2131 City: Milton StateProv: QLD PostalCode: 4064 Country: AU John - I hope you and Andy can trackdown the culprit "APNIC is the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for the Asia Pacific region. The APNIC Whois Database holds details of IP address registrations within this region. You are welcome to use this database to track down the source of the network abuse and find contact details of the relevant network administrators." http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/abuse/index.html Perhaps the link above will be helpful Len

Is that your best effort? Odd that you expend more time and energy making excuses to not answer than answering would take, what ever, it's not worth my time to debate any more.I'm still waiting for Jack and/or Peter to "pony up" some evidence to support their assertions.

Sid we aren't discussing sexuality but rather vocabulary I checked with some British friends of mine and they all told me the same thing that "blow me" can be used as an interjection to show surprise as an abbreviated form of "blow me down with a feather" but the first thing that came to their minds was the meaning of the phrase as I understood it. They also were a bit incredulous that someone who wasn't much older than you would be unaware of its more common usage. So perhaps I misunderstood you. "blow me" and "blow me away" are not the same phrase now are they? Two fallacies Sid 1) You admit above that the primary meaning of the phrase has a sexual connotation (see underlined phrase above) but now imply there is something wrong with me in particular or New Yorkers in general for understanding it that way. 2) You seem to believe that sex is somehow 'bad' or 'naughty'; might you have some sort of hang up? - This would be inline with your complaints about "smutty language". You complain that you won't use "blow me" on the Net anymore but seem to believe that others shouldn't use words like 'pimping'. – You're wrong about sex, it is a great and wondrous thing. I believe the hippies were right that if people spent more time "making love" the world would be a much better place. For me as long as it is between consenting adults (or even mature teenagers) and proper precautions are taken just about anything goes. Now that the "blow me" side show seems to have come to a close reply to my other points.

Thanks, John. We know Burton is an Aussie and avid defender of official stories...you don't suppose....naw, too obvious. Jack Jack for all your complaints about provocateurs on this forum lately the worst offender has been you, stop being such a hypocrite. Let’s see you keep accusing Bill of being somebody else, you started what was it three or four threads attacking Gary Mack, you called Evan a xxxx for correctly citing your position that the Moon landings were faked. Just today you accused Brendan, Craig, Bill and I of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination because we cast doubt on your theory that just about every image taken in DP that day was altered, funny you didn’t level that accusation at Grodin or Martin Schakleford or Josiah Thompson who have likewise opposed your theories. And now you insinuate without any evidence that Evan was responsible for bringing down the forum should I point out that your co-author John Costella is also an Australian and that he has written sophisticated computer programs and that Sid Walker a webmaster also hails from “down under”. It seems that John Simkin was wrong anyway according to info turned up by John Dolva and Dave Weaver the hacker was based in Osaka not Australia. Evan’s position AFAIK is that he has no position regarding the assassination, He has opposed your nonsense regarding the Moon landings, ‘chemtrails’ and 9/11. In all those cases he gets the better of you so there would be no need from him to want to crash the forum.

What is this now pick on Jack White day? When any of you has contributed the amount of time, energy and dedicaton of Jack White, then chuck your wad but til then plese stay on topic. Dawn Like we used to say in elementary school "Jack started it" did you really fail to notice that he accused me among others of being a crimminal, conspiring to cover up the conspiracy to murder JFK? (In Jack's paranoid mind questioning his photo-analysis is tantamount to helping cover up the conspiracy.) How does replying to that constitute picking on him? How was my reply off topic? I agree Jack has dedicated an enormous "amount of time, energy and dedicaton" to the case but I doubt the value of his 'contribution' which has probably (esp. recently) been more to muddy the waters than to anything else

The SPLC and ADL might be able to help you http://www.splcenter.org/ http://www.adl.org/ You could try FOIA requests with the Justice Dept and FBI. I know and Englishman who successfully got info through FOIA so being a foreigner shouldn't be a problem I got lots of hits form them using google and dogpile

Please elaborate how was Posner's bio a whitewash of Mengele?

Gee Jack, I guess you just blew any right you had to complain that anybody else on this forum is a provocatur. Since under American law the insane are not liable for their actions you're off the hook.

Sid debating you often strikes me as a waste of time; in any of Ms. Blyton’s books does one character tell another to “blow” them or anybody else? Perhaps you could quote one of those passages. I don’t know maybe the expression has different connotations in Australia than it does in the rest of the English speaking world but elsewhere if one person “blows” another it has a distinct sexual denotation (but of course you know that). The American Heritage Dictionary has 15 definitions for ‘blow’ as a transitive verb, only one (13) would fit the construction “blow me” used as an imperative http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...e.UFT7DB.CsgMMF . LOL aren’t you the one who pretended to object to the use of “pimping”.