Len Colby

Jack, I saw an old post of yours in which you claim the rifle in the "backyard photos" is not the same as the one found in the TSBD, something about sling swivels. Can you post a closes up of the section of one of the backyard photos and a photo of the TSBD weapon showing the part of the weapon in question. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...d4aaa9a60fe83ca? I also find this odd in light of you previous claims that the photos were faked. Do you believe the CIA or whoever faked photos with one weapon then planted another? Len

So Ron you are speaking based on your years of experience in structural engineering and failure analysis? You have yet to give an adequate answer to the question I posed at the start of this thread, if they collapse theory so obviously violates the laws of physics and engineering, of the millions of civil engineers and architects WORLDWIDE why has not a single one spoken out? Not even from countries like Iran, Pakistan, Cuba or (pre-invasion) Iraq? There was an Iranian PhD who declared that "The Jewish Walt Disney Company" made Tom and Jerry "in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice", "Jews were degraded and termed 'dirty mice.' ( http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD110106 ) yet not a single engineer from that country said there was anything suspicious about the collapse 1) Why not several high-rise buildings have collapsed or partially collapsed due to faulty construction or gas main explosions and they collapsed mostly into their own footprints such as the Areia Branca and Palace II buildings in Brazil, L'Ambiance Plaza in Connecticut and the Ronan Point building in London. 2) Much of the debris fell out of the footprints (see photo) a matter of fact Jim Hoffman (one of the leaders of the 9/11 truth movement) complained that "most of the debris fell outside of the footprints of either of the Towers, and the heavy debris landed on the adjacent low-rise buildings, and crushed large portions of them" ( http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html ) 1) Why should the buildings have toppled over? That would have required more energy. As mentioned above there are several cases of buildings collapsing symmetrically. Other than in earthquakes I don't know of any cases of buildings toppling over. 2) The steel columns didn't go "poof" they were crushed by the weight of the floors above them. 3) Why should "some of the massive steel core columns… have been left standing"? 4) Several adjoining building were severely damaged. 1) They probably didn't collapse at close to free fall speed. Free fall time would have been 9.22 seconds (or at little less since the debris pile was about 60 feet high) most estimates of collapse times are in the 13 – 16 seconds range. Various videos and photos show ejected debris falling faster than the buildings (see photo). The 9/11 Commission report did say 10 seconds but that was not a scientific report 2) Bazant and Zhou two structural engineers from Northwestern University calculated in a paper submitted to the ASCE that the "cushioning" effect of the frames could have been as low as 6% for cold steel and even less for hot steel. ( http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf pg. 6 ) Do you have a source that says they all did? The columns were made from sections 12 – 38 feet long (http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_apb.pdf ), they were far more likely to separate at the point they were joined than to break. There were however a number of sections that measured 50 – 100 feet (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html ). Where exactly did it say that Ron? What happened to the core is discussed in the two official SCIENTIFIC reports (ASCE and NIST) as well as in the various independent scientific papers including Bazant and Zhou (link above), eight from MIT (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ ), several more here (http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/ ), and this one from the Heavy Engineering Research Association (http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/Elaboration%20on%20WTC%20Paper.PDF ), and this one from the University of Sydney (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml ) or this one from a former Battalion commander with the NYFD who was high-rise Fire safety director NYC (http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf ), and this one from the University of Manchester's structural fire engineering dept. (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm ). There are more if you're interested. Len

One more question for Ron and the others who believe the buildings were imploded, if the buildings had indeed collapsed as every qualified expert said they did, due to a combination of impact and fire damage (exacerbated by damage/destruction of the fire proofing), what would you expect the collapses to have looked like? I.E. how would it have differed from how they collapsed on 9/11?

Adapted from a post I made on another forum Most 9/11 CT sites that quote Silverstein know that in context his comments are far less damning which is why they normally carefully edit the videoclip or transcript. He said: The "it" in "pull it" could refer to two things, the building or the fire fighting effort. Since Silverstein was talking to the Chief of the NYFD he was obviously referring to the latter or do you think the NYFD leadership was "in on it" and sent hundreds of their colleagues and thousands of their fellow citizens to their deaths? Not very realistic for a group of people who had spent their entire working lives risking their lives to save others. Go to a NYFD firehouse and tell them that's what you think and see what happens (no I won't pay your hospital bills). [/color] Another obvious question that CT's don't ask is if Silverstein actually made such a comment to the chief why would he tell a reporter this on video? Why would they talk about this on the phone? Also if presumably the decision had been made weeks or months before to carry out the 9/11 attacks why would Silverstein and the chief only decide a few hours after the Towers had collapsed and 7 WTC set alight to carry demo the third building? Under different circumstances might they have not demolished it? In that case wouldn't there have been a high chance that the pre-planted explosives would have been discovered? The "they" in "they made that decision to pull" obviously refers to the NYFD did they also pull the Twin Towers? Ron did you go to the link Matthew provided?* In it there are numerous quotes from firemen that show that the NYFD was concerned WTC 7 was going to collapse and would injure or kill firemen and that "pull" is used to mean "pull back" or "pull out" firefighters. Also looking at the full quote your replies to Matthew's post don't make much sense. * http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

David it's been 42 days since you announced you'd "be making (your) formal claim, soon", how much longer are you going to keep us waiting? I guess your "formal claim" is "at the end of the tunnel", or maybe it’s “gone where the goblins go*” LOL Maybe we should just "ignore the videographer behind the curtain" Len * “below, below, below”

David, you've already said that you have not seen any proof of alteration, so you must be able to say what there was about all those alteration claims in TGZFH that didn't seem convincing to you. Len's question is a fair one and considering you have responded countless times in these alteration threads ... you should have no trouble addressing his questions. Is it your intention to only offer nonresponsive replies on this forum? Bill amongst all your talents let's add another, that of a mind reader -- rofl -- For the record; I deal with those that understand travelling mattes and compositing -- later on, we'll keep you busy for the next 3 years, never fear! Seeing you brought the subject up, just what does Len understand when it comes to optical film printing? Should I waste my time educating him? You buy into this forum too? Bill - As you suspected he is continuing to "only offer non-responsive replies on this forum". David - Congratulations your master, Jack White, has taught you well in the art of inventing a dodge to avoid answering troublesome questions. Just what does my understanding or lack thereof about optical film printing have to do with my question? How much do you think Dean Fielding, Oliver Stone and Zavada understand about optical film printing? Because they all agree that what you propose was not possible at the time and if it was done would be easily detectable. But hey, I guess all your years working with video and more recent experience using film editing software have taught you a lot because you presume to more than they do. Now that we’re on the subject, just what do you understand about optical film printing? As an incentive for you to reply to the question (from my previous post), I am prepared to admit that I was wrong and that you merely poorly worded you statement, rather than tried to deceive. IF your answer makes sense. Len

If Zavada had only looked at elmusion characteristics and merely determined that the film was properly processed KII you'd have a point. As I stated above: Having trouble reading David? Loosing your marbles already you're only 60! You didn't answer the question "What difference would access to the original make regarding the content alteration alleged in TGZFH? " "He (Zavada) could of used a bit more cooperation from certain circles, well, a LOT more..." care to elaborate? [/font][/font]</FONT>

Who exactly are "the GANG OF FOUR" Jack? You are far from above reproach youself.. You accuse people who question your findings of being liars, CIA agents, a$$holes, agent provocateurs etc. what about your "Who is Bill Miller?" stunt? On other boards people who make assertions on threads and then refused to resond to questions about them are considered to be trolls, you do this repeatedly. Len

???? So now according to Healy someone has only “scrutinized” a film if they have studied it’s density? See above he examined the film three times or do you believe Rollie lied? ????????????? Tossing out strawmen again David? You did NOT specify that you were referring to content. What difference would access to the original make regarding the content alteration alleged in TGZFH? And as I mentioned above Zavada’s findings went beyond determining that the film was KII. Did you really miss my point or were you being disingenuous? Len

duplicate post deleted

You’re correct Craig it sounds quite contrived esp. since Fetzer, White and Healy refuse to tell us what his new job is. Fetzer was asked on another forum but refuses to respond http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/2398 . Might another motive be that he got tired but being derisively referred to as a “high school math and science teacher”. This of course is an honorable profession but a bit of ‘under employment for a PhD and makes less credible claims that he is an expert on any number of topics such as the Z film, electromagnetism, computers, math, optics, the way objects move, the ideal triangulation of listening devices and I’m probably forgetting a few. Quite a wide range for a scientist who has never published a peer reviewed paper.job is If Healy, White, Fetzer and Costella continue to refuse to tell us what his new .job is I'll assume they are too embarased to say.

*** Christ Jim!!! How many times have we been over this, his supposed 5000 + hours was based on forged log book entries, he had only 3400 hours AT BEST, which is what his WIFE said he had. As even you acknowledge he repeatedly exaggerated his flying experience. In any case he had accrued most of those hours before a 12 year hiatus from flying due to his imprisonment for fraud and poor eyesight. During the vast majority of the few hundred hours he earned during the 17 months between when he started flying again and died in the crash he wasn't actually flying but let his co-pilot's fly. His certification was the highest of only 2 commercial pilot ratings and is held by 80% of commercial pilots. He had recently passed his flight test but all professional pilots are tested every 6 months and he didn't do very well on his. The examiner had to coach him to react faster in recovering from a simulated stall (I guess you just forgot to mention that in your book and articles). The reports of his incompetence all came from his colleagues at Aviation Charter including one the two pilots his wife said he was closest to at the company. A close friend who had know him since childhood said Conry told him a few months before the crash he had difficulty flying and landing King Air's (funny how you left that out of all you writings on the crash). ***Guess, the 2nd pilot, of course had been fired from both of his previous piloting jobs for incompetence and there were several reports from his fellow pilots at Aviation Charter that he was incompetent. Conry's wife said he told her that all the other pilot's thought Guess couldn't fly (funny how that didn't make it in to any of your writing either). There is no evidence to suggest that the reports of the pilots' incompetence was "made up". >He also mislead his readers by saying that the plane> changed course after the last radio contact when in fact it> maintained the same heading it had been on since the late turn. Questions remain about the plane's course, which concern differences between witnesses on the ground and the official account. Of course, I had a co-author on the book, Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, Ed.D., Ph.D., who must have been duped along with me. *** I didn't say you were duped, I believe you are the one doing the duping. Which of your witnesses contradicts the FAA's radar track of the plane? In any case you should have made your readers aware that according to the radar the plane HAD NOT changed course. But there have been important developments in the case since AMERICAN ASSASSINATION appeared. The most important was enlisting the assistance of John P. Costella, Ph.D., who is an expert in electromagnetism. I flew John to Minnesota so he could work on the case with me. The results of our collaboration have been pubished in "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", which was published in, Michael Ruppert's fromthewilderness.com and subsequently in his news- letter, FROM THE WILDERNESS. It is archived on my public issues web site, http://www.assassinationscience.com, and runs four pages with six photos and 115 endnotes. The most important finding may be the discovery of meteorological evidence that there was a melted pattern at the ice level above the crash site that could not have been caused by the fire (temperatures of which dissipate rapidly) but appears to be an effect of the use of a directed-energy weapon, thus confirming the conclusion drawn in AMERICAN ASSASSINATION. Moreover, the plot has thickened by indirect evidence about how the plane may have been drawn off-course without alarming the pilots. All of this has been explained in a lecture that I presented at UMD on 16 November 2005, which has been turned into a series of DVDs. But there is also free access to three hours of the presentation, including one on JFK, one on 9/11, and one on Wellstone, in the form of "Flash lectures" that are accessible from the bottom of that web site on the menu bar. So anyone who wants to know the current state of our knowledge about the death of Senator Wellstone might want to take a look. If he stays on his past schedule, Leonard will get around to this sometime in 2008! But those who have a serious interest might want to check it out now. ***I read your article with Costella and most of that other bunk when you released it as you know because I debunked it. If you want to send me your DVD's I'll e-mail you my address.

The apperence of someone claiming to have been an EMT at the scene has revived the Wellstone group on Yahoo. I am posting my reponse to Fetzer here because Yahoo unformats it to the point that it becomes unreadable. Got to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/ to see the original messages. My original comments are in this font and are preceded by ">" or paragraph #s 1. – 6. Jim's response is in bold. My replies to his response are in bold blue in this font and the paragraphs start with 3 asterisks ***. Sorry for any typos carnival is in full swing!!! I don't know why I took time away to reply to Jim's bunk. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A group of paramedics arrived at crash site took photos and video> footage but didn't treat the wounded and then left them behind to> die just because someone claiming to be from the FBI called them on> their cell phones. They didn't report the location of the crash to> anyone else.> My impression, heretofore, has been that no one could have "treated the wounded", because the fire burned so intensely they were not even able to remove the bodies from the plane until the next day, when it had cooled down. My impression, therefore, would be that no one was "left behind to die" because the occupants were already dead. If that is not the case--if the plane was not on fire, if at least some passengers were still alive--that would be of enormous importance! I must talk with him. ***Jim, I thought you were smarter than that, I over estimated you it seems. You missed something that 2 "ignoramuses" and "strange misfits" like Hobo and I picked up on immediately; the coroner found that 3 or 4 of the victims had smoke in there lungs and thus were alive and breathing BEFORE the fire broke out. If the fire broke out after "Marc's" team left that would mean they left live victims behind. Why didn't he mention they were survivors? Why did they take photos and video footage before treating them? The question "why would EMT's leave live victims behind?" remains. I wasn't referring to your impressions very egotistical that you think I would be. So yes Jim this is a GLARING hole. > 2. His team was dispatched to the site BEFORE anybody knew the plane> was in trouble.> This is very interesting, comparable to the early arrival of the FBI. How would Leonard be in the position to evaluate any of this? Something we know for a certainty is that LEONARD was not at the scene! ***Once again you disappoint me! He said they were at the crash site 20 minutes after the last radio contact. My PC is being fixed Jim so I don't have access to my files but that would have it around 10:40 just about the time the tower in Duluth was starting to ask what happened to the plane. Even if he was off by a few minutes what do think would have been the minimum time to scramble a volunteer EMT crew and for them to LOCATE and get to the crash site? You argued that it would have taken at least 10 minutes for the FBI to get to the site from Eveleth after the site had already been located (http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf pg. 5). "Marc" claims his crew was based in Midway a few minutes further away and that they walked it (presumably the FBI would have gotten their with ATV's). Also his crew would had to have left the site well before Ulman spotted the smoke or the other EMT's got there. So once again his story doesn't add up. No inside or on site knowledge required, just an awareness of the undisputed facts. > 3. They mysteriously found the wreckage in a desolate spot in the> middle of a swamp despite that it had not yet been spotted from the> air, it was not on the approach path and there wasn't any smoke.> If Marc says the fire had not started yet, I want to know. I have discussed the bluish-white smoke at the scene many times, because it was from the smoke that Gary Ulman was ultimately able to locate the crash. Others could have used it to find it as well. The crash site was in a wooded area but it didn't qualify as a "swamp" and was only a few hundred yards from a county road, if you'd had a fix on it. But if the plane was not actually burning at the scene and the fire was set with the passengers still inside it, I need to know that. ***The "if" in "if you'd had a fix on it" is a very big "if" Jim, that's begging the question; how did they "get a fix on it"? The other EMT crew said it took them a long time to locate the wreckage because the mud impeded their progress and they didn't know where it was (and they had smoke to guide them). "Marc" said nothing about smoke and "the plane was not burnt nor was it on fire". You argued previously that the crash site was in a very desolate spot and as mentioned above that it would have taken 10 minutes to get there and quoted a Pioneer Press article that called the area a "swamp" (same link as above page 4). Now when it's convenient for you it was "only a few hundred yards from a county road" and wasn't a swamp, get your stories straight Jim. > 4. He took his images to a TV station but they refused to use them> after this he sat on the images for 3 ½ years only bring them up> here. During this interim he never tried to contact anybody else not> even Fetzer even though they lives only about 85 miles away.> This is extremely interesting and I certainly hope he will contact me. ***The only thing interesting is that you're buying this bullxxxx. You didn't even attempt to rationalize this, the "glaring hole" stands. He didn't contact you or anybody because his story is made up. Even you can't come up with a reasonable explanation for his claimed actions. > 5. The group reported to be the "first" to get to the sight, weren't> really the first because "Marc's" had already been there and left.> How did they miss all those footprints (including those of the> person [people] who started the fire)?> Egad! If this is the case, I certainly want to know. I hope Marc will contact me: (218) 724-7206 (home) or (218) 726-7269 (office). *** Man you are desperate Jim. Once again you aren't able to make sense of his nonsense. > 6. Fetzer, Bollyn and the other CT's, not to mention the mainstream> journalists failed to notice the Midway, Mn 9/11 logs which showed> that a crew of EMT's got to the site earlier than previously> believed.> This is classic Leonard! To the best of my knowledge, no one is a "conspiracy theorist" until the evidence doesn't add up. Since none of them--Christopher Bollyn or the mainstream media--would have known about the crash until long after this "crew of EMTs" had come and gone, if I understand the story correctly, it would hardly be surprising to overlook it. When I checked the Sheriff's "log book" in Eveleth, it recorded nothing before about 3:30 PM that afternoon. The existence of another log is extremely interesting and potentially important. *** Jim, pay attention "Marc" said his crew's being dispatched to the site was still in the logs. I though you'd gone over all the 9-11 logs from that day. But since you failed to do so drive over to Midway and take a look at their 9-11 logs from the day of the crash. See if they dispatched a volunteer EMTs around the time the plane was scheduled to land!! > These are just some of the more glaring holes in his story.> From my comments, it should be apparent there are no "glaring holes". *** The 'glaring holes' remain Jim, your comments as per the norm didn't prove a thing > The guy is obviously lying, seeing that you are so gullable as to> buy his nonsense it is no wonder that you bought Fetzer's too. I> finally read Fetzer's book and am appalled by his intellectual> dishonesty, he vastly under reported indications of Conry's> incompetence. This has been going on for YEARS, but NOW he gets around to reading the book! That's very revealing of his dedication to discovering the truth and his interest in knowing what he is talking about. Obviously, for Leonard and the others, attack first, read later--if at all. Why even bother? It may make some of your attacks less biting when you have actually read the book and know how off-base they are. ***Two years Jim!! I only joined the fray last June, I picked up your book in December. I don't get up to the US a lot and getting books here in Brazil is expensive. You made you case on your site. I always made it clear I was basing my critique upon I what I could find on the Net. There wasn't really anything in the book that's not on your site. I also extensively researched the NTSB reports, mainstream, alternative, industry and 'conspiracist' press articles relating to the crash. Alleged problems with his flying appear to have been made-up after the fact. Conry had 5,000 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's certification (the highest commercial rating), and had passed his FAA Flight Check just two days before the fatal flight. Anyone with a serious interest knows that his man was highly qualified to fly this aircraft, even by the government's own standard! The very idea that he was not competent is non-sense. And of course a second pilot was on the plane. *** Christ Jim!!! How many times have we been over this, his supposed 5000 +

Alan - Such an explaination doesn’t wash for a few reasons. 1) David Healy has been active on the forum since this thread started and has even posted 3 times. If he has a rational explanation why hasn’t he made it? 2) Zavada examination was forensic in nature he looked at things like grain structure, color balance and contrast levels, as one of Kodak’s top technical experts and the inventor of the film used he was eminently qualified to under take such a study. I don’t understand what you mean by a chemical study no one disputes that the film is properly processed 1st batch Kodachrome II. I don’t think 40 years after the fact it could be determined chemically if the film had been processed in Dallas or somewhere else. In any case the National Archives would never allow such a test for obvious reasons. 3) David’s comments about Groden show no indication that by “scrutinize” he meant make a forensic exam. 4) Zavada interpreted David’s comments the same way I did. 5) Even IF that’s what he meant he worded his declaration very poorly. The American Heritage Dictionary defines scrutinize as: “To examine or observe with great care; inspect critically.” http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/scrutinize Webster’s definition is basically the same: “to examine closely and minutely…to examine closely and minutely…SCRUTINIZE stresses close attention to minute detail <scrutinized the hospital bill>.” http://m-w.com/dictionary/scrutinize Zavada’s repeated examinations of the film certainly qualify. David - The ball’s in your court please justify your false statement. You called me a xxxx but I backed my statement with a quotation and you have yet to make a retraction. I have now leveled a similar charge against you and don’t seem to be able to explain your deception. I'm not related to David, nor do I know him personally, so ignore my surname [tin-foil hat mode] I find that hard to believe. You guys are the only 2 members of this forum I can think of with the same last name and it’s a name so uncommon it’s not even recognized by the spell checker in Word!! Quite a COINCIDENCE I don’t know of any members of the forum with any of the 5 most common names in the English speaking world but you want us to believe that you share a RARE last name with someone whose book you read and you defend and it’s just another coincidence!!! [/tin-foil hat mode] Just kidding!

No offense but I don’t think you or Piper are qualified to make such a determination, how familiar are either are either of you with secret diplomatic exchanges? Piper is a bigoted, intellectually dishonest, hypocrite with an “ax to grid” so any analysis he makes is suspect. Who are the other commentators? Since Kennedy hadn’t threatened any specific sanctions it’s hard to believe this disagreement would have been sufficient motive to assassinate him. Many other motives have been suggested for the assassination but in most of those JFK had taken or had indicated he would take specific action (pull out of Vietnam etc). If Kennedy was considering any immediate action it’s odd that none of his advisors or biographers have written about it and that there isn’t any documentary evidence other than the letters. I’ll probably pick up a copy when I’m back in the US but that won’t be until July or August. What doesn’t wash are your comparisons. IIRC Israel, Britain and France all withdrew from the Sinai and Suez Canal more less simultaneously in March '57, but even if you’re correct Ben-Gurion did eventually give in to US pressure without getting any concessions from Egypt and this doesn’t come anywhere close to assassinating the President of the US. The Lavon affair doesn’t compare either it involved a few bombs that only caused minor property damage. As for the USS Liberty, you are obviously less familiar with the case than I am because the ship wasn’t sunk. The US and Israel have always maintained the attack was a case of mistaken identity which fits the evidence. No realistic motive has ever been given as to why the Israelis would intentionally attack a US warship during the Six Day War. The fact that the Israelis eventually cut off the attack, informed the US what had happened and offered to participate in the rescue operations don’t fit with an intentional attack scenario. The US told the Israelis that they didn't have any warships in the area and the Navy told the Liberty not to approach the coast (though it seems they didn't get the message) and an Egyptian ship had shelled the Israelis the day before. The 2 moles that Israel had recently caught also make it very unlikely that the Israelis would risk getting involved. If they had not been caught both probably would have involved in an operation of that magnitude. They would have to consider the possibility that their was still an unidentified double agent amongst their ranks. For that very reason I’m sure that the CIA etc would have been very leery of working with the Israelis. The risks for the other suspects was different than for the Israelis because in the case of the former the risks were merely personal and didn’t imply the destruction of the very country they were supposedly trying to save. More so than for the other ‘suspects’ the risks were high and motive was vague. It’s Carnival now and my city has one of the best in the World so I won’t be posting much till Wednesday. Len

Mark/Nathaniel The point wasn't to have a dog fight with David or anybody else over the Z-film. The point was that he said something that he knew or should have known was false. He said that no one examined the original film, Zavada examined it, no one disputes that, he is aware of Zavada’s findings, how can he rationalize his statement? I already tried to get him to reply but he hasn't. Shouldn't you be putting HIM to task for apparently trying to mislead the members of this forum. If he has some rational explanation I'll apologize, if he doesn't he should apologized to the entire forum. I don't see what the connection is between how many posts a member makes and their honesty. The Z film threads might not be easy for a 'novice' to follow but then again the same could be said about most threads here some, Sometimes I have to google names that appear on them Len

John Costella says he is now an employee of the federal government of Australia. I was wondering if he or any of his friends would be willing to elaborate. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html Len

I was surprised to read the following declaration from Mr. Healy last Monday, Why would he make a statement that he knew to be false? Didn't he expect to get called on it? Did he simply forget that Rollie Zavada had "scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original" on several occasions? That's kind of hard to believe too because he knows Mr. Zavada and is in phone and e-mail contact with him and has referred to the "Zavada Report" on this forum and mentioned it three times in his chapter in Hoax (pgs. 113 – 144, http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/081269547X...keywords=zavada ) and there are 2 chapters about it in the book. I asked David for clarification a few times but he never replied (see messages 10,12 & 14), his failure to explain his false statement is what lead me to start this thread. He also insinuated that Robert Groden was lying when he said he had examined the original even though he doesn't seem to have any basis to make such a charge. I was a bit confused as to what David was "trying to pull" so I asked Mr. Zavada for clarification. He told me the following [/i] David do you care to explain? Did you a) lie or some how forget that Zavada examined the original film? Or c) can you some how rationalize this discrepancy, do think that both Groden and Zavada lied? Ironically David accused me of being a "xxxx" even though the use of that word "is banned from use on the forum. " (see rule iv http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=2243&st=0 ) and I (IMHO) accurately reported what he said David's memory seems to be very poor because he had made a statement to that effect only 6 day earlier: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=54805 Fetzer, Mantik, Costella, White and David are all members of this forum. So who are the photo experts in TGZFH? LOL Len

I probably will have very little to say about Zavada. In his report he admitted that HE DID NOT STUDY THE IMAGES of the Zfilm for authenticity...only the technical aspects of the film used. I have no doubts that the film was GENUINE KODACHROME, with all the relevant coding and technical specifications. It is the IMAGES that are in question...not the film stock. Zavada is not aware of the real issues. Jack Jack you missed the point of Zavada's finding's. In ADDITION to the above he determined 1) The Z film could not have been a copy but had to an "in camera" original for various technical reasons 2) the film showed no signs of compositing 3) the types of alterations alleged were not possible at the time. Len

Mark, What makes you so sure that Cohen's book is 100% accurate and thus when the other two books contradict it they must be wrong? You quote Piper's book what was his source? All - see my post on Tim's "Book" thread that undermines Piper's thesis and I think raises some interesting questions. Len

Mark Please elaborate on the Hawk missile deal - what were the "Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem"? When were the missile delivered? I've read the deal was made Aug. '62 and delivery was made in '63 in a few sources on the Net but none of them mention when Israel took possession of them. If JFK was so upset about Dimona why didn't he suspend delivery? For Piper's book to be plausible the situation would have had to have reached a "breaking point", i.e. that Kennedy was threatening Israel with sanctions so severe if it did not comply immediately and completely, that it would have had sufficient motive to organize the assassination. Other than some threatening letters which didn't mention any specific repercussions what signs are there that Kennedy had threatened to, was close to or had even contemplated taking such an action? If he was on the verge of such a move what haven't we heard about it from any of Kennedy's biographers or advisors? I don't think the "Jewish lobby" was very powerful at the time. If it was the US would have sold arms to Israel long before 1962 and without it being part of a deal concerning the refugees. You've put your self in a bit of a Catch-22, if the Jewish lobby was so powerful back then what action would Kennedy have dared taken that would have been prejudicial enough to give Israel sufficient motive to get involved in such a risky venture? After the disastrous Lavon and Israel Beer affairs is hard to believe Israel would risk it's very existence except under extreme circumstances. Lavon affair – In 1954 Israeli agents bombed three targets in Egypt in an attempt to dissuade the British from giving up control of the Suez Canal. No one was killed or injured and damage was minor but when the agents were caught it was a diplomatic disaster for Israel. The operation was ordered by the head of military intelligence it is unclear if anyone higher up approved it. Pinhas Lavon, the defense minister was accused of involvement. The leader of the operation was arrested in 1957 for trying to sell secret information to the Egyptians. Many suspected that he was already working with them in 1954 and that Egyptian intelligence knew about the bombings before they happened. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...tory/lavon.html Israel Beer who had been a close friend of and advisor to Ben Gurion was arrested in 1961 for selling top secret information to the Soviets. He had been spying for the Russians since at least before the Suez campaign in 1956. The fact that he wasn't circumcised led some to believe he wasn't even Jewish. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...raphy/Beer.html Is it plausible that only a few years after such high level 'moles' were caught that any country would under take such a high risk operation? Why would the CIA risk getting them involved? Len

Indeed the portly Piper can be seen HERE enjoying some quite revolting company http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.p...-5-20&e=205&c=1 Piper is an utter hypocrite he said on this forum that racism should be shunned and yet he is a featured speaker at a Stormfront event along with David Duke, Kevin Alfred Strom and other racist hate mongers like his boss. So far we’ve seen that he is a hypocrite, intellectually dishonest (self confessed), prone to make baseless accusations, a Holocaust denier, probably anti-Semitic and if not racist himself tolerant of racists enough to work and hang out with them for 25 years. Mark, Jeff and Ron you might find his thesis plausible but do you really want to defend Piper as being anything more than human refuse? If so why? Len

Tim - I haven't seen any signs that Mark is anti-Jewish let alone rabidly so. Nor am I sure that he has "uncritically" accepted his thesis, I only think he is trying to establish that as Pat said Israel had possible motive. Len

Zavada & Feilding 1 + 1 = 2 David trying Nick... David coerced them into this discussion because I quoted them as saying that the alterations alleged in Hoax were impossible in 1963

Anyone of course can toss out the expression “critical thinking” but being able to think critically is another matter. I see that you were a Vietnam era (partially) USMC veteran, so I imagine guns and bullets is something you should understand. Don’t you agree that obviously blood splatter will be accelerated by high velocity bullets? Didn’t it reveal a stupefying lack of critical thinking for Dr. Costella who has a PhD in physics and claims to be an “expert on how objects move” to fail to take that into account? Didn’t it take another surprising lack of critical thinking for the book’s editor who spent a few years as a Marine officer and has a PhD in “the philosophy of science” not only to miss it but fail to understand it after it had been pointed out? How about Mr. Healy’s critical thinking? He inadvertently bolstered the other side’s case by pointing out that the copies of the Z-film probably don’t have good enough resolution to come to a definite conclusions about blood splatter. You think the Z-film could have altered as alleged in 1963? So does Healy but he has been contradicted by the author of the book he cited as showing it was possible. Rollie Zavada the inventor of the Kodachrome II film Zapruder used, Oliver Stone who presumably knows more about the assassination and Z-film than any other major filmmaker and Robert Groden all agree that the Z-film is authentic and forgery would not have been possible and that any compositing would have been detected. But you choose to believe a videographer who refuses to talk about his film compositing experience and can’t cite any evidence?! Yeah you get an A+ in critical thinking but only if Fetzer is giving out the grades! I agree there is lots of blovation regarding this issue but it is all coming from the alterationist camp? EDITED to add: You are obviously a smart guy, Fetzer and Costella and probably even Healy are intelligent as well. Intelligence how ever is not enough one has to use his or her brains rationally. You think that alteration is obvious to anyone who thinks critically about the subject, then make your case in the appropriate threads. Just saying something is true or obvious doesn’t make it so.