Len Colby

He seems to have gotten most of his facts wrong Ron http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/5802/Israel's_Plague_of_Conspiracism.html My impresion is that he believes that Rabin was killed because he was going to back away from the Oslo agreements which Chamish believe was part of a nefarious plot to bring on a "2nd Holocaust". He is a supporter of the reactionary "settlers". The Reagan attempt was nothing more than the act of a LN. Believe it or not Ron sometimes they do kill/try to kill pesidents unless you believe the Illuminatti have been brain washing "Mancurian candidates" since 1835. when some nutjob tried to off Andrew Jackson. As for the supposed article in George I don't believe it exists, I've only seen it mentioned by Chamish. You'd think if it really existed it would have turned up on the Net. BTW Ron did you see Jack White's "Who killed John-John" thread? What do you think about the claim that the Bushes (HW & W) personally sabotouged JFK jr's plane and that the Clinton's were in on the hit too?

´ Barry Chamish is a total loony toon crackpot. He believes among other things that: - John Lennon was an agent of the NWO and possibly a murderer: In that article he alleges Lennon may have been involved in Brian Epstein's "murder" and Paul's bust for pot in Tokyo and insinuates that Israel and Ono were responsible for his murder. http://www.rense.com/general45/imagine.htm -The "Peace Process" was a plot by the NWO in conjunction with Israel's "left" to bring about a second Holocaust. He alludes to this in the above article. He is an ultra-rightwinger. Notice that he implicated various members of the Labour Party in the JFK plot but vindicated Likudnicks. -The Labour party is really a secret cult following a false 17th century messiah. -Shimon Peres was responsible for – Sharon's stroke(an assassination attempt) and the assassinations of Rabin a US congressman (for condemning Palestinian terrorism), Rabin's widow (she officially died of natural causes) and a Likud Tourism Minister (in conjunction with the PFLP and French intelligence) -In UFOs – He was once "Israel's leading UFO researcher" -That Freemasons are part of the NWO/Illuminati -Hurricane Katrina was divine revenge for the Gaza Strip pull out. -Natan Sharansky was (is) a KGB double agent It's not surprising he would defend Piper they were both scheduled to speak at the same "Holocaust Revisionist" (denial) conference and has a column on Rense.com which is a Holocaust denial site which also posts Piper's and his neo-Nazi colleagues from the American Free Press's work. Despite hobnobbing with them he does to his credit condem Holocaust denial. As for Piper's work I haven't read it but I think a book written by an author with close ties to neo-Nazi's* whose premise is that JFKs murder was essentially a Jewish plot (The Mossad, Bonfman and Lansky) is highly suspect. Elsewhere he expresses his belief that Israel and American Zioniss/Jewish contolled media were responsible for, Watergate, Monicagate, the pedofile preist scandal and the war in Iraq. http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/piper1.htm (Fetzer found the above article so "interesting" he linked it from his sire's homepage - http://www.assassinationscience.com/ see the "American Media" link) Yeah Piper and Chamish are two very reputable sources. LOL Len *Besides writing for the neo-Nazi "American Free Press" he is a fequest guest speaker at the 'Adelaide Institute' and many of his articles appear on their website which once wished it's readers "Merry Christmas from Adolph Hitler" EDIT typos fixed, info added

I'm surprised no one has (until now) responded this thread. The possibilty that the the Towes were demo'd or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile are zero and the póssibility that Bush set up 9/11 are almost as slim. Did he know what was comong and purposely let it happen? I would not put it passed the SOB but have not seen any compelling evidence. He was certainly negligently disinterested in the threat of terrorism before 9/11 but I'm not even sure if his administration had been more on top of things if the attacks could have been prevented. At the very least he exploited the tragic events that day to persue his rightwing agenda. I debate 9/11 (and other conspiracy theories) here http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...d=othertheories and don't really have enough time to start debating it here to. Check out the "Paul McCartney is Dead" thread. Steve I think you in particular would enjoy it although there are a lot of "inside jokes" which you will only get if you read other threads. Len

Have you tried asking Groden, Richard Trask or Martin Shakleford?

Jack 1- How exactly did his "ploy" "backfire" on him? Was Goldsmith or Blakey responsible for that? Do you have any evidence to back you claim that "his staff apologized" to you? 2 - I think you misunderstood Tim. Although he was not 100 % sure he thinks Blakey's lawyers could have challenged your competence as a photo analyst. This would have been argued before a judge not the jury. In either case if they saw a transcript of that episode you would not have looked good. Blakey could have explained he hired you to "cover his bases" so that people couldn't say he didn't allow 'conspiracists' to have input or something along those lines. 3- If you had been finally accepted as an "expert witness" it might have had more to do with your expertise on the photographic record (esp. the backyard photographs) than you capabilities as a photo-analyst. Len I have a question for you 'legal eagles' out there. When asked his opinion of Wilson's work Blakey said there was an adage among computer programers "garbage in, garbage out". Since he was merely expressing his opinion could that be considered libelous? I don't think so. Belin could have been in more trouble he said Wilson's work was "a pack of lies" or something to that effect.

John, I made a "fuss" about Healy's lack of a bio for the following reasons. 1- He made a big "fuss" himself about my and other member's lack of photos. 2- When I pointed out to him that he needed to post his bio. He hypocritically and arrogantly refused. He gave the impression that he thought he was some how exempt. 3- He makes snide remarks about other people's bios. By doing so and not posting his own he was like a little kid throwing a snowball at someone then running to hide. 4- He takes the position that people without post production experience are not qualified to question his conclusion in TGZFH that the types of alterations to the Z-film alleged in that book were possible in 1963, yet he refuses to answer questions about his own experience producing composite images on film as opposed to video. 5- Bill Miller and Tim Carroll also made it clear they thought Healy should comply with rule # 1 of this forum. 6- While it's true that Healy has been a member since before the rules went into effect it is my impression that the rules apply new and old members equally. Unlike him virtually all members new and old have been in compliance since I joined. IIRC you and Andy insisted that even old members like Terry and Mike post their photos. 7- I didn't hear back from you. If you had told me on the forum or via e-mail or PM that you had asked Healy to comply I would have made less of a "fuss". 8- I agree that it's important that this forum, like all forums have rules of behavior. If some members are allowed to flaunt them what is to stop other members from doing so too – what's the point of having rules if they are not enforced? While it's true that there still are a few members are not in compliance reasons 1 – 5 do not apply to them. Len

Should that be "Claims to be a Photoanalyst'? Far more accurate... Fetzer is one of the founders of that group of course he wants to build up Jack's credentials because he cites Jack as an expert in his JFK books. The more he can "build up" his collaborators credentials the more 'credible' his work becomes. This is why the contributors to those books all defend each other and build up the stature of the others so vigorusly. By diming the star of any of them you dim the stars of the rest and the brighter each of their stars the brighter the stars of the others. Len

Jack ‘work’ in the context above could imply getting compensation. Have you ever been paid for your photo analytical 'work'? If so please cite some examples. If not you should have written "...even though I have been doing it for more than 40 years." I don't think collecting and cataloguing old photos of Dallas counts

Well I guess we all now know you're Jack's #1 admirer. Made you should start a fan club. Just what has Jack ever done that you classify as being brave? He doesn't even have the courage to defend his own work and theories when they are questioned look at the long list of threads awaiting his reply on the "three questions thread" or the 12 questions I put to him a Healy in the Zapruder thread. When exactly was his analysis rational? As for his photo analytic skills have you noticed the drubbing he is getting in Evan's debunking of his Aulis claims where his only reply has been to misrepresent his own position regarding the Moon landings. So you believe he is a brave, rational and insightful interpriter of the photograhic record. Can you cite any examples? Other than cheerleading what have you got to add to this thread? Len

James, 1. What was the occasion were they all getting honorary degrees from the same school? 2. Who is the woman next to Brewster? 3. “Don't you think the joker laughs at you?” Len PS - ku ku ku chu ku ku ku chu.

David, You cited Citizen Kane as a movie with no obvious defects in it's optical special effects. I'm about to pick it up from my local video store. What scenes in that movie havecompositing anywhere near as sophisticated as what was allegedly done to the Z-film? Let me know. I'll have to give back Monday but will probably watch it tomorrow night (early evening your time) Len

Pat / Raymond You guys seems to slightly disagree on Surdivan's findings. Do either of you care to clarify that? Two more doubts - How exactly did the Army replicate the effect of bullets on the skulls of live humans? Could the effects microspasams combine with that of jet effect? Len

I don't have a take on"Jet Effect" I'm neither a scientist nor a close student of the assassination. That's why I asked about it. Unlike you I don't play games, if I had a take i would have stated it at the outset. Mantik from what I've read seems like a serious scientist, Costella on the other hand is a grammar school teacher with no peer reviewed papers to his credit. Right or wrong about the 'jet effect' Alvarez's credentials extendended far beyond those three letters after his name. It's not enough for Costella and Mantik to say they disagree with Alvarez's theory, they need to say why - otherwise advanced degrees and all their opinions aren't worth much.

The "alterationist" make much of the supposed limo stop. Fetzer said "more than 60" witnesses saw it stop but in his book the total list of witnesses comes to only 59. But of course not all of them said it stopped or almost stopped. Truth is only 12 of them said that others said only that it slowed or speed up, reported what others had seen or said something else entirely and others mentioned the motorcade but not the limo specifically. To a large degree the witnesses who said the limo slowed down or speed up contradict the ones who said it stopped because one would expect them to said it stopped if that's what they had seen. This is normal and witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Usually physical evidence is used to confirm or contradict witnesses not the other way around. Also I imagine there were many witnesses not on the list who never said anything about the limo stopping, slowing down or speeding up. I am as I have said no expert on the assassination but believe the limo probably did slow down. The alterationists claim that this is not shown in the Zapruder film and thus is evidence that the home movie was altered. However decades before they started spouting their nonsense a Nobel Prize winning physicist studied the Z film and determined the limo DID slow down suddenly at around the time of the head shot. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6039 PDF page 13 The alterationists will object that the physicist was also the father of the "jet splatter effect theory", which I believe most researchers reject. To this I respond 1- Has the 'jet splatter effect' theory ever been debunked? Pat Speer, Barbara Junkkarinen and other 'conspiracists' agree that all shots that hit Kennedy came from behind. I started a separate thread to discuss that question because it has nothing to do with the Z-Film. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6039 2- Even if he was wrong about 'jet splatter', it would be an amazing coincidence if he made a mistake in his analysis of the "altered" Z-film and this led him to imagine observing a slow down which didn't appear on the film at the exact moment when the limo had in fact slowed down. 3- According to a member of another Forum, Robert Groden also observed the limo slow down in the film*, and this seems to be the consensus among members of this Forum. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6028 * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/4064 biography? rofl --- buy the book and read it! David, Impressive bio*, I sure if any questions related to video production/post-production come up you would be more than qualified to speak authoritatively. What I didn't see on it was any evidence of experience with film post production or anything that would qualify you as an expert on that subject. I read your chapter from TGZFH but didn't think it proved very much. All that you really showed was how compositing works, and thanks that was educational, but it didn't answer any of the questions you have answer on this and the other threads. I noticed that like on this forum you just mentioned Fielding's book and the SMPE/SMPTE journals without quoting them or referring to any specific chapters, articles, sections pages etc. nor did you cite any movies which had compositing AS EXTENSIVE AS WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN USED IN THE "ALTERED" Z –FILM. Well like they say "Now is a good a time as any", you want to take a crack at it or will you continue to avoid answering these questions? Len * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6029 I'm glad I'm still pulling your strings and got you to submit it, but you are still not in compliance, you're supposed to provide a link to it at the bottom of your posts. You're supposed to follow the rules just like the rest us. Hope you liked the "taste of your own medicine". PS From most accounts I've read Bill Graham was a complete asshole, if you had any contact with him what was your impression?

The question of the “jet splatter” theory came up in the Zapruder thread and was wondering what your assessments of it were. I imagine that most JFK researchers dismiss it out of hand but I would recommend reading the article in which it was proposed and consider the credentials of its author Luis Alvarez winner of the 1968 Nobel Prize in physics among other distinctions. John Costella this guy ain’t. Jet splatter theory: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8_4_Alvarez.pdf Alvarez bios: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...lvarez-bio.html http://www.nobel-winners.com/Physics/luis_...er_alvarez.html

I second that Evan!!! Did Jack ever use the "no stars in the sky" argument? Len

For me the best proof that Paul was killed and replaced by a double is the music be put out a solo artist and with Wings.

No problem Frank just don’t operate any heavy machinery under the influence or ouch!! (Did you see “The Machinist”?)

Yes but to block out extraneous subliminal mind control I made sure to don my TFH. Speaking of backwards masking the site linked below claims Paul really was killed when still with the Beatles. The culprits were possibly "the KKK and/or the FBI, both organizations controlled by Scottish Rite Freemasonry, itself under the control of Illuminati for more than hundred years, since at least the time of Albert Pike" and replaced by a double Also that Terry Melcher was involved and his mom, Doris Day, had also been replaced by a double. Closeted homosexual and otherwise compromised actors were blackmailed and bribed to play opposite her and keep their mouths shut. Charles Manson was framed as part of a larger conspiracy and the Stones or at least Mick might have been involved!! The author doesn't cite the slightest sliver of evidence but I'm sure it's all true. http://www.total411.info/2005/03/no-ix-mas...n-of-james.html Steve / Tim I don't know why you're treating this like one big joke this is deadly serious buisness!! Edited to fix broken link

He did? I read the entire article and it doesn't state that the limo did anything but decelerate at a notable rate. His hypothesis centers around lifting from the accelerator pedal of a heavy car in a low gear in response to a postulated siren sounded by one of the motorcycle policemen. The z-film as we have it (along with the Nix film, et al) does not show the limo stopping... Frank I didn1 say anything about the limo stopping. I should have been clearer Alvarez said it slowed "suddenly". I edited my previous post for clarity. Len

A Nobel Prize (1968) winning physicist from Berkley who studied the Z - film said it slowed down. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8_4_Alvarez.pdf See page 13 of 15 People on another forum told me Robert Groden and the HSCA reached the same conclusion. Edited for clarity.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=53345

Computer translations don't work very well.

The details of the case can be read here. <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/fifthcircuit/...07.CV0.wpd.html" target="_blank">http://www.romingerlegal.com/fifthcircuit/...07.CV0.wpd.html </a>] Apparently Thomas W. Wilson an engineer from US Steel in Pittsburg computer enhanced some assassination related photos. He reached the conclusion that a shooter could be seen on the "grassy knoll" and that the infamous "backyard photos" were faked and presented his findings at a symposium in Dallas in 1991. A Dallas newspaper reporter asked G. Robert Blakey (chief council of the HSCA) and David Belin, the assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, for their opinions. They referred to Wilson's work as "garbage" and "lies" so he sued them for libel in Dallas federal court. The defendants who lived in Indiana and Iowa asked for the case to be dismissed, arguing the Dallas court did not have jurisdiction over them. The court agreed as did the circuit court in New Orleans. From what I understand the bar for being accepted as an expert witness is much lower in civil than in criminal cases. Also since the crux of the case (if it had come to trial) would have been the photographic record of the assassination, the court might have simply recognized Jack's expertise in that area, he had at that point been studying it for almost 40 years at that point. And since one of Wilson's claims had been made by Jack many years before it does not seem unusual that he would have been accepted as an expert in this particular case. Would the court have accepted Jack as an expert if the case didn't involve assassination photos - specificlly the "backyard photos". Another doubt I have is since the merits of the case were never argued if Jack's acceptance as an expert witness was preliminary or definitive. I suspect that if the case had come to trial defendants' council would have tried to challenge Jack's qualifications to testify. Or considering Jack's humiliating performance before the HSCA ( [ <a href="http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html" target="_blank">http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html </a> ), where he showed a complete ignorance of basic photo analytic principles, they might have though Jack would help more he would hurt. I have 2 questions for Tim or Dawn or any other lawyers out there. Am I correct that it's easier to get accepted as an expert witness in civil than in criminal cases? If a defense lawyer was trying to get a case dismissed on technical grounds would they normally challenge the credentials of a plaintiff's expert witnesses before or after this was decided? Jack - I'm still waiting to hear back from you about the questions asked on the other thread: For the record do you or don't you believe the Moon landings were faked? Please explain you contradictory statements on the matter. 2- Has any one with recognized expertise or training in photo analysis agreed with any of your findings about anything at anytime? 3- Are you ever going to respond to that long list of unanswered questions that I left links to in the other posts? Jack please don't start a third thread to avoid replying. Len

Some here complain that I am not a professional photo analyst, even though I have worked in the field for more than 40 years. Jack you've found a new way to avoid answering questions to prefer to avoid. You answer only one question and do so by starting a new thread. I guess being caught contradicting yourself is not vert plesant. You also misrepresent my views I asked you if any profesional photo analyst ever backed any of your "discoveries". So I imagine by your response the answer is "no". Besides the fields mentioned by Evan many forensic scientists specialize in photo analysis. Many deal with photography or photo, video and film exclusively or almost exclusively. There are even sites and forums dedicated to the subject one is http://groups.msn.com/ForensicPhoto/1.msnw. College Board lists 88 schools with "forensic technology" majors http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/servle...To=9&viewpage=1 There doesn't seem to be a set name for this type of profesional but there are a few variations -forensic photo analyst/specialist/examener etc -forensic photo lab technician/specialist etc. I assume the "registered EXPERT WITNESSES in Federal Court" had gone through some training to qualify as do most expert witnessess Without more information about the Wilson v. Blakey case it's not possible to know how to evauate your being accepted once in 42 years as an "expert witness". I assume the Blakey was Robert Blakey and your familiarity with the JFK photographic record might have been a factor. So the dodge was a nice try by try answering the question asked and the other two while you're at it.http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5987