Len Colby

For more on Jack's intellectual dishonesty re: what he has said about Apollo see the "Three Questions for Jack White" thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...036entry53036

I think Jack has been "Hoist with his own petard" Gee Jack, who lacks credibility now? Asserting that you never said the Moon landings were faked is what I will euphemistically call "a departure from the truth". Evan was telling the truth unfortunately I don't think I can say the same about you. Yes you did say yo "did not know" if they went to the Moon or not but the whole thrust of the article is that the missions were faked as you in contradicary fashion say elsewhere in the same article. Your "I have only said the photos were faked" line is croc. Your at least have honesty and conviction to admit to and stand by your beliefs. * Jack is alluding to the baseless theory that the Apollo 1 crew was murdered because Grissom was going to go public with the impossibility of reaching the Moon. This makes no sense wouldn't a 'car accident' be a more logical solution. The fire was a huge set back to the Apollo program. One wonders why Grissom would have gone on the dangerous mission (see quote below) if he was planning to blow the whistle and had told NASA already. Shortly before the launch Grissom said "If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life." Which is of course inconstant with the notion of him being a whistle blower, who knew Apollo could not suceed. For more read this thread on another forum http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1128492991 Jack I see that you are copping out once again by answering only one question half way and even then not on another thread.

I was refering specificly to compliance with rule #1 as spelled out on this thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=5976&st=0 I don't presume to speak for others but Tim Carrol and Bill Miller also voiced support for Healy's compliance. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=51745 Since he was so insistant that others obey the rules shouldn't he be held to the same standard?

How can there be HARD evidence of attempts in Tampa and Chicago, when no "attempts" were made in those cities? IIRC people have theorized that atempts were planned for those cities. The "HARD" (as in "hard copy; i.e. paper) evidence of an administration-planned incident for Dallas is shown in the H. L. Hunt memos. The fake attempt scenario is a hypothetical framework of explanation. If there was HARD evidence of anything beyond Kennedy's death and Connally's wounding, we wouldn't be here. Where can I read more about the hunt memos, what other evidence is there of a fake attempt in Dallas? As I have noted previously in this thread, the issue of security stripping is not integral to the proposition of a fake assassination operation hijacked for the real thing. Generally, the entire topic of the Kennedy assassination usually doesn't involve the kind of "HARD" evidence which would be societally conclusive. That's why the term "best evidence" is more appropriate. That said, I consider the film of SS Agent Rybka's astonishment at being left at Love Field to be of compelling interest, as well as Emory Roberts' stand down order. But again, security stripping is not integrally necessary to a counterintelligence operation in which a gun is fired astray. Security stripping is not intergral but related to the idea of a fake attempt and has already to been thrown into the soup. Maybe hard evidence was a poor coice or words maybe reliable evidence would be better. Also hard evidence does not mean the samething as conclusive or irrefutable evidence. I don't know anything about Agent Rybka being left behind but I imagine some sort of foul up was responsible, what difference could one more agent have made? Where would he have been assigned to? Where can I read more about Emory Robert's 'stand down order'?

John / Andy, Are the rules of the Forum still being enforced? If so do they apply to all members or just to some and not others? If some are exempt why is this so? Len

What HARD evidence is there that there were attempts 'real' or 'fake' in Tampa or Chicago? What Hard evidence is there of a 'fake' attempt in Dallas? What HARD evidence is there of 'security stripping' in Dallas that somehow facilitated the assassination? As was pointed out previously a couple more motorcycle cops would not have made any difference nor would sealing the sewer covers. As for people being in windows I remember another thread where photos were posted of other Kennedy motorcades (in Miami, Honolulu and Ireland IIRC) in which this was allowed.

Another reason why I discount "chemtrails" is the altitude the planes are flying at, many thousands of feet above the surface of the Earth. I don't have a scientific background but I imagine much (most) of the particles would never fall to the surface and if and when they did it would be very far from where they were "sprayed" making targeting all but impossible. Much of what did come down would probably do so in rain drops which most likely would diminish their effect. If the NWO wanted to dope the populace spiking the water supply would be I imagine much simpler, cheaper and easier to cover up. How would they be able to protect themselves and friends and families from being affected? I'm just "hand waving" here and would appreciate comments from anyone who knows what they are talking about.

Jack did it ever occur to you that the skywriting might actually have been just skywriting? I don't see what the point of 'chemtrailing' letters or dots and dashes would be esp. if they are trying to keep this low profile. Maybe the dots and dashes were Morse code or a variation of it? Could be the CIA's way of sending messages to aliens in the heavens or secret plotters down on the surface, it could even have something to do with DP surveillance. Or it could just be a bored skywriter or a coincidence. I got some advice for you since chemtrail flights seem to follow you around, you should get an inexpensive pocket digital camera and leave it in your love compartment or always have it on you. Won't be anymore of those missed opportunities. Don't forget to upload those photos you promised. Any evidence to back this assertion Jack? Just what relevent training or experience do you have to make such a determination?

1) Do you believe the Moon landings were faked or are you only willing to go so far as to say the photos were faked? Your recent comments on the subject have been contradictory. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=36640 2) Over the last 40 years or so you have touted yourself as an 'expert' photo analyst despite having no training in the field and your only experience was doing studio photography for a local ad agency. You have claimed to have found proof of: fakery/alteration the Apollo mission and JFK assassination photographic records, controlled demolition of the WTC, a missile (as opposed to a plane) hitting the Pentagon, chemtrails, and intentional destruction of dikes in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. If I have misstated your position on any of those issues or missed one it was not intentional please correct me. The question is have any of your 'theories' ever been backed by a trained photo analyst? 3) You have left numerous questions to you unanswered. Do you plan on responding anytime in the near future? Since as you have stated you are retired and have plenty of free time you should have gotten around to it by now. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=52761 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=44850 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=48303 see also posts 41-43 on the same page http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=49975 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=20005 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=42347 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5199 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=46970 see also posts 5 & 10 on the same page

Hats off to you Evan, you are a consummate gentleman. Jack said you lied and lacked credebility because you interpretid statements that he made which clearly indicate that he believes the Moon landings were faked as meaning that's what he believes. Despite him insulting you, you show enough respect for his currently stated position to edit your post.

Great Dave another totally off topic post. Speaking of post-production qualifications you have yet to inform us of YOUR post-production experience with FILM sans computer technology. Maybe to can put in your bio which your are requied to submit. Bullxxxx - here's one of several. debunkings http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/And just what are Costella's qualifications as a photo analyst, his career as a school teacher, his degrees in electrical engineering and particle physics or his grand total of zero published peer reviewed technical papers?

Dave once again you are displaying your penchant for babbling on without addressing the issue at hand. That is your standard tactic, when you don’t have a good answer change the subject. Your continued and blatant hypocrisy and lack of a bio are what’s in question here, what do either of your posts above have to do with that? Mike -- My interest surrounds the John Kennedy Assassination, only. The Zapruder film in particular. Other's far more knowledgable than I about others... I've been on and IN the public record, regarding same for years ... EXEMPT? Exempt, from what Professor Tribe? It is professor is it not? It seems that whereever I go on the internet, I have a following... pests actually! DH Exempt from complying with the forum's rules obviously. Were you being ingenious or are you so lacking of gray matter that you did not understand. If you spent less energy on sarcasm and more on thinking you would be a lot better off

Duncan - Funny that you should complain that Bill "get(s) personal with insults", I guess you are as consistent in your views as Dave is. The "agenda" here is not Bill's but mine. Personally I do not care much one why or the other about the forum's requirements for a photo and bio, if it were up to me I would not have submitted them. But they are required here so I did. Do you really think Healy is not playing by a double standard when he was so insistent that all forum members submit photos yet feels he is under no obligation to submit his bio? PS - You are not in compliance either. JOHN - You really should insist that Healy abide by the rules he so insists others must follow or face suspension the same penalty he asked you to enforce for non-compliance. Dave - Do not kid yourself, I really do not care what you say about yourself in your bio, it is just that I believe people should live by the same standards they demand of others

Worse is when the same member who seems to think he should be exempt from one rule makes so much noise about the non-compliance of others. Perhaps it's hypocrisy.. I'm not sure why you feel sympathy for Healys position, he was the lead noisemaker about our lack of photos.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=36640 (My bolding) Well, you seem to be saying something different in the above quote, but I'll edit my post to reflect you believe the photos are faked. Evan - Jack was more direct about his views here, there was no need for you to have edited your post. Jack - The use of the word lie is strictly forbidden, you should edit your post to be in compliance. You say things that aren't true that's why YOU have "zero credibility" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=50736 (my bolding and underling) Evan has basically humiliated you and shown that despite your professed expertise as a "photo analyst" backed by your years of experience as a professional photographer you are prone blunders and basic misunderstanding of photographic principles. Evan who is an amateur shows that he has a much firmer grasp of those principals than you do. Instead of making excuses why don't you try to rebut Evan? Your use of excuses instead of responding to people who shot your little pet theories full of holes is getting tiring.

Ron (others) - I'm not familiar with many of the less known details of the case. Tell me (us) more about the test, I imagine other members will find it informative as well.

Post # 1 from the "Political Conspiracies > John Simkin re: Members Pictures" thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=4938&st=0 From the " Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone" thread, pages 5 & 6 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...opic=4542&st=60 Dave you asked me for my photo 3 times in 15 minutes then once again 2 days later. You also started a thread about it. What was that obsession about? Funny that you were so adamant that I comply with one of the forum’s rules but feel that you are under no obligation to comply with a similar one. From the "Zapruder, Four questions..." thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=51725 biography? rofl --- buy the book and read it! Is it the policy of this forum that posters submit a biography of themselves to be included with all posts? I'm under the impression it is.* Some of the most vocal posters apparently believe it is not mandatory. If it is mandatory, please request they follow policy -or- cease posting to the forum. If not please notify the forum a change has been made Thank you! Len Colby * Actually I know it is, it is rule #1 as stated above

As I said on the other thread I am reporting what Zavada told me, he "approved" my statement. I have no reason to doubt he was telling me the truth. You said you were going to e-mail Rollie, let us know when he get's back to you - are you honest enough that when he confirms to you what I reported, you tell the forum? I doubt it. I couldn't get Zavada to post here he doesn't what to be part of it. Let's do it like this, unless you can quote Rollie saying I was lying we will take that as confirmation that it is his position that Fielding agreed with him that the alterations you talk about were not possible at the time. What will you position be then that Zavada is lying or that Fielding doesn't know what he's talking about. Hey-ho, hey-ho, hey-ho When exactly can we expect your "formal claim"?

Why before 2000? When exactly did Zavada examine the Z-film? Dave, as Craig and I keep pointing out you have yet show any evidence of your FILM compositing experience. Of course even highly experienced compositors like those at Disney are prone to mistakes, what about those CIA types at the NPIC how much experience could they have had? Yet they faked the Z film in about 5 hours (minus 1 3/4 hours for developing) that didn't leave them enough time to make test prints and correct any errors. They must have gotten it perfect on their first try! Come up with any evidence that they could develop Kodachrome at the NPIC? The assistant manager of the color lab who Fetzer uses as a source said they did not. There are no documents on the Web saying they did.

Zavada also closely examined the original Zapruder film and came to the exact same conclusion, but Healy, Costella etc. think they know more about the subject than the inventor of Kodachrome II! LOL

I repeat the same questions because you ang Healy don't answer for them. As for obnoxiousness I'll leavce that up to you and David. We're still waiting for you to cite a movie not made by Disney to support your theory. There are a few problems with those Disney films 1) As Bill pointed out they have many flaws - they probaly were noticed by most movie goers 2) Most if not all look fake to the naked eye 3) None of them use compositing as intricate as alleged in Z-film. 4) I assume but am not sure that matte lines would show up if they were closely examined What exactly is pro CIA about my posts or thise of others who wish to debunk your BS why are you people so "passionate" about promoting it. I~m motivated by my distaste for nosense prading as truth and other forms of BS, as for the others I imagine it is to find out the truth about what happened in DP Nov. 22 '63, your bunk is a distraction from that. Do you think Ron, John Dolva and Pat etc. are CIA agents too? LOL Who did the time study Jack you? Did you use the same methodology as you silly Apollo "time/motion" studies? I'd like to see a citation for the study Fetzer also insiuated that I was a CIA agent - don't kid yourselves it doesn't take that much time to debunk you! As you pointed out I have to do is repeat myself since you refuse to adreess the points I raise. Jack. I also seriously doubt that the CIA/NSA etc would waste their time keeping track of you and try to debun k you again you give yourself too much credit. You seem to be sufffering from paranoid delusion of grandure. Dave you don't get it you're an emarrasement to yourself. I'm eagerly awaiting for you to tell us what he tells you. I have sneeking suspicion that won't be happening anytime soon LOL.

He made more sense than Healy in "Bedtime for Bonzo" too! Healy avoids answering questions he doesn't have a glib answer to like bin-Ladden avoids pork chops

Dave if you had been paying attention you would know that I am in touch with Zavada. He OKed the text of the post in which I cited his and Feilding's position concerning alteration of the Z-film. Zavada's position that the Z-film sould not have been faked is online I posted the link several times already. As for Fielding's opinion, I reported what Rollie Zavada told me, do think I'm making it up or he is? If you think I'm making it up e-mail Rollie and ask him to confirm it. If he says I made it up you have scored quite the coup. On ther other hand if he confirms what I said you have to admit Fielding disagrees with you or assert that Rollie is being deceptive. So go ahead e-mail Rollie today and ask him if my post reflected his views, if he says otherwise post his reply here. What do you say, is a week enough for you to hear back from him? If you remain silent on the subject we can all assume he confirmed what I said. He doesn't really want to get involved in this absurb debate, can't say that I blame him. Speaking of being deceptive Rollie was not happy about your insinuation that be backed away from his position that the Z-film is a camera original. He told me he was going to e-mail you about that, did you get the message yet? Your double standard is amusing, you ask me for cites but keep insisting that Fielding's book backs you position without providing any quotes. I quoted Sobel as an after though along with Zavada, Fielding and Stone, his resume is quite impresive and imagine far more so than yours, his IMDb listing has 30+ movies/TV series on it I imagine many of those use optical printing, have you seen everything his made? As for bonafides we're still waiting for us to tell you about your experience. Can you explain to us how the "forgers" were able to composite the "altered" z-film without any errors when Disney was unable to? Jack and Costella cited Mary Poppins and other Disney classics as evidence that such fakery was possible - until your mention Citizen Kane IIRC all the films you side cited were Disney productions. How were they able to do so without any matte lines when George Lucas was unable to do so almnost 20 years later. Let's not forget that would have had only a few hours to do the initial alterations. PS - Any luck on explaining how they secretly developed a roll a Kodachrome at 3 AM? I'll need a cite for that, Every film made since 1926? Are you sure? Earlier you said every film made from the 20 - 70 used them. So if we are to believe you every film made 1920 -present has optical special effects In that case Sobel should be quite the authority he directed about 13 and editted 3 of those.

Thanks for the tip Jack I'll read that chapter when I get some free time maybe today. Does anything in that chapter support your views? Can you or Healy quote any sentences from the book to support your claim that such alteration was possible? Saying a book supports you position without being able to cite any quotes is ridiculous. The book I was referring to was the 1964 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHOTOGRAPHY which to my surprise is available and at $ 0.99 plus shipping probably a good deal, I might even get a copy. If you could actually cite some pages from it that support your position you would help your case enormously. Of course chiding us for not reading an obscure set of books you had not mentioned yet makes no sense nor does expecting one of us to plunk down $ 99 plus shipping for Fielding's book when neither you nor Healy can quote a line from it to support your theory.

Jack, Unfortunately for you those two pages you scanned don’t really prove anything. Once again neither I nor anyone else is disputing that optical printing was possible long before 1963. What I and others doubt and neither of your sources addresses is: 1 - Were alterations as complex as you allege were done to the Z-film possible by 1963? 2 - Could such alterations have been done so realistically as not to look obviously faked to the naked eye – just as most (if not all) compositing from that period does? 3 – Could such alterations have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable to close inspection? I am referring to matte lines, feathering etc. Numerous researchers have studied the film for decades and found no such signs of alteration, Roland Zavada one of the World’s leading film experts studied the film and found no such signs of alteration and your co-authors obviously did not find any signs of such alteration or they would have said so. Zavada, Fielding, Oliver Stone, Mark Sobel (director of “the Commission” and dozens of other movies / TV programs) and others said such alterations definitely would have left such tell tale signs. George Lucas had problems with matte lines in the Star Wars films of the late 70s – early 80s and re did some sequences when he re-released them 1997 - 2004. 4 – Could the initial alterations have been done in a few hours, as would had to have been done to get the “altered” film into Zapruder’s office by 8 AM the morning after the assassination? These are just a few of many questions you and the other “alterationists” have yet to answer (see the 12 questions I put to Dave on the other thread). What I was disputing is the evidentiary value of any alterations you or anybody else does on a computer. I’m sure that most if not all the alterations Dave, Duncan and you did could have been done in 1963 but that doesn’t address the questions above. I have a challenge for you guys and sure you can go ahead and do it with 2006 computer technology. “Fake” a 5 – 10 second snippet of the Z – film put the limo in a different spot on Elm St., move spectators around, paste in some signs and lampposts and most importantly get the limo occupants bodies to move differently. Of course these alterations need to be totally realistic and not look fake, be able to stand up to close inspection and be done in the same resolution as the DVD. I would say a day or two is reasonable since you believe many of these alteration were done in a few hours using 1963 technology and know how and you tell us you can alter individual frames in a few minutes. Once you’re done you can post a link to your results here. Being able to do that would not back your contention that such a feat was possible back then but your inability to do so would be further evidence that it was not. I predict you will ignore this proposal or make up some excuse not to take it up, prove me wrong – LOL! It is really up to you guys to offer minimal evidence that such alterations could have been done because Fielding, Healy’s main source, agreed with Zavada, the inventor of the film used by Zapruder, that it wasn’t. ALL - Is it just me or has the forum been super slow lately? It takes 10 - 30minutes for me to load a page I click the appropriate link and leave the room and come back you check every once in a while. All the other sites I visited today are functioning normally. John/Andy - If you read this what’s the problem?