Len Colby

Heaven forbid, Jack -- that they should read, what's in it for them? Yeah like that most of us can find that at our local library! Dave you have yet to quote a single sentance from The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, to support your contention that such alteration was possible. You know that book who's title you sometimes get wrong and who's author says you are wrong. LOL

Dave briefly summarize for us YOUR experience film compositing with an optical printer and quote a passage from Fielding to back your argument. Otherwise it will be clear to everyone that you are full of xxxx PS A name of a movie with realistic compositing as intricate as you allege was done to the Z-film would be nice. According to your co-authors the limo was pasted into background of Elm St. shot earlier, items like signs and lampposts were also pasted in, people in DP were moved from one spot to another and the arms and legs of the limo's occupants were made to move around differently than they had originally. Mary Poppins which Jack cited does not have compositing anywhere near as complex as that Jack, did you fake that frame on a computer or with an circa 1963 optical printer? If you you used the former your demonstration proves nothing, Healy and Duncan and you can fake Z frames till the US elects a transexual president and it won't and creedence to the notion that such fakery could have been done in 1963. A single frame is relatively easy, try faking the whole film, try doing alterations as extensive as you say were done to the z-film using 1963 technology without being obviously fake or eailly detectable

Healy has yet to demonstrate that he has ANY experience doing film compositing with an optical printer. At this point I suspect he has none. Roland Zavada who knows far more about the subject than you and Healy begs to differ. Apperently Fielding and Oliver Stone agree. Do you have any evidence to support you claim? Alteration done on a computer proves nothing such technology was not available in 1963. Evidence of fakery is harder to detect on a computer image - the original film has already been examined for evidence of fakery. a prime example of shuck and jive -- Mr. Colby da dufus be back .... you might want to place your bonifides right below here -- we'd like to know you INexperience re motion picture film and processing and manipulation of same, if you have any experience please let us know... till you demonstrate your *expertise* just step over there and play in Bill Miller's sandbox.... David you never cease to be an asshole do you? As for establishing bonafides you have yet to demonstrate any experience compositing without a computer. I imagine you were too full of yourself to notice I already said I have no experience in those fields, that does make the points that I'm raising any less vaild. Surely an"expert" like you should be able to cite a single movie or a pasage from Fielding or any other source to back your argument. People who know far more than you claim to say you are wrong. I am not arguing technical points I'm asking you simple questions that you can't answer. All you can do to back your claim that such alteration was possible back in 1963 is mention a book without quoting any passages. A book who's author says you're wrong. Every movie? Are you sure there wasn't one movie made 1920 - 79 that didn't use optical printing? Once again you are making an issue of something that is not in dispute. No one is denying that optical printing had been around long before the assassination. You've been told this repeatedly this is really getting tiring. Dave your exercise was laughably silly and irrelevant - we already pointed out to you that examples of compositing done on a computer 2002 - 06 in no way strengthen your argument that such doctoring could have been done in 1963 You've got your burden of proof backwards. It is up to your to offer up the slightest evidence that it was possible, something you have failed to do so far. You told us that MOST optical printing labs have gone out of business, so I imagine some are still around. Go to one of them get them to do what your co-authors claim was done to the Z-film and come back to us with the results. If Fielding's book is proof that such doctoring was possible back then perhaps you can cite some page numbers or passages to prove your point, that is SOP when someone cite a book on a forum esp. a book that few forum members have easy access to. I've asked you to do this before but you have yet to respond. Since according to Zavada, Fielding himself says that such alterations were impossible it's really incumbent on you to quote his book to prove your point. If the book really does support your theory why the reluctance to actually quote it? Zavada of course already said why the Z-film could not have been a copy AND that any such alterations would have been had to have realized using "unknown technology" and would have been easily detectable.

Poor Healy was doing so poorly on the other thread he started a new one as a distraction. Nice try Dave I don’t think it will work. I propose that no one else responds to this thread and we instead continue debate on the “Four Questions” one. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...771entry51771

The same author claimed he was going to fire Hoover after the election. I remember reading he thought about it but have never heard that he had definately decided to do so.

I have recently been in contact with Rollie Zavada*. Healy insinuated that he no longer stands by his determination after detailed study that the Z-film in the National Archives was and in camera original and showed no signs of "optical effect or matte work". That is utter nonsense – he still believes that and is convinced that the film could not have been altered as alleged. Unable to name a single movie from the period of the assassination which used compositing as intricate as was alleged to have been used in the "altered" Z-film Healy instead cites a Special Effects text book by Ray Fielding. Zavada visited Professor Fielding in 2003 to ensure his conclusions about the improbability of alteration were correct. Professor Fielding agreed with Zavada; "that it was not possible to alter the Zapruder film incorporating the scene changes attributed to that process and if attempted, the results would be easily detectable". So I think that pretty much settles it, we can all go home now. ROTFLMHO Ding Dong! The Theory is dead. Which old Theory? The Z-film alteration Theory! Ding Dong! The Z-film alteration Theory is dead. Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed. Wake up, the Z-film alteration Theory is dead. It's gone where the nonsense goes, Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out. Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low. Let them know The Z-film alteration Theory is dead! Other songs on today's playlist: Another One Bites The Dust -Queen Down In Flames - The Dead Boys Laugh - The Monkees *Who worked for Kodak for many years as a product engineer and led the team that invented the Kodachrome II film that Zapruder used. See the following link for his bio. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/zbio.pdf biography? rofl ---buy the book and read it! Not really that interested Dave but I do find your double standard amusing and typical. Don't your remember how much your harped on about my lack of a photo, even implying I might get booted from the forum? I'm going away again probably won't post for another week - not that there's much to discus any way until the alterationist can provide evidence that the Z-film could have been altered.

If it's available in digital form could you post or a link to it?

Are there any indications he suspected he might be dropped?

Dave - Rule #1 of this forum is "All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature". Where's yours? I remember you hastling me before I added my photo. You are one of the very few members of the forum not in compliance. Len

I saw that claim made in a book without any citation. It doesn’t sound right to me, he barely won Texas in 1960 and since then had pushed for civil rights. I can’t imagine he’d want to risk losing the 3rd most populous state in the country.

[...] So was Oswald, a admirer that is! Personally, I'd like to see evidence to support Zapruder's admiration for JFK... other than hearsay What ever his role in the assassination whether it be patsy or LN or co-conspirator, Oswald was a very mixed up guy. There aren't any indications that Zapruder was like this. Stizman and I believe Rodgers said he supported JFK, Unless some one can find evidence to the contrary I would assume it's true.

John - I checked LeGon's Warren commision testimony. It appears that she only worked for Nardis (a company that started in the '30) for one year 1953 - 4. Len http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/demohr_j.htm

Ron - I found that article again after starting the thread. I had read it before so I think it was where I read about Zapruder belonging to CIA fronts. I had the same impression you did. Since it desn't cite it sources it is only of dubious value. John (Simkin) - I based the line that Zapruder and LeGon were bussiness partners on your Sparticus page. Since I started this thread Martin Shackelford and another well known JFK researcher told me they only worked for the same company, Nardis, and might not even have known each other. Other sites only say they worked together, what was your source saying they were partners?

Adamson seems to be a bit off his rocker. Didn't he claim that Jackie was a CIA agent?

Much has been made of the fact that Abraham Zapruder’s business partner ended their partnership to marry George De Mohrenschildt in 1959. Has anyone seen any evidence that the two men had contact with each other? I read somewhere that Zapruder was a member of a few CIA front organizations but can’t remember where. Is there any evidence that he was indeed a member of these groups and that they really were CIA fronts? If so any evidence that he knew this? Was he part of the leadership or just a member? Zapruder claimed to have been a great admirer of JFK, is there any evidence to the contrary or in support of this? It has also been alleged that De Mohrenschildt was a CIA asset, is there any proof that this is true? I’ve seen reports that he gave info. to the “Company” about his business trips but that was fairly common in those days and continues to be from what I understand.

I am a great danger..to all who do not think for themselves....burn me at the stake with the rest of them...then we may all disappear......not until..and not likely.. You do not affect me Mr. Peters nor Mr.Colby too bad..see I think for myself, scarey thought huh...? Think for yourself? All you seem capable of is insulting those who don't share your views and doing cut n' paste jobs. I've brought up points that I haven't seen anyone else raise before – which is sign of independent thought – can you say the same for yourself? Until you can come up with something original you are neither 'scary' nor a 'danger' to anyone you over estimate yourself. All somewhat different, but that is what this is all about...or is it??... the right to our opinion. You are certainly entitled to that, unlike you I don't attack people simply because they disagree with me. Fine "overreaction", gee I do wonder why?? the truth must hurt... I think my reply to you was inline with your provocation. This is known as "over kill" some seem to think that the louder and nastier they are, the more scared others will be, so that they will hush and disappear...been there, seen that, and read it all before.... it doesn't work with all...never has...some even have the intelligence to ask and wonder "Why" ?? and come back, Lord forbid...with perhaps even more information, and reasonings.. If you want to debate this civilly, I'm willing to comply. Ironic that you complain of nastiness and attempts at intimidation considering your post near the top of the page, it was rather nasty and could be interpreted as an attempt to shut me up. PS – 'reasonings' isn't a word. Good for you that you stick up for your friend, Mr. Peters, and nice to see after you have done so, that Mr. Colby becomes brave enough to have his say and reply to moi.. Continue and keep in mind, that after all we alterationists housewives are a dangerous lot .... we will not be shut up... - Larry and I are not acquainted. - You believe that you are "a great danger" and "scary" and that I need courage to respond to you? You truly do over estimate yourself. That's quite an ego you got. Larry replied to you less than 2 hours after your post. I'm not online and monitoring this forum 24/7. I have no intention of getting in to a 'tit for tat' exchange with you. As long as you don't say anything too outrageous I'll let you have the last word. Now do you have anything to actually contribute to this debate?

Bernice - I'm glad you found my posts amusing - the simple minded it seems are easily entertained. If you had been paying attention you should have realized that the points I have been raising don't require intricate knowledge of the case. As Larry indicated they have more to do with common sense. I have questioned the plausibility of the alteration claims made by Fetzer's camp. You share their tendency to insult anyone who disagrees with you. As for ego, are you going to tell me that you really don't think that Fetzer's comments were over the top? Calling myself a "debunker of nonsense" is on the same scale, I don't claim any extra ordinary skills or expertise. I don't really think I'm out of my league debating these guys because they can't come up with straight answers to my questions, Fetzer fled two forums rather than debate me and a couple of other debunkers regarding the Wellstone case. I challenged him to debate me live but he didn't reply. I got the impression that most serious researchers dismiss Fetzer's claims from lurking on several forums. He is by his own admission persona non grata at JFK events in the US that he hasn't organized himself. Can you tell me which serious researchers outside of his little circle take him seriously? Pat did (I think) but I imagine he has changed his mind. Unlike your previous posts on this subject my posts have certainly been a lot more than 'cut and paste jobs'. Dave - I'm still waiting for you to get back to me on any of those 12 questions/points I raised. Hopefully you can do a little better that smug remarks and irrelevant questions, but since it seems that's all you are capable of I don't expect much of anything else. Maybe you can get your friend the high school teacher to help you out.

Speaking of arrogance or more accurately over inflated egos, here is what Fetzer had to say about himself and his own work on another forum recently. Fetzer I think the thousands upon thousands of faculty members who have managed to get jobs at far more prominent schools than U of Minn. Duluth would beg to disagree. How many non assassination books have you written that weren't text books?

I don't think Costella's musings would be accepted in the first place. He has no qualifications in any related feild nor has he ever published a peer reviewed article*. Your statement that "the other side submitted NOTHING ..." is incorrect as I'm sure you know, which means you lied, ask Fetzer he knows all about lying. The following link is to one of several sites that counter the claims made in TGZFH. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/ *The only possible exceptions were 3 articles in the same magazine for physics teachers about teaching various asspects of particle physics, I don't think they were peer reviewed..

Dave – It seems like you share Fetzer's and White's difficulties in understanding what you read. I answered that in my first post on this forum after you asked me. I told you I was going away for a few days You complained, incorrectly, that I had not answered your question after a week, that's ironic because I asked you questions months ago that you haven't answered yet. The only logical inference is that you are afraid to answer them. Why do you continue to prefer to discuss irrelevant details to issues of substance? Must be because you want to distract people from simple truths that undermine claims the film was altered. What do the questions you’ve been asking me have to do with whether or not the Z-film is authentic? </a>LOL

You repeatedly mention Feildings book and the SMPE/SMPTE rags but have yet to quote a single word from them doing so would bolster your cause.Neither Pat nor I have to prove our knowledge about Z-film history but you have yet to come up with credible answers to my questions. Being able to answer these simple questions would make your claims more credible but your continued refusal to address them makes your theories suspect. Your wish to reverse the "burden of proof" is absurd there is not one recognized photo analyst, film compositing expert amongsts you, no independant experts have backed you. You continue to claim expertise in compositing yet refuse to go into details or provide examples of your work

Jim - Your propensity to long windedness, going off on irrelevant tangents, blowing your own horn, and to attack your critics has never been so evident as in your most recent post on this thread. Do you have any evidence to back your slander? Can you cite any examples of my being a "duplicitous operator"? You have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty but never cited any exaples. Don't forget I caught you intentionally misleading your readers (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=40521 ). Speaking of duplicity I just finished reading "American Assassination" your lack of commitment to the truth and slander of the Wellstone family are appalling. I have brought up a few "issues over and over again" but only because neither you nor your 'side kicks' have answered them. Which points have I brought up more than once that has "been decisively refuted?" Your comment that I "cannot be taken at face value on any issue--even (my) own qualifications for research on these issues" left me mystified since I never claimed any special qualifications. Now that we're on the subject care to back your claim that Costella has a background in "optics"? What exactly do Miller and Conway have to do with this thread? Fetzer has a remarkable ability to convince himself he has proven things based on the shakiest of evidence.

Jack - Your reading comprehension problems have once again led you astray, I did not say that "a SS agent had personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)" but rather that Hunter said he had been told that. Obviously the film was developed at Kodak in Dallas as I have noted at various times. In that paragraph I was not concerned with where the film had been developed but where Hunter and McMahon believed it had been. That they apparently didn’t question that the film had been developed in Rochester is another indication that they didn’t have Kodachrome processing at the NPIC, in another government facility or anywhere near Washington. Don’t forget that Hunter said they didn’t have color film processing capabilities. Even if they did it probably would have been color print or Ektachrome. As a photographer I’m sure you are aware that Kodachrome was and is far more expensive and complicated develop than other types of color film. There were only about 6 known Kodachrome plants (3 Kodak and 3 independents) in 1963 none of them anywhere near Washington. See if you can address any of my other points. No Kodachrome processing at or near the NPIC = no possibility for overnight alteration of the Z-film = no rational explanation of how Life ended up publishing altered frames a few days after the assassination as alleged in TGZFH. According to Bennet (Ben) Hunter, the assistant manager of the NPIC color lab in 1963 as paraphrased by Jim Fetzer, "…NPIC did not have that (sic)capability for color movies, since they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for the most part." Hunter said the Z-film work was classified "above top secret" and he had been told a SS agent had "personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)" he and boss Homer McMahon believed the film had been processed in Rochester. If the NPIC near D.C. had a Kodakchrome lab it would have made no sense for a "above top secret" undeveloped film from Dallas to be sent processed at an unsecure commercial facility in Rochester, but there are no indications that Hunter or McMahon questioned this. Nor does it make sense that the conspirators would have secretly rushed the original film to the NPIC that night and submit it for analysis to people there who wasn't "in on it", Fetzer cites Hunter to back alteration claims. Nowhere in descriptions of Hunter and MaMahon's accounts is anything said about copies being made or altered that weekend only stills. If the manager of the color lab and his assistant didn't know about the doctoring who did the work and how and where did they do it.http://www.assassinationscience.com/disdeb10.htmlIf they couldn't process Kodakchrome at NPIC there isn't enough time for the overnight alteration senario. So tell how they got an altered version of the z-film to Dallas by 8 AM the next morning? ROTFLMHO Colby does not even comprehend the significance of what he has written. If "a SS agent had personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)" ...then this conficts with the official story, which is that Zapruder had the film developed by Jamieson lab. A discussion cannot be conducted with someone who does not know the facts. IPOTIOTKWTATA! Jack

According to Bennet (Ben) Hunter, the assistant manager of the NPIC color lab in 1963 as paraphrased by Jim Fetzer, "…NPIC did not have that (sic)capability for color movies, since they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for the most part." Hunter said the Z-film work was classified "above top secret" and he had been told a SS agent had "personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)" he and his boss Homer McMahon believed the film had been processed in Rochester. If the NPIC, near D.C., had a Kodakchrome lab it would have made no sense for a "above top secret" undeveloped film from Dallas to be sent processed at an unsecure commercial facility in Rochester, but there are no indications that Hunter or McMahon questioned this. Nor does it make sense that the conspirators would have secretly rushed the original film to the NPIC that night for alteration and submit it for analysis to people there who weren't "in on it", Fetzer cites Hunter to back alteration claims. Nowhere in descriptions of Hunter and MaMahon's accounts is anything said about copies being made or altered that weekend only stills. If the manager of the color lab and his assistant didn't know about the doctoring who did the work and how and where did they do it? http://www.assassinationscience.com/disdeb10.html If they couldn't process Kodakchrome at NPIC there isn't enough time for the overnight alteration senario. So tell us how they got an altered version of the z-film to Dallas by 8 AM the next morning. ROTFLMHO

Do you have any evidence to back your suspicion that "THOSE particular frames were touched up and enhanced"? Do you believe this was done by the CIA or Life? Though technically that would qualify as alteration it doesn't fit with alterations alleged in TGZFH. Irrelevant – they were using much more modern technology and did far less extensive alterations. You're joking right!? What questions haven't I answered? How about questions you refuse to answer? Some of these have been pending for months. 1 – The title of one film using technology available in Nov. '63 that used compositing as complex as alleged in the book. Forget that book and those magazines, the names of an actual movie or two will suffice. 2 – Your background with film compositing. This IS relevant because you are cited as an expert. 3 – Any evidence that the NPIC could process Kodakchrome which seems highly unlikely. 4 – How could they have been sure of being able to switch all of Life's copies and be certain no "bootlegs" were made? 5 – How could they have been sure there would be no major discrepancies with other films? 6– Why superimpose images of the limo on a background film of Elm St. shot earlier? 7 – If the background film was shot on Elm St. why would objects like signs and lampposts have to be pasted in? 8 – Since Zapruder was part of the plot and his camera was used, and he was in tha vicinity of DP, why not have him or Stitzman actually film the assassination. 9 – Why film the assassination from one location and say it was filmed from another? Wouldn't this cause parallax errors. 10 – The names of any trained photo analysts who back your theories. I'll add two more. 11 – The name of anyone with proven experience in film compositing using optical printers who says the supposed alterations could have made with 1963 – 4 technology and "know how", within the time frames and be undetectable using current technology. Feilding's book doesn't count, some who finds your theories re: the "Z-film" plausible. 12 – Any evidence that Zapruder's original went to the NPIC along with the 2 copies or that any films went back to Dallas the next morning. What time did the plane leave Love Field and arrive at Andrews? How exactly is this or any of your questions relevant? Jack avoids answering questions he doesn't have a good answer to by rationalizing reasons not to respond, your smokescreen is asking (mostly technical) irrelevant questions. You would much rather discuss those than answer the ones above, I don't blame you! IIRC the camera original which was split at Kodak was shown by Zapruder (and possibly his business partner Erwin Schwartz) to Stolley and Secret Service agents at about 8 AM the morning after the assassination. According to one account he showed it to "newsmen from AP and UPI and other magazines" a little bit later. Witnesses at Kodak were about 14 lab employees, Zapruder and possibly Schwartz, I'm not sure who saw it at Jamieson but presumably Mr. Jamieson and a few workers did. Perhaps you can fill us in on those people's names and other irrelevant tidbits. I believe Rather saw an unsplit Secret Service 1st generation contact print at KRLD with some Secret Service agents. I have no idea who else was present or how many times it was shown. That was the infamous "missing" Kodak ID number that you like to make a big deal about. There are at least 2 logical explanations 1) Kodak processed another roll of film between the time Zapruder first got there and when he got back from Jamieson 2) the number was skipped for some reason I worked at a photo lab in the 80's that is not uncommon. I know some people believe a forth copy was made even if true this doesn't help your theory. I have no xxxxing idea why don't you ask Gary? Your irrelevant questions are getting tiring. Your point would be stronger if you could come up with some relevant questions that I can't answer. Do you really think your continued refusal to discuss important points that cast doubt on your implausible theory will go unnoticed by the followers of the "Z-film" threads? "You're gonna need" to come up with some plausible answers or no one will take you seriously. Are you going to ask me about more irrelevant details like what Schwartz's middle name was or the lot number of the Z-film?