Len Colby

I'm on the forum now, and Bill Clinton signed a very nice document in my honor when he was Governor. It's posted at: I was interviewed on the X-Zone radio program on January 3, 2006...you can still listen in the X-Zone archives at: Best, T. Casey Brennan Casey - With all due respect, I think that at this point everyone know about your radio interview, website and letters from Clinton and Kissenger, you no longer need to Spam unrelated threads.

Dave - Are you now claiming the films started to be altered in Dallas before they were sent to Washington? How do get 5 hours. This part of the chronology is a bit confused but if the film arrived at Andrews at 10 EST then it would had to have left Dallas by 7:30 EST or 6:30 CST. Are you saying the prints were ready by 1:30 PM? That was before Zapruder went to Kodak? I guess math isn't your stong suit. Do have any evidence that NPIC had a Kodakchrome lab? IIRC officially there were only three Kodakchrome labs in the US - Rochester, Dallas and LA. Why on earth would they have a Kodakchrome lab, when they could use Ektachrome which was and still is much easier, faster and cheaper to process. There are only two possibilites they made all the changes that night or they only made some initial changes, then doctored the film some more and switched all of Life's copies. Life had "the orginal" and a first generation copy and imediately made more copies. That night they would had to have made the doctored Elm St. and removed the limo stop* and made the other changes in the Life frames. They could not know which frames Life would publish nor if unauthorized copies would be made so the basic changed would have to have been in place. *IIRC Dan Rather said the limo didn't stop but I'm not sure PS - I'll be out of town for a few days so I won't beable to respond to White and Healy's replies till Friday

Jack – I agree with you 100 % it doesn't make any sense but that is the implication of two of Costella's analysis. "The Sign Mistake" ( http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/sign.html ) and "The Lamppost Mistake" he points to what he claims are anomalies in these items as they appear in the Z-film. This proves he says that that they were "pasted in". In the second article he claims that the Elm Street seen in the Z-film is not the "real Elm Street" The sign: When you look at Zapruder's film, a large road sign blocks the view of the President when he first gets shot … When scientists removed the pincushion effect from the film, the road sign gave them a surprise: it bent and twisted as it traveled across the bottom of the film! A real sign would not do this. When the pincushion effect is removed, a real sign would just sit there, and line up with the background. … The road sign is another mistake made by the forgers. They pasted a perfectly rectangular sign into the film frames, without realizing that they should have included the pincushion effect. The lamppost: To check that the Elm Street shown in the Zapruder film agrees with the real Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, scientists made use of photographs taken in 2002, as well as photographs taken in the week after the assassination by the Dallas police, together with precise survey maps of the area, to construct a panoramic view from the place from which Zapruder said he took his film. … Overall, the Zapruder film agrees with real Elm Street extremely well. As a whole, the Zapruder film has the correct pincushion distortion and perspective effects. But there are two things that don't match up properly. One is the road sign, which comes out blurry. This is because it was pasted into the film incorrectly, as described on the last page. The other is the lamppost to the right of the sign… … The angle of the lamppost is another small mistake that the forgers made. Frames showing the lamppost were published in Life magazine within days. Once that was done, it was impossible to fix the mistake. Why would Costella insinuate that Elm St. wasn't the "real Elm Street" unless he believed that it wasn't, why would Fetzer put that on his site (and I presume in his book) unless he agreed? Why would the forgers have to paste in features like signs and lampposts if they already were there? It was NOT doctored? - That is in direct contradiction to Costella (see above) can't you guys get your stories straight? This is an obvious cop out from Jack. When he does have a good answer to a question he makes up reasons not to reply.

I've asked some of these questions before but haven't gotten straight answers from any of the contributors to TGZFH so I rephrased them. Others are being asked for the first time. In TGZFH it is alleged the plotters altered the movie in a very complex fashion. They pre-filmed the background on a different street and then doctored it to look like Elm St. in Dealy Plaza. Amazingly this was done so perfectly that after overlaying Z-frames on stills of the plaza John Costella only detected two small anomalies. Everything else lined up. How was it possible to alter a film of another street in 1963 so perfectly that even +42 years later using computer technology that only two small inconsistencies can be found? This begs the question – Why not just film Elm St. on the real Elm St.? The authors not only allege that Zapruder didn't really film the assassination but that no one: not `Mr. Z' nor Marylyn Stizman nor anyone else was on the DP pedestal. The plotters then had to alter all photos and films of the pedestal to show them there and they even faked photos of them near the pedestal after the assassination. – Since according to this theory Z & S were "in on" the plot why not have one of them film it or at least "put them on a (the) pedestal"? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier? What would they have done if someone had photos or films that clearly showed no one there? If the images of the limo weren't filmed from the pedestal where were they filmed from? Shouldn't this have created perspective errors that Costella, who Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the (Zapruder) film" and a `specialist' in optics, and White should have been able to detect? Why film it from one location and say it was filmed from another? What was the point of moving Moorman from the street to the grass? Before handing over the original film and copies to the Secret Service and Life magazine Zapruder showed the unaltered film to several people including Dan Rather and other reporters, family friends and 14 employees of the Dallas Kodak lab. Why would he do this if he were part of the plot to produce an altered film of the assassination? I found this "timeline" for the Z- film. Are these times correct? Note that this comes from the Fetzer friendly Della Rosa site and is based on one of Fetzer's books My question to Healy, White, Fetzer and Costalla is this how did they have time to do it? If it took 1.75 hours to develop Kodakchrome then to have the altered version ready by 3 AM they would have had to have finished the editing and copying by 1:15. So they had only 3 hours 15 minutes (10 PM - 1:15 AM) to get the film from Andrews to the NPIC, review it, make all the changes and make the altered copy. Let's not forget that they would be only able to review their work after developing the copies. If they didn't get everything right the first time the timing gets very complicated. I have done much simpler video editing using far more modern technology and the timing seems hardly realistic. Costella said they "…cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did". Let's not forget that Healy said earlier that these alterations would have taken a few weeks. Of course Healy and White have yet to cite a single example of a movie from the period with such extensive special effects. If it is theorized that move extensive alterations were done later how did the CIA switch all of Life's copies? How could they have been sure no secret copies were made? When I worked in a photo lab we made copies of stuff we found interesting all the time. If Life was "in on it" why did they publish an article calling for the assassination to be reinvestigated? Also as far as I know there is no record of their being a Kodakchrome lab at the NPIC or anywhere else near DC. Is there any evidence there was one. Even today Kodakchrome can only be developed at a handful of Kodak labs and one or two private ones. http://www.jfkresearch.com/z_timetable.htm Zapruder Film Timeline 22 Nov 63 12:30P CST JFK shot; Zapruder films it o Zapruder returns to his office in Dal-Tex Bldg o Zapruder calls Dallas FBI office o Zapruder took his camera to WFAA-TV in the hope that they could process the film (they couldn't) o Zapruder was interviewed on air by Jay Watson o Forrest V. Sorrels, head of Secret Service in Dallas accompanied Zapruder from the interview o Zapruder 's film was taken to Eastman Kodak lab across from Love Field for processing o film was developed using K-14 process o processing took 1.75 hours o Zapruder and Sorrells went to Jamieson Film Co. on Bryant St. in Dallas who made 3 copies (contact prints) of the original film (Shaeffer's opinion that a Bell & Howell model J made the contact prints rather than optical prints. An optical printer omits any photographic scenery in the sprocket hole area; a contact printer does not. However, Bruce Jamieson told author Noel Twyman the copies were made with an optical printer). 4:00P CST o Copies completed. 6:00P CST o Richard Stolley of Life Magazine learned of the Z film from part time Life reporter Patsy Swank who called him from DPD headquarters. o Stolley began calling Zapruder 's residence in 15 minute intervals finally reaching him at 11:00P CST 9:30P EST o The original film and at least 1 copy are flown from Love Field in Dallas to Andrews AFB in Camp Springs Md, 1,307 miles away. 10:00P EST o The films are taken to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Suitland Md, 8 miles from Andrews AFB. o CIA then had the film and re-processed it -- the original was reviewed and at least partially edited o A modified camera having similar characteristics to Zapruder's Bell & Howell camera made a duplicate copy to replace the original. o 3 copies were made using a standard optical printer 23 Nov 63 3:00A EST o Editing and copying completed at NPIC 3:20A EST o Films depart Andrews AFB 6:40A CST o Films arrive @ Love Field in Dallas 7:00A CST o Films arrive at Zapruder's office 8:00A CST o Stolley arrived at Zapruder 's office an hour early; buys certain rights to the Z film for Life Magazine 9:00A CST o Zapruder Film was shown at Zapruder 's office by the Secret Service to a small press corps including Dan Rather of CBS and reps from the Saturday Evening Post and the Associated Press. 10:00A CST o Stolley left Zapruder 's office with the duplicate original and 1 copy and sent them to the R R Donnelly Graphics Co Life lab in Chicago.

And JFK had nothing to do with faking the trips to the moon. LBJ and Nixon were responsible for that. Another case of being ill-informed. Jack you obviously misinterpritated Tim's point. He never said that you accused JFK of involvment in faking of the Apollo missions. Most people do rightly give Kennedy credit for NASA feat of landing man on the Moon with in the decade as he promised. By casting doubt on that you are however unintentionally dimming his star. You should make sure you understand what a person has said BEFORE you reply it. Edited to be less confrontational and off topic.

I'm still waiting for a "yes" or "no" answer from you as to whether Bush lied (see above) it's been a few months. In court if a witness repeatedly refused to answer a question the judge would cite him with contempt and send him to jail. How do you know that there weren't twarted attacks under Clinton or that IF there were any attacks prevented under Bush II that they could not have been prevented without the Patriot Act and extra-judicial eavesdropping? Don't forget that terrorist attacks were few and far between before 9-11 too. It is doubtful that Bush's tactic could have stopped TimothyMcVeigh or EricRobert Rudolph because they weren't on anyones radar screens it is also doubtful that they could have prevented the WTC bombings. I'm not sure why the Bush Administration would keep attacks it had prevented classified when they have done everything they could to build up hysteria over terrorism.Obviously the terrorist groups would know that the attacks had not been carried out. They could publicize the fact that an attack had been prevented witjout revealing their methods. One example of them building up hysteria is the whole "dirty bomb" scare. Few if any scientists believe that the radioactivity of such a weapon would kill anybody. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1135099312 No one died but according to one site there have been at least 6 bomb or arson attacks against abortion clinics since 9-11. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm You have yet to back your theory that we are safer because of Bush's tactics, just saying "of course we are" isn't enough. Also you mustn't forget how much the Bush administration ignored the threat of terrorism before 9-11

Is there anywhere I could see or could some one post side by side photos of all the supposed look a likes in DP that day? Other than the ones on this thread the only ones I've seen are the "hobos". I am inclined to agree with Tim on this one many of the supposed look a likes only looked vaugely like the people they were supposed to be. Considering that there were hundereds of people in the plaza if some looked hard enough they could propably find some one who looks like just about anybody. One problem is that it's hard to say objectively how much a person in one photo resembles another. This is esp. true in the case of the DP photos where image quality is often poor. Where one person sees a "very strong resemblance" another might only see a vauge one. My question is what were these people doing in the plaza if they were part of the conspiracy, did they come just to watch?

You didn't happen to spot LHO or the hobos in it did you?

As a Brit I'm slightly reluctant to get into this but lets be fair Tim, how many American victims of terrorist attacks on US soil were there BEFORE 911. Seems to me that you got hit by a one trick pony, and that some Americans,terrible though this event was, are wildly overeacting to it.If as Bush claims they hate you for your freedom, just imagine what joy the patriot act must have given Bin Laden.FWIT, Steve. Steve, you beat me to it I was going to ask Tim the same question and raised a similar point earlier in this thread, I guess great minds DO think alike!! Tim, I know you were replying to Robert's comment but you indicated before that you believe Bush's policies namely the Patriot Act and extra-judicial eavesdropping are what has protected the US from additional attacks. Do you have any evidence that this is true? Len PS - Tim, I'm still waiting for you to reply to the thread about Bush lying about what he saw on the morning of 9-11-01. Can we take your refusal to reply as a tact admission on your part that it's true? I would've thought you would have jumped at the opportunity to defend your boy Bush. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5209

If indeed Ike and Warren had made such a deal it doesn’t seem so corrupt to me as it does to Jim and Tom. Certainly seats on the Supreme Court shouldn’t be sold in political deals but aren’t such ‘arrangements’ made all the time in politics? Didn’t JFK offer LBJ the VP slot to get his backing? Is it anymore corrupt that JFK’s deal with the Dixiecrats? One could argue there were more qualified candidates than Warren but he was certainly more qualified for the Supreme Court than RFK was for AG. Warren was a practicing lawyer for 28 years including time as state AG before serving as governor, Bobby was only 9 years out of law school. I’m not attacking the Kennedys - I think JFK was one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century and that his brother was an excellent AG and senator and would have made a great president – just making the point that politics isn’t always a clean game. It’s not fair to condemn those you don’t like for certain behavior and give those you admire a free pass for similar conduct. As for whether or not the deal was made – I have yet to see to see any evidence that it was. Jim/Tom can you cite any sources. Despite his dubious role in the investigation of JFK's assassination Warren was in my book the best Cheif Justice this country ever had. I'm not sure Jackson would have been a good choice, as I stated before Brown probibly would not as been far reaching nor a unanimous descision if he had been Cheif Justice.

Jim with all due respect I don’t think it ever was a question of Jackson v. Warren for Chief Justice. Jackson was a New Deal Democrat and I seriously doubt Ike would have considered promoting him even if he hadn’t made a deal with Warren. I’ve never heard of a president nominating some for the Supreme Court or promoting an associate justice for Chief who was closely associated with the opposition party. Even if Ike would have considered elevating one of the 8 Democratic associate justices to chief, I doubt he would have chosen Jackson who was infamously at odds with other justices (esp. Hugo Black). Do you have a source for that version of events? It’s true that Jackson “deserved” the seat more than Warren. Jackson had been an associate justice for 12 years but Warren had no judicial experience. Thankfully however Ike chose Earl Warren it’s hard to imagine Civil Rights and civil liberties would have advanced as much as they did had anyone else been Chief Justice. Brown v. Board of Ed. Probably would have been far less sweeping and not been unanimous if Jackson had been promoted. He was a strict constructionist and was leaning against ending segregated schools. I know to most Kennedy researchers Earl Warren is a villain but as a longtime member of the ACLU he is a bit of a hero. Supposedly after he nominated him, Eisenhower asked Warren regarding the Brown case (paraphrase) ‘You’re going to make the right decision, aren’t you?’, and Warren assured him he would. He did make the right decision and Eisenhower considered nominating Warren “was the biggest damned fool mistake I've ever made in my life." If we still had justices like Warren I doubt Bush would be getting away with the shenanigans that he is. Jim with all due respect I don’t think it ever was a question of Jackson v. Warren for Chief Justice. Jackson was a New Deal Democrat and I seriously doubt Ike would have considered promoting him even if he hadn’t made a deal with Warren. I’ve never heard of a president nominating some for the Supreme Court or promoting an associate justice for Chief who was closely associated with the opposition party. Even if Ike would have considered elevating one of the 8 Democratic associate justices to chief, I doubt he would have chosen Jackson who was infamously at odds with other justices (esp. Hugo Black). Do you have a source for that version of events? It’s true that Jackson “deserved” the seat more than Warren. Jackson had been an associate justice for 12 years but Warren had no judicial experience. Thankfully however Ike chose Earl Warren it’s hard to imagine Civil Rights and civil liberties would have advanced as much as they did had anyone else been Chief Justice. Brown v. Board of Ed. Probably would have been far less sweeping and not been unanimous if Jackson had been promoted. He was a strict constructionist and was leaning against ending segregated schools. I know to most Kennedy researchers Earl Warren is a villain but as a longtime member of the ACLU he is a bit of a hero. Supposedly after he nominated him, Eisenhower asked Warren regarding the Brown case (paraphrase) ‘You’re going to make the right decision, aren’t you?’, and Warren assured him he would. He did make the right decision and Eisenhower considered nominating Warren “was the biggest damned fool mistake I've ever made in my life." If we still had justices like Warren I doubt Bush would be getting away with the shenanigans that he is.

Eisenhower appointed Warren to the seat eight years after FDR's death. I don't know what Truman or Black had to do with that. Regarding the Patriot Act and all of the other programs, known or unknown, being enacted in the supposed interest of security, the issue boils down to how America defines itself. It's not about tactics; it's about national identity. To the degree that America resorts to tyranny to combat terror, it becomes a tyranny itself. T.C. I didn't explain that very well. FDR had promised to Jackson to promote him to Cheif Justice if the seat became vacant during his presidency. The seat only opened up in 1946 with the death of Harlan Stone. Jackson and Black who led opposing factions both expected to get the nod. Truman chose Fred M. Vinson who helpped reduce the feud some what but Jackson believed that Black had conived to deny his promotion. The fight was very public and I doubt either justice would have been a candidate for Cheif Justice even if a Democrat had occupied the White House when Vinson died in 1953.

Are you sure about that, Jim? Jackson was a Democrat. He had been promised the Chief Justice spot by FDR but Truman was President when the seat became vacant. He blamed Hugo Black for being passed over and their very public feud dimmed both their stars.

You brush my points off but don't meaningfully reply. You say the technology and know how to make the alleged alterations existed in 1963 but are unable to cite a single movie from that period to back your claim. You fail to explain why the plotters would have altered the film in such a complicated fashion, Why move Mary Moorman? Why shoot the background on a different street? If the background really was shot on a different street how come your team could only find 2 very small discrepancies? As for Costella's lamppost fallacy I can't specify the difference in the angle of view because I don't have the data. Costella doesn't specify what the difference is between the angle of the post in the 2 images is so maybe you should e-mail him and ask him to be more specific. Are you disputing that the apparent angle of the lamppost would not different for people at opposite ends of the pedestal? Why is the angle of the post in my photos not the same? As for the supposed lack of pincushion distortion in the highway sign, what program did Costella use? Was it one of his own design or one that is commercially available?

Mark, I haven't read Fetzer's JFK books but I did read the section of his site that summarizes the main arguments of TGZFH and followed the argument on this forum and elsewhere on the web. I have only sought to debunk points spelled in these sources. I don't believe the time, technology or know how existed back in '63 to do to the Z-film what they allege. I asked them to cite a movie with similar compositing and the best they can come up with is Mary Poppins! The compositing in that Disney classic is far less sophisticated that what is spelled out in TGZFH. Another point I wish to debunk is Costella’s spurious "lamp post mistake" argument. The good doctor simply failed to take a basic fact of nature in to account. All that you or any one else has to do to confirm this is to look at lamppost or telephone pole paying attention to the apparent angle to the curb and then change your angle of view. There all manner of logical holes in their theories and when I ask about them the can’t provide any logical explainations As for attacks on character Fetzer and Healy insulted me, why should I pay them more respect than they pay me? When Healy called me an idiot etc you were silent Costella, White and Fetzer have long histories of purporting all manners of nonsense. I know Healy, White and Fetzer from arguing with them and reading there writings and don't believe them to be credible. I think they believe what they say, but I don't believe what they say.They are able to distort the truth in their own minds to suit their theories.

You believe he is on record? You believe as in you're not sure? You believe he is on record, saying exactly what? I provided 2 possible explainations for the diffference in the angle of the post. You have yet to refute them Did Costella address those issues at the symposium? Since were there, taped it and have a copy of the DVD perhaps you could summerize his arguments. stange that he doesn't metion it on the TGZFH section of Fetzer's site. The last time I studied physics was in high school, I have a BA in history. This isn't really rocket science it is something that anyone can observe without leaving their home. I don't claim to be a photo analyst, just like like Fetzer, Costella, White and you I have no training in the feild. Instead of huffing ang puffing and blowing smoke tell us why the slight difference in the percieved angle of the post can not be explained by the different angles of view of the Z- frame and the DPD photo and prove to us that Costela's alinement is 100% accurate. This I imagine WILL be a very long wait. Speaking of long waits I'm still waiting for you to cite a single movie made before 1964 with compositing as complicated and undetectable as what you claim was done to the Z-film. No book or magazine citations actual movies. Might your refusal to name one be because thare aren't any? LOL

Dave if this is so ludicrous you should easily be able to debunk it. The principle is the same, it doesn't matter if the images were taken in DP, Brazil or Timbuktu. That the difference in position between Zapruder and the DPD photographer was big enough that the two images of the post were far apart in Costella's panorama it is certainly enough to account for the very small difference in angle. Also the difference could be explained if your school teacher friend even very slightly misaligned the photos in his composite panorama, only the top half of the post is visible in the Z frame. See if you can post a high resolution copy of the panorama here or elsewhere on the web, the copy on Fetzer's sight is of too low resolution to verify if the alignment between the various images is 100 % accurate. I just looked at the panorama again and noticed that the sign posts show a near identical difference of angle, doesn't that suggest something to you? You want to debunk me? Send one of your boys to DP, have them place a portable flag pole or something similar as close as possible to where the post was and the take pixs of it from the positions Zapruder and the DPD photographer were in. Then overlay the images and see if you can get both the curb and the pole to line up! For all of Costella's talk about this and that violating the laws of physics and being the top technical expert of the Zapruder film and having a specialization in optics, he failed to take into account a basic principle, that when you change your angle of view the apparent angle between objects can also change. How ironic that you told me to "find a REAL photo analyst" that's what Fetzer should have done! Don't try to make this a SBT v. conspiracy issue, most JFK researchers including participants of this forum reject both the SBT and TGZFH. Are you so desperate that you have to resort to 'straw man' arguments? Len PS - You're butt naked put some clothes on!

Jim Fetzer claimed that John Costella was "the leading technical expert on the (Zapruder) film" (1) and had "a specialty in optics" (2). This despite the fact that it's hard to argue that Costella is the leading expert on anything, he is a grammar school teacher and has never had a scientific article published in a peer review journal. He did publish three articles about TEACHING physics in a science education magazine and early version of his dissertation appeared in an obscure online journal. He doesn't have any experience or training in photography or optics on his CV other that a few unpublished papers (3). He has a Ph.D. but it is in theoretical physics a totally unrelated field. Some one with a BFA in basket weaving would be just as qualified to analyze the Z-film. According to Costella a slight difference in the angle of a lamppost in relation to the curb when comparing a Z-film frame to a Dallas Police photo is proof of adulteration. He wrote "…the angle of the lamppost is wrong… the lamppost changes its angle… The Zapruder film shows the lamppost leaning slightly to the right. Even though it is only a small lean, it is something that could not happen if the film was genuine." (4) The difference in the lamppost's angle is so slight it's only noticeable when a line is drawn through it. What the Z-film's "leading technical expert" failed to realize is that the very slight difference in the apparent angle of the lamppost between the two images can easily be explained by the fact that they were taken from different locations. Surprisingly he admits that the images were taken from different locations but says that this wouldn't affect the post's angle, "It does not matter that the Zapruder film lamppost is slightly to the left of the Dallas Police Department photo. That is explained by the police taking the photo from a slightly different position to Abraham Zapruder."(5) The photos below are of the base of the same lamppost in front of my house. My front yard is a couple of feet above street level like the DP pedestal. By slightly changing my position I was able to radically change the apparent angle between the post and curb. True the post was much closer to me than the Elm street post was to the pedestal but my change in position was less that what would have possible on the pedestal and the difference in angles is many fold greater. One doesn't even need a camera to verify this only to observe the difference in apparent angles between any horizontal and vertical object when changing your position. That Costella could make such a huge blunder makes all his other analysis suspect. That Jack White didn't catch it makes his claim of being an expert photo analyst just as suspect. So much for Fetzer and his brain trust, it is amusing how they exaggerate each other's qualifications. I think of them as half a dozen naked self declared emperors admiring each other's clothing. 1) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2356 2) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/641 3) http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...sics/index.html (4) http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html (5) ibid

I went away for New Year's weekend and took a break from participating in the forum. I was going to make a point for point reply to Jack but at this point think that would be silly. However his last reply to me was so spurious it can not go unreplied to. First of all I never claimed to be a JFK researcher. I think of myself as a debunker of nonsense and it is very self serving of Jack to state that "all real JFK researchers have read" a book to which he is a contributor. I doubt ALL real researchers have read it from what I gather most serious JFK researchers dismiss all of Fetzer's books as junk so they are not exactly first on my reading list. I am sure Fetzer, White and Healy would use circular logic and say anyone who hasn't read their books isn't a "real researcher" by definition. As I suspected and as has now been confirmed the claim that 59 witnesses said they saw JFK's limo stop was false and fits with their pattern of spinning the truth to fit their arguments. One must also ask how many witnesses were interviewed and never said the limo stopped or slowed down. One can also surmise that the witnesses who said the limo speed up didn't think it had stopped or they would have said so. Of course there are numerous witnesses who never said it stopped which would be odd if it really had. Jack used a very low quality blurry frame from Wiegman to support his claim no one was on the pedestal. Low and behold when some cane up with a higher resolution frame two blobs that might well be Zapruder and Stitzman are visible. In similar fashion IIRC he once claimed that a photo of a lunar rover didn't have any track marks but in a higher resolution copy of the same image the tracks are clearly visible. Jack's double standard is amusing he objects that they (S and Z in the Wiegman frame) are just blobs but then go on to post another frame from Wiegman in which he claims to be able to identify blobs as Jackie and Clint Hill etc. Since Z and S would have been backlit before a dark background it not surprising they would be barely if at all visible in a blurry image. We wouldn't expect them to be anything but small dark blobs anyway. White's excuse for using such low quality frames, that they were the best he had available, is hard to believe since the higher quality frames were produced by his friend and co-author John Costella. Funny that what lots of people say about you Jack http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1122504964 http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...22jack+white%22 Also Costella's lamppost can easily shown to be false as I will demonstrate in my next post. If you are such an expert photo analyst how come you didn't spot it? Do you have a citation for this? From what I've read he said that was the first installment and gave the money to Tippet's widow which was the case. In any event lying about how much money you receive is a far cry from being part of a plot to kill the POTUS and give a totally fabricated version of where you were and what you did at the time, do you have indications that Sitzman or Ms. Rodgers were dishonest? Many cameras? - Do you have any evidence to support this claim? -The Z-film certainly appears to have been filmed from the pedestal -Being able to explain how the 'fabricated' film was made is a critical part of you theory. Your crew has yet to establish that such technology existed back then That didn't answer my question

They are allowed in very limited situations, there is the famous ticking bomb exception, evidence that was in plain sight when police were legally in a location can be seized and IIRC an unobtrusive search of a car can be made with reasonable cause such as when something illegal is in plain sight or make a more through search if they have ‘probable cause’ in the latter case only material related to the ‘probable cause can be taken. If you can think of an exception which is more applicable please cite it. Irrelevant we are talking about the Federal government four decades after Mapp The exclusionary rule isn’t really applicable here because use of the info picked up from the eavesdropping is not being used as evidence. It’s not really accurate to say it’s not found in the Constitution. The justices decided that it was based on the fourth and fourteenth amendments. One could argue likewise that illegality of “separate but equal” public facilities “is not found within the constitution” I know that many conservatives want to overturn decisions of the Warren Court but I’m surprised you object to a unanimous ruling that is almost 100 years old. I imagine only a small percentage even of Republican appointed judges would agree with you, esp. since there is a good faith exception. Weeks v. US was not “bad law” the best way to discourage police from making illegal searches is to prohibit them using the evidence they gathered. I imagine that even you would agree that Mrs. Mapp’s * rights were violated. Would the police have forced their way into her house if they knew they couldn’t use any evidence they might find? To a certain degree I agree with you that authorities should be give latitude when investigating terrorism but they already have that under FISA. If I was confident that Bush would only use warrentless wiretaps against people with ‘known connections’ to terrorism I wouldn’t find his actions so disturbing but following his administrations logic they can ignore the fourth amendment when ever they deem it necessary. As for Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus that was specifically permited in the Constitution but only in cases of “rebellion or invasion”. * http://www.landmarkcases.org/mapp/background3.html&e=9797

If they were carrying dynamite, detonators, etc. as reported, that would certainly indicate they were there to bomb the place. If they were there as consultants just to show this stuff to somebody, who were they going to show it to? Wouldn't that be relevant info in determining why they were there? They were presumably going to talk to someone in the congress. How do you know that this wasn’t reported in the Mexican press or the newswire accounts summarized by Mr. . His article is no longer on his website but you could try getting in contact with him. It’s a common practice for security services to take photos of demonstrators and of installations they are hired to protect. In any case it simply doesn’t make sense for agents carrying out a black op. to draw attention to themselves in this way esp. if they were from the Mossad which is known as one of the most efficient intelligence services in the world. Perhaps they didn't intend to get caught. Most criminals intend to get away. Perhaps they also knew that if caught, they were safe, as it turned out they were. It turned out they were safe probably because they had a legitimate reason for being there. From all I’ve read it’s SOP for covert agents to assume false identities. It doesn't fit the consultant scenario because we don't know who they were supposedly consulting. As I pointed out you don’t know that this wasn’t reported in the Mexican press. Also who ever was involved might not have wanted their name in the media, if Mexico is anything like Brazil government officials would not want to admit using a foreign security company. IIRC it was never proven that they had explosives, only guns and communications equipment etc. Their being dressed like Arabs makes sense if they were working undercover. Mexico City of course is a very different place than Basra and I can think of no logical reason for them to be carrying handguns and carry machine guns for a bombing mission. Planting explosives in public building full of people with out being detected would be difficult. Sneaking in at night or using car bomb, mortar or missile would be much easier Why not? The U.S. government was apparently complicit in the slaughter of some 3,000 U.S. citizens on 9/11, and no one in the government has even been arrested for it. What could the Mexicans possibly do to top that? There is no evidence that 9-11 was an inside job. If you want I will debate that with you on a separate thread. Not even Naom Chomsky believes that. But even if I accepted it was an inside job the situations are not analogous, even today only a small number of people believe that Bush was involved so there is no clamor for him or anyone else to be punished. The situation in Mexico was very different, the arrest of the two Israelis with explosives and a detonator was widely reported, if there wasn’t a convincing explanation for their presence what would have kept opposition politicians, esp. deputies who would have been intended victims, from raising a fuss and asking questions? Also unanswered is what Israel would gain by bombing the Mexican Congress and blaming it on Al-Qaeda or what that terrorist group’s supposed motive would have been. According to you pro-Nazi sources Mexico was an important part of the "War on Terror" coalition but that isn't true.

Tim you might want to share that thought with your heros in the Bush Admin. who are leaving record defecits for the next generation!!

If you're going to play ther blame game let's not forget that Bush Jr. paid just about zero attention to terrorism from when he took office until 9 AM 9-11-01 and ended all pretense of being neutral in the Middle East. Bush apologists like to point out he had been in office for only 9 months but it its hard to deny that his policies made an attack like that more not less likely. Are you arguing that Ike was to blame for the BOP?

The problem Tim is that the Bush administration evesdreopped without any judicial review a violation of the FISA law. Bush claims that a law passed a few days after 9/11 overrode that prevision but most legal experts and many congressmen and senators disagree. According to Kerry Bush asked for permission for warrentless evesdropping but even in the aftermath of America's worst terrorist attack was rebuffed. The administration even kept the legal board that normally reviews such descisions "out of the loop". Bush's actions have been questioned by Rebublican legislators and by members of his own administration. Let's not forget that under FISA the NSA can apply for warrants 72 hours after begining wiretaps and the court has only said no 3 - 5 times (accounts vary) out of about 18,000 applications. The NSA complains that FISA warrants are too complicated but they also have the option of apply for warrants using the regular court system which is less burreucratic. You can spin the terrorist attack thing various ways. It is also true that never had any country been the victim of such a devistating terrorist attack nor had the US ever been subject to a foriegn terrorist attack with more that a handful of causulties before W became president. IIRC it was also the first time a foriegn terrorist group that taken control of planes in the US in nearly 30 years

So what do you think Steve does this prove to you that the limo stopped and thus that the films that don't show this were altered? Strange if the S/S was "in on it" that they would say the limo stopped or slowed down. If there were several markmen shooting at a slow moving target stopping the limo would have been totally unneciessary. Also IIRC most of the people who said it stopped were a good distance away and as you indicate there are inconsistancies in their accounts.