Len Colby

Rense.com and websites like it are sources for stories that the corporate media will not cover. In this respect, whether Rense or others are Holocaust deniers or serial child molesters or whatever is irrelevant to what information they are able to provide. You have to go where you have to go to get information, and decide then how truthful or reliable it appears to be. I blame this situation on the corporate media and not on the Renses of the world. You say that "openly anti-Semitic" Carreon wrote the account, which is false. It was written by Ernesto Cienfuegos. Maybe he hates Jews too, I have no idea, but that doesn't change the fact is that two Israelis were arrested in the Mexican Congress. Should Cienfuegos have disqualified himself from writing about it, citing his anti-Semitic bias? But the 'spin' that they were on a bombing mission came from them not the Mexican newspapers whose articles did not indicate this. I did err in attributing the Rense story to Carreon but Cienfuegos works for his "La Voz del Altazan" website so I imagine he shares his boss' views. I don't know if being anti-Semitic should disqualify him from writing a factual account of the story but it does make his conclusions suspect. Imagine a black man is arrested on the campus of a predominantly white women's college for carring a gun. Wouldn't a story claiming he was there to rape would be suspect if it were published in a paper run by a Klansman? The only basis for your conclusion that they were their to bomb came from suspect sources. Also there are many alternative news sites not run by racists. I don't know if the story is unsolved, if Layne accurately quoted the wire reports and they were truthful the episode has been explained. It's probable that this story got wider coverage in Mexico. There is no indication the men were there to bomb the congress and their behavior seems to indicate otherwise. Why would Mossad agents on bombing mission draw attention to themselves by taking photos of the sugar workers? Why would they be carrying IDs with their real names? Why would they be carrying not very well concealed guns? Why would they be on the grounds of the Congress when it was full of people? This better fits the security consultant scenario than the bomber one. As for why the prosecutors press release was so brief I have no idea maybe that's the way whoever is in charge prefers it. Press releases are frequently short on detail. It could be they wanted to down play the story because government allies were contracting the services of a foreign security company something that would probably upset nationalist tendencies in Mexico (this would definitely not go over well in Brazil). They also might not have thought it necessary to repeat details that were widely reported in the press. I don't know if you need a permit to carry dynamite in Mexico. Narco News is a lefty anti-establishment site endorsed by Gary Webb and Cynthia McKinney. They were one of the first sites in the US to cover the story in fact they were the ones who translated the Mexican news articles cited by Rense, they denounced Posada as a terrorist and CIA operative. They don't seem like a likely source of pro-Bush or Israeli spin, they wouldn't have reported the story in the first place if they were. Obviously they would have released them at the urging of the U.S. and Israeli governments. By analogy, do you believe that the Bush regime had nothing to do with the pardons by the Panamanian government for Posada Carriles and other Cuban terrorist darlings of the U.S. government (all of whom except Posada arrived in Miami just in time for a Bush campaign rally)? The Posada case was hardly analogous. He and the others were accused of trying to kill Castro not blow up the Panamanian congress building. The Panamanian president was no fan of Castro so it wouldn't take much to convince her to let them go. I don't even know how strong the case was. I can't believe that if it appeared these men were going to bomb the congress they would have been let go. Even if the Fox Government could have been pressured to relese them the opposition parties would have raised a stink. Nor do I believe it would have been tenable for Fox to simply let them go

Jack Do you have a list of these 59 witnesses and their statements? How close where they to the limo? How many witnesses said the limo didn't stop? Who took these witnesses' statements? Your Wiegman frames are too unclear to say definitively if anyone is the pedeastal or not. Althought the base is in sunlight the top is in shade. Zapruder and Stizman were wearing reletively dark clothing and the background was dark. Also the pedestal area is is out of focus and blurred, Wiegman was filming from a moving car. Zapruder and his assistant would have been quite small in the image - note the size of the small blob onthe steps in front of the pedestal. That is obviously a person and any image of people on the pedestal would be similar in size. If that blob were in the shade it would be even darker and thus would be invisible against the dark background atop the pedestal. You admit that your images of the Wiegman film are poor quality. I agree, they are of too poor quality to make the kind of analysis to trying to do. Before offering them as proof you should have tried tracking down better quality copies. You have yet to give a ration explaination for why Zapruder and Stizman wouldn't have filmed from where they said they did. Who then do think filmed the Z-film and where were they? If Stizman and Zapruder were part of the plot why not have one of them film it? What was to be gained by filming from one location and saying it was filmed from another?

Ron both Rense and FPP are anti-Semitic Holocaust denial sites. Hectoe Carreon who wrote the account in Rense is also openly anti-Semitic often writing about the evil doing of the "nefarious Jews". Do you consider these to be reliable news sources? Nothing in the Diario de Mexico front page indicated that they were on a bombing mission. It appears they were working for a security company. The scenario doesn't fit a terrorist attack. They went into a heavily secured compound when it was full of people during the day, they drew attention to themselves by taking photos of the sugar workers, they were handguns on their persons, they had id with their real names etc. One also has to ask why the Mexicans would have released the two so quickly if they though there was any possibility that the men were going to bomb the congress?

The article seemed as balanced as we can expect from mainstream media. I'm sure Republicans would complain that it was an example of "liberal media bias". The theme of the article is that things aren't as rosy as Bush would have us believe WASHINGTON (Reuters) - By most accounts, it was a tough year for President George W. Bush, marked by a drop in public support for the Iraq war, legislative setbacks on Social Security and arctic oil drilling and a politically disastrous initial response to Hurricane Katrina. But according to a White House fact sheet, 2005 was a year full of "accomplishments" -- six, single-spaced pages worth distributed to reporters as Bush left town for his holiday break. The White House list of accomplishments included elections in Iraq, Senate confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court and the first national energy plan in more than a decade. Bush is "advancing his agenda" and passing "legislation important to the American people," the fact sheet declares. "This has been a year of strong progress toward a freer, more peaceful world and a prosperous America," said Bush, whose approval ratings have improved somewhat in recent days after touching all-time lows in 2005. Under the headline "The president nominated well-qualified candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court," Bush made no mention of his failed nomination of Harriet Miers, who withdrew under fierce attack from conservatives. Under the headline "The president is acting to help the Gulf Coast recover from natural disaster," Bush touted more than $70 billion in hurricane-related assistance. Left out was any mention of the slow and bundled federal response to Katrina, which angered many Americans and which Bush himself called appalling.

More recent articles cite four warrents that FISA courts turned down. I assume the other three were turned after 9/11. The 7300 number sounds very high to me that would come out to about 3 warrants a day pre- 9/11. Do you have a link to the article?

The two men are often confused. William Frank Buckley was born in Texas on 24th November, 1925. He joined the CIA in 1951 and like his namesake did serve in Mexico. However, he officially left the CIA in 1952. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuckleyW.htm Three sources I looked at listed Buckley's birthplace as New York. I thought I read somewhere that he rejoined the CIA in the 60s but don't remember where.

John, Was he related to the other William F. Buckley? Coincidentally the columnist was also born in the 20s in a "Blue state" became a 2nd Lieutenant in the 40's, and worked with the CIA in Mexico in the 60's..

Ron the only problem with your PIS theory is that it didn't exit anyones ass LOL Isn't it heartening that Alberto Gonzales the same guy who rationalized the legality of torture backs Bush on unauthorized surveillance. I've heard talk Bush is considering this guy for the Supreme Court I missed that Robert, do you have a link?

Dave what do you hope to accomplish by harping on points that are not being contended? Doing so makes you look like an idiot. I never denied that compositing and optical printers pre-dated the Kennedy assassination. I'm truly puzzled as why you want to keep "proving" that and then imagine you'd scored some big victory. I don't care if da Vinci had drawn a prototype optical printer in one of his notebooks or if compositing was used in 'Birth of a Nation'. For the umpteenth time the question is not could they do compositing back then but rather 1) could it have been done in a way that doesn't look obviously faked like most compositing does? 2) Could compositing as complex as what Costella claims was done possible then? 3) Could it have been done undetectably? Zavada among others have closely examined the film and said compositing would have left "tell tale" signs. You will of course say all of this was possible back then. You say we should believe you because you have decades of experience with video and filmmaking and specialize in post-production. You are Fetzer and Company's resident compositing expert. However when asked if you have any experience in compositing you say your experience is irrelevant and tell us to look up a book and some magazines which are not widely available. When asked if there were any movies made at the time of or before the assassination that would meet the 3 criteria cited above you say there were many but when asked to name one you instead tell us to read that book and those magazines again. Get real – put up or shut up!! Tell us prey tell the title of one movie that meets all three criteria above (or at least 1 and 2). If you can't at least be a man about it and admit you don't know of any such movies. It's also interesting to see you've gone back to your habit of only replying to 1 or 2 points in my post and not responding to most, I guess they left you stumped!! One of the questions you avoid giving us a straight answer to is when the original alterations and switch were done. As to Bernice's post, there were 2 different references to the Nix film neither of which proves very much. The first was an excerpt from Livingstone. He seems to presume that the other films weren't altered argues that there are discrepancies between the Zapruder and Nix films which prove that the Z-film was altered. This is in contradiction to your argument that both films were altered to match each other. " The Zapruder film shows events not present in other films… The Nix film shows him (SSA - Clint Hill) with his arms around her (Jackie) placing her in the back seat... We do not see Hill put his arms around Mrs. Kennedy in the Zapruder film, but instead see him only reach towards her outstretched hand...One might conclude the (Zapruder) film was altered before Hill testified in 1964… the (other) films show entirely different scenes." I've only seen low resolution copies of the Nix film but Clint Hill's movements look the same in both films to me. If you think there is something to this, post links to high resolution copies of that segment of both films. I also think it's odd that if so many discrepancies exist only Livingstone would have noticed. The other was an indirect quote from Orville Nix as interviewed by Mark Lane. With out knowing the history, seeing the tape or at least having a direct quote it hard to judge: "(Nix) relates that when he received his film back from the authorities, they had damaged and ruined some of the frames within, and others were missing...a frame here and there also...it was not the same as he had given to them…" IIRC UPI had possession of the Nix film before the Feds got their hands on it and copies were made. Are there differences between the various copies? Do they all show Zapruder and Stizman on the pedestal? Other than damaged and missing frames what other changes did he believe were made? How many times did he see his film before handing over a copy to the government? How much time went by between when last saw it before giving it to the Feds and when he got it back?

To be fair to the folks at the NYT they were in a difficult situation. If they ran the story a year ago and there had been another terrorist attack Bush and Rove could have blamed it on the Times, even now Bush and his folks are condemning the revelations saying they threaten Nat. Security etc and may blame future attacks on the paper. There are legitimate reasons for a paper to sit on a story if its publication would threaten a on going criminal investigation or “national security” etc. I think the editors/publishers should be given credit for making a tough decision. I don’t see any evidence that they held the story back until Bush was safely elected. The Times backed Kerry and ran several editorials critical of the President and his policies, in May 2004 they admitted they were wrong in giving credence to reports that Iraq had WMDs, was all that just a ruse? Also the article was first published more than a year after the election, was the story ready for publication before Election Day 2004? Even if it was and the Times published the story shortly before the election the timing would have been questioned - Rove and his crew would accuse them of trying to bolster Kerry. We can not also forget the climate at the time: - Since 9-11 many Americans decided that they were willing to trade off civil liberties (esp those of Arabs) for increased security -The Bush’s wartime service debacle for Dan Rather on 60 Minutes happened in October. I believe Rather was set up. The Times would have to be worried about Bush’s power to “get” those who opposed his policies. - The Jayson Blair scandal which battered the paper’s reputation and self-confidence was just over a year old. Its top editors had been fired, their replacements were fairly new too the job. Frankly I don’t think it would have made much of a difference even if the story was published before the election, it is just my impression from here in Brazil or did this story only disturb people who would have voted against Bush anyway? Whether or not Bush had culpability in or foreknowledge of 9-11 he successfully exploited it to create “a climate of fear” to which freedoms such as privacy, free speech and free press have become victims. I fear they will never leave office. As for the Dems, they have no chance in 2008 or any other time unless they find the gonads to do something about electronic voting fraud, which the Repubs are in the position to control. Even Jeb Bush has now admitted that there may be something wrong with the electronic voting machines, now that the successful hacking of Diebold machines was recently demonstrated in Leon County, Florida. Will anything come of it? I doubt that this hacking demonstration, and Jeb's feigned concern, has even been reported in the corporate media. I'm woried about that too Ron, Rove has now got people beliving that exit polls have a Democratic bias! James McCord and his door-taping expertise I missed that reference care to elaborate?.

I'm still waiting for your reply Jack.

Paul - Do you believe in the UFO/ tin-foil hat/ organize militias parts of that ?

Wasn't the Muchmore film shown on TV before the gov't got its hands on it? It makes sense that the gov't would want to get a hold of all evidence from DP no matter what your think happened that day. I've heard this before what evidence is there that it's so? I'm still waiting for evidence a dragnet. I already mentioned those notices in a previous post. They hardly constitute a dragnet, they in no way compelled people to turn over there photos and films. Just one photo or film could have blown the whole ruse. And what about people from out of town, they wouldn't have gotten these notices. Are you sure they went to every developing joint in and near Dallas? But no one said anything? Please show us images of these photographers. Isn't it just possible that their photos showed nothing of interest. Even if it's true how does this back your theory that the Zapruder and Nix films were altered? Can you back this claim? What did believe had been done to his film? Jack according to your theory Zapruder was part of the conspiracy. Why would he say this if he was? Please provide a citation. I though he testified at the Shaw trial that the film was the one he shot. As Pat explained he could have made a mistake, if Zapruder were part of the plot why would have allowed Rather and other journalists to see 'his' film? It would have made more sense for him to simply turn it over to the FBI or Secret Service. Instead he did the opposite he sought out the media. Rather could simply have been mistaken. Witnesses having false memories is well documented. Again why would Zapruder have let rather see the film if he was part of the conspiracy? It doesn't make any sense - show a movie to a journalist before altering it. Why would they have cut the limo turn if the film had already been seen by so many people? I'd like to see a citation for this claim. Even if true it was probably a case of mistaken atribution. If the conspirators wanted to fake a photo why atribute it to a known photographer who wasn't in on the plot. There was another photo of 'Mr. Z' and Stizman near the pedestal. Any evidence that eithe rof those were faked?

Jack, You got any evidence to back this assertion? What about the Muchmore film was that altered too?

Not to harp on a point but if you have his phone number or e-mail I still think it would be interesting if you shared your Apollo theories with him and got his opinion.

The Bush administration had a 'kangaroo court' at it disposal to issue warrents for wire tapping. The FISA court turned down less than 4 out of over 1000 requests. So Bush's skirting of that minimal judicial oversight is indefesable which is why even Repulicans are criticizing it. The idea that al-Queda learned anything from these revelations is preposterous, I'm sure that anybody tied to that or any other terrorist group or criminal organisation would always aleast suspect that his phone was being tapped. Bush was furious because the American public found out. That being said comparisons of the current situation to Nazi Germany are highly exagerated. Ron I'm currious about your claim that the CIA is trying to drive Bush and Chenny from power. What's their motive seems to me like these clowns are are the CIA's wet dream administration. Do you think they will resign or be reomoved from office? Wouldn't that increase the Democrats chances in 2006 an 2008? What evidence is there that the CIA was behind Nixon's downfall? Did they expect Agnew or Ford to reverse his China policy? What evidence is there that the NYT sat on the illegal wiretapping story for a year?

Zavada wasn't specific. Since you claim to be in touch with him why don't you ask him to elaborate? "The author wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced technology and film resources were able: to create a "Kodachrome original" that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination and evaluation by multiple researchers." http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf Dave your link lead to a nice little history lesson, just what is it supposed to prove? No one disputes that optical printers existed for a long time. So the Army got some in WWII. So just when exactly are YOU going to get around to citing a single movie made around the time of or before the assassination that utilized such extensive compositing and doesn't look obviously faked? And since you seem to be implying that the Army's printers were used maybe even a movie made in 1942 or earlier. Dave now that I've got you dancing on the end of my string again why don't you reply to my last post on the other thread? The theories purported by White and Healy are getting more far fetched by the minute. So now we are to believe that not only was the Z-film not shot by Zapruder but it wasn't shot from the pedestal! If we are to believe Costella the forgers had to shoot actual footage of the limo and it occupants, so even if they pre-filmed the "Elm St." background someone somewhere had to be filming the motorcade at the moment of the assassination. So where exactly was it shot from? It appears to have been shot from the pedestal. Why would the conspirators have gone through such an apparently unnecessary complication? If Zapruder and Stizman weren't on the pedestal they were part of the conspiracy, why not have one of them film it? If Zapruder didn't film it his secretary Lillian Rodgers was in on it too. Obviously whoever the conspirators were they would want to involve as few people as possible. Even if Zapruder were part of the conspiracy why bring these women in on it too? That's two more people they would have to worry might someday go public or tell a loved one who might go public. A few more questions present themselves: -What was the point of having someone else film the assassination from somewhere else and then have Zapruder claim he had filmed it on the pedestal? -Jack keeps referring to a 'dragnet' for photos. What evidence does he have that such a dragnet existed? The story I heard is that the FBI simply visited photo stores and other places where people could get developing done and asked the employees to attach notices asking people to turn over copies of any photos or movies they might have taken of the assassination. -What would they have done if a photo turned up that clearly showed the pedestal without Zapruder on it? They could not have been sure they would be able to lay their hands on all images of Dealy Plaza, what about Poloaroids, what about people from out of town who might have developed their movies and photos elsewhere? -Do the alterationists dispute that Zapruder was in the vicinity of the pedestal at the time of the assassination? If so how do they explain the 2 photos of him? Are they fakes too? Where the photographers also part of the conspiracy? -Do they dispute that the camera used was Zapruder's? -Was the reel of film he brought to the Kodak lab already altered? IIRC he called reporters to his office shortly after the assassination and they accompanied him to a local TV station and then to Kodak. How did they have time to make the forgery? As for Jack's photo evidence it's worthless. As Craig pointed out Poloroid film is very low resolution and 'badgeman' looks more like a blob then anything else. There are numerous other reasons why part of the photo could be more out of focus than others, Poloroid lenses weren't exactly Zeisses. As for the film frame it's too unclear to identify anything on the pedestal. Jack try attaching a higher resolution unaltered frame of the Wiegman film along with a clip proving that it wasn't from after the assassination

Photos like this one are like Rorschach tests for assassination buffs, they see in them reveals more about them than the assassination. Beyond the timing question it also seems doubtful a pro would have been so out in the open.

That wouldn't have worked. The Z-film was projected in the Dallas Kodak lab immediatelly after it was developed and was seen by Zapruder, 14 lab employees and IIRC a few reporters. Zapruder went from Kodak directly to Jamison where 3 copies were made. Zapruder showed the film again early the next morning to reporters and Secret Service and IIRC FBI agents before turning over the original to Life.

Don't forget that the name calling has emanated entirely calling from one party in this debate. I have resisted replying in kind. In my experience people resort to name calling in a debate because their argument is weak. I hope you don't think I've been guilt of "point scoring". I think there are certain issues that need to be addressed, including your second question – for which IMO have yet to be adequately addressed by the "alterationists" I admit that I'm not well versed in the details of this debate but I've never heard any evidence that he didn't take it. IIRC there is a photo of 2 people filming from the pedestal who look like Zapruder and his assistant Marilyn Sitzman but it's not clear enough to be sure that it's them. He was photographed by two people, Art Rickerby and Associated Press photographer James Altgens close to the pedestal soon after the assassination. If he didn't film it he must have been a very good actor. Zapruder was described as being extremely shaken and upset by several reporters. Also he was described as a great admirer of JFK did he fake such admiration in anticipation of the assassination to establish a cover story? There is no doubt that the camera which bought back in 1962 was his and footage of his family and Stizman appear on the reel before the assassination footage. He didn't have it with him that morning and only went home and got it because he was urged to by his secretary Lillian Rodgers. Are we to suppose that Zapruder, Stizman, Rodgers, Rickerby and Altgens were all part of the conspiracy? Some people have speculated that Zapruder was an intelligence asset without a single shred of evidence. Much has been made of the fact that his ex-business partner married the infamous George De Mohrenschildt, who also knew LHO and Jackie (maybe she was in on it too!). Such speculation is undermined by the fact Zapruder said in a TV interview a few hours after the assassination and before the WC that the sounds of the shots came from behind him. The Grassy Knoll not the TSBD was behind him. If he was part of the plot why would he stay something that undermined the official story? All indications are that Zapruder was nothing more than what he claimed to be, a simple businessman and fan of JFK who filmed the assassination with the camera he bought to capture memories of his grandchildren. This is significant because if we are to believe Zapruder he knew of the whereabouts of the original and copies from the time of the assassination until he turned them over to the Secret Service that night and Life early the next morning. This poses another important question that Healy has yet to give a straight answer too, how did the forgers get ahold of the original have time to alter it and make the switch? Healy and White etc. of course insist that it did. But when asked for contemporary examples of movies using such technology they give unsatisfactory answers. Jack cited Mary Poppins and Healy a book and some magazines. I saw Mary Poppins last night with my kids and they loved it and I enjoyed it again after all these years. It's a good movie but to modern eyes the special effects look obviously faked so it fails on another question, could the alterations have been made undetectably? Also the effects in Mary Poppins weren't nearly as extensive as what the alterationists claim was done to the Z-film. Costella claims: …They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street. Some changes could be made. They could 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. There was nothing like that in the movie I saw last night! When asked to name movies from the period which used such technology instead of citing movies Healy told us we should read a book called, The Art of Special Effects Cinematography and unspecified issues of the Journal of the SMPE/SMPTE which he claimed could be found in any good library. As I pointed out in my last post on the other thread this book is not part of the New York Public Library's collection nor are the journals. He gave the wrong title for the book which is The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, and the NYPL does have one non-circulating copy. The Chicago Public Library however doesn't have the book so they are not as widely available as he would lead us to believe. If movies from that period do indeed exist what can't Healy just cite some titles? Roland Zavada one of the World's leading film experts and the inventor of the Kodakcrome II film that Zapruder used didn't think the technology existed nor did Oliver Stone (according to Gary Mack) nor the movie director Pat consulted. Who is the alterationists' expert who contends the technology existed? - David Healy - Much is made of his decades of experience in video and film esp. in post-production. Does Healy have any experience with doing the kind of work he claims could have so easily been done back in 1963? The kind he thinks would have taken a few months but his co-authors think was done that night. Apparently not since he refuses to answer such questions or show any examples of his work. One thing that's odd is that Jack White claims that (at least one of) Mary Moorman's Polaroids were altered and then uses one of the Poloroids as evidence that the Z-film was altered! As far as I've heard there are no alleged discrepancies between the various films of the assassination and the only supposed discrepancy between any photos and the Z-film is White, Fetzer and Mantik's claim that Moorman's Poloroid "proves" that she was in the street while the films show her in the grass. Healy wrote "dgh01: or, was the Zapruder Film altered to match the OTHER film or was the Moorman5 photo -- ah, that another story.... other films and photos were irrelevant when the WC screened the Zapruder Film" - The Muchmore film did not appear until Monday. Costella believes the Z-film was altered before frames appeared in Life on Sunday. How was the Z-film altered to match a film that hadn't even been developed yet? - If the other films weren't shown to the WC they were irrelevant for that body, but they remain relevant in that they confirm the authenticity of the Z-film. If the Z-film was altered and the Muchmore film wasn't why haven't the alterationists be able to any discrepancies? Why don't the other films show what they were trying to cover up in the Z-film? The alterationists believe the original Z-film was more incriminating that the altered one. My question is why alter it in such a complex fashion? What was the point of, "cut(ting) and paste(ing) this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street"? This would have been an unnecessary step that would have made their work much harder and more time consuming and increased the chances of the ruse being detected. Why move Mary Moorman from the street to the grass? If the background were pre-filmed how come Moorman and other people who were there that day appear? Was the background filmed on Elm St or somewhere else? If it was filmed on Elm St. why did they have to 'paste in' lamp posts, highway signs and other features like they claim. If it was filmed elsewhere why aren't many other discrepancies? Why would they make there forgery in such a complex fashion? Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!

The study cited below determined that there is a liberal bias in the US media. The study has a few major flaws. I don't know if the profs who set this up did this intentionally in order to have seemingly objective study "prove" that the US media leans left or an honest mistake. The most important flaw is that a news article that refers to the NAACP does not necessarily have a liberal bias nor does one that mentions the Heritage Foundation a conservative one. Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist Date: December 14, 2005 Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu ) Phone: 310-825-1046 While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left. These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly. "I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December. Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter. Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation. Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score. "A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches." Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter. The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third. "Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators." The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found. "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist. An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74. Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post. Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts. Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center. "One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media." Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined. "By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)." The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research. "No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said. The results break new ground. "Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians." http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

That site was very educational! I always suspected that the Beatles were Satanic agents of the NWO/Illuminati!

Are you serious? Care to elaborate on this theory? Was JFK part of the 'Secret Government"? It that a code word for the ZOG? Sorry please define ZOG, I know SOG (Seat of Government, Hooverese I think)...I just meant that when we brought Nazi war criminals into the Intelligence realms of the U.S. the force of good was compromised if not irrevocably polluted. And every President since FDR has been a tool of the Secret Government, some more, some less. ZOG means Zionist Occupied Government - many people who believe in the Secret Government 'conspiracy' believe that it is run by and for the benefit of "World Jewry". But since you complained about bringing Nazis into the US I doubt you subscribe to that idea. I started a new thread on the "Secret Government" theory. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5684

Probably true but irrelevant. Gee you do get testy!! Obviously the Z-film is the issue and one of the essential questions is were such effects possible? I'm in midsize city in Brazil which makes me a special case, the libraries here aren't very good esp. when it come to books and magazines in English. However as I already pointed out Fielding's book isn't available from the New York Public Library which has the largest collection in the US after the Library of Congress. So the book isn't as easy to find as you claim. It's not a question of having the balls but one of time and access. The SMPE:SMPTE journals aren't available from the NYPL either ( http://catnyp.nypl.org/search~/s?SEARCH=society+of+motion ) so instead of citing some hard to find books and magazine that most members of this forum don't have access to it seems it would be so much easier for you just to name some movies with similar compositing. Do you have or have access to these book and journals? With all the energy you dedicated to avoid giving an answer you could cited various movies by now. My guess is that you know that there aren't any movies from that era that don't look obviously faked. I said NYU was 'one the best' not 'the best' I'm basing that on Mack's statement which he based on speaking to Stone's research assistant. Dave, do you have reading comprehension problems? I said "If Feilding's book is the standard reference that you claim it's hard to believe Stone didn't read it." If it's hard to believe someone didn't do something - then it's easy to believe they did it. In other word I believe he read it. They way you keep citing the book it seems like anyone who read it would know that such comopsiting was possible. Stone however who even you agree almost certainly read the book (or at least knew about it) didn't believe such compositing was possible. You are a genius Dave you undermined your own argument. [quote]....... Fielding however did teach in SoCal, for many, many years (give 'em a call, send him a email - he's not that hard to find) -- Probable? Possible, your living in a dream, Len -- Now, for your specific attention: Roland Zavada was a member of the Execitive Committee at SMPTE at one time, he was attending a conference in California 2 years ago when I last spoke to him... so, obscure/organizations/documents? ROFLMAO! Come in out of the snow, Len.[/quote[ Thanks once again for bolstering my case Dave! Zavada being on the executive committee of the society whose journal you cite adds to his status I imagine he read the journal too and he says what you claim was done was not possible! I never said that SMPTE was an obscure organization. (Putting words in my mouth, funny you accuse me of that!) It's journals' it seems aren't that easy to find though, they can't be found at one of the 2 largest library systems in the US. You can decide for yourself if they're standard - hopefully you can come up with some that are more readily available. When have I ever put words in your mouth. Since your foot is normally lodged there, leave little room for anything else. LOL I forgot to post Part 3 of Healy's post from yesterday Does he? That's odd in light of your replies to me a few days ago At first you claimed the work easily could have done in a few week but the forgers had months Then when I pointed out that contributors to the book thought it was done that evening or weekend, you in disbelief asked me sarcastically for a citation. I imagine you were quite embarrassed when I cited pages on Costella and Fetzer's site. Now after pressing you for four days you are telling us it was covered by Costella in the book!! So either 1. You didn't read Costella's chapters (until a couple of days ago) or you read them and forgot their contents OR 2. You're jiving us or both. Assuming that it's true then I'm sure you could outline his((Costella's) theory for us. What qualifies Costella as an authority on what was and wasn't possible in film compositing in 63, the chain of possession of the Z- film? I read there are some differences between various versions of the Z – film. IIRC some are missing frames here and there etc. Do any of these versions show the kinds of adulteration that you allege were made while others don't? If so please cite specific examples and frames. Are any people or objects in different places or move differently? Does pincushion distortion vary from one to the other? Also you only answered half my question – "Same goes for other home movies of the assassination, what if someone filmed it and released it to the media before they found out about it?" What's wrong couldn't come up with any pat answers for that one? So are going to tell us he no longer believes the Z-film wasn't altered? If so don't be shy tell us about it. dgh01: Whatever gave you THAT silly idea? I do believe your posting habits are familiar -- LOL! Great non-answer Dave. --I'll be away till Christmas so I might not be able to quickly reply to Healy or White's next posts--

David Lifton is not a colleague but a friend. We both believe the Z film is a fabrication. He did pioneering work on the medical evidence. We disagree on Oswald and other things. I have no idea what he thinks about Apollo. I have not seen him in three years. Jack Jack I'm surprised the subject never came up between you, did you only start researching Apollo after you last spoke to him? It would be interesting if you would get in touch with him and ask him what he thinks about your theories. If he told you the missions were authentic would you take his word for it? Do you know why he left the Apollo program? Was is your disagreement with him regarding Oswald? Does he think Oswald was one of the shooters? Len