Len Colby

I remember reading Philip Agee's CIA DIARY years ago. I always wanted to read Marchetti's book but never got around to it. I've also read on the Net about Bradley Ayers. I'm interested in other ex-CIA, NSA, FBI agents who have written "tell all " books. I know there are several.. What books/websites do members of this forum recomend?

My Reply to Healy Part 2 He is obviously held in high esteem by his colleagues that's why he is a grammar school teacher! He must be as Fetzer claims a leading expert on various subjects. To be fair he is apparently highly intelligent, but he also is quite paranoid (to the point of believing his substitute teacher and (now ex) wife were CIA agents) and is over enamored with his own intelligence and knowledge base. Dave I was quoting your buddy Costella – I guess you're right that did make me sound like I was crazy! See above if you are going to cite obscure books you really should quote excerpts that support your theories. If there so many examples what don't you cite us some movies and scenes, then whomever was interested could rent those titles and judge for themselves if it was realistic. I don't know if he ever commented on the content but he most certainly has gone o record as saying such alteration would have been easily detectable. He wrote: Stone started studying at NYU Film School (one on the best in the US) in 1969 so it's probable that he knew what was and wasn't possible a few years earlier. Maybe Stone laughed at the possibility that such effects were possible in the late 60's or later. If Feilding's book is the standard reference that you claim it's hard to believe Stone didn't read it.

A new member of the forum wrote this in his bio. Comments?

Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? Shut the xxxx up?... I think you owe me and the FORUM a apology! That's rich! David Healy talking about who owes the forum "a [sic] apology." T.C. Healy and White don't hold themselves to their own standards. Didn't Jack start a thread complaining about how uncivil discourse had become here? Shouldn't he then have criticized Healy for calling me a moron and a stump etc?

"David Lifton was born in New York in 1939. A graduate of the Cornell University School of Engineering Physics he worked as a computer engineer for North American Aviation in Los Angeles. Lifton worked on the Apollo space program but left the company in 1966." Jack I was surprised to find out that a collegue of yours worked on the Apollo program! Does he share your belief that the missions were faked? Does anybody else know if Lifton ever said anything about the Apollo program?

Your own experience (or lack there of) is relevant because you are cited as an expert in filmmaking and post production in TGZFH. If you haven't actually done anything like what you claim was done to Z-film your credentials and qualifications as an expert are far less impressive. I have already explained that none of the books or magazines you cite are available here. Hoax isn't even available from the New York Public Library!* When you told me to get it from my library you really gave yourself to much credit. Obviously there isn't much interest in the book. Normally when citing a source (esp. a book or magazine that isn't available online) in support of one's arguments people include quotes. Is it too difficult for you cite some paragraphs from Fielding and the SMPE/SMPTE magazines in support of your argument? Might you be bluffing? Fielding's book isn't available from the NYPL either** so if you are going to cite an obscure book you really should quote the appropriate passages. Of course what is written doesn't prove anything we will have to be able see stills of examples to guarantee that the compositing was seamless enough not to be readily apparent. That's crucial the alterations can't be obvious under close examination. I also find it curious that after being asked so many times you can't cite single movie and then Jack mentioned Mary Poppins which doesn't have manipulation as extensive as what you allege was done to the Z-film. It's interesting that you use examples done on a computer as evidence that something similar could have been done in the early 60s. Even if it's true that compositing software put optical printing houses out of buisiness, that is at best irrelevant. Couldn't it just be possible that what's possible with a computer today wasn't possible back in '63? Your images look OK in low resolution in the book can high resolution copies withstand examination after being transferred to movie film? Obviously those images you made don't prove a thing. My point was quite simple but seems to have gone over your head. Since you claim the type of compositing alleged to have been done to the Z-film was possible using 1963 technology your argument would be much stronger if you could produce examples using technology that was available back then. You then could have scanned stills made from the composite frames you had made "the old fashioned way" How old are you? In your sixties right? Your behavior is more befitting that of a child No, the burden of proof is on your and your cohorts to prove that is was possible. The reversal of burden of proof is a crackpot tactic Dave my point was quite simple but again it seems to have gone over your head. I wrote: "Your images look OK in low resolution in the book can high resolution copies withstand examination after being transferred to movie film?" I don't know what you failed to comprehend. You used computer generated composites to illustrate your theory that this could have been done in 1963. Perhaps the most crucial question is "Could the 'forged' Z-film have been composited so well that the alterations are easily detectable?" Obviously it would be much harder to detect signs of forgery in a low resolution book illustration (How many pixels are those images in the book "smart" ass?). The resolution of film varies of course depending on various factors including: film speed, type, manufacturer, date of fabrication and developing method. Modern 35mm film has a resolution of about IIRC 50 megapixels. 1963 8mm film obviously has lower resolution but is still several orders of magnitude greater than the images in Hoax. I never claimed expertise in that area. I'll leave the noise up to you. That's not bad news for me it's not even relevant. If you say most film post-production experts now use AfterEffects I'll take your word for it. The point was the validity of your proof. Using computer software to show how the z-film could have been composited is about as valid as blowing a hole in a suit or armor with an M-16 to show that it didn't offer protection against medieval weaponry. If you couldn't find a lab to do compositing on an optical printer that's your problem not mine IT APPEARS THAT THE "WRAP IN QUOTE" FEATURE DOESN'T WORK WITH LONG POSTS - Therefore I divide my reply to dave in three Parts * http://leopac1.nypl.org/ipac20/ipac.jsp?se...x=13&y=11#focus http://catnyp.nypl.org/search~/t?SEARCH=the+great+zapruder ** http://catnyp.nypl.org/search~/t?SEARCH=ar...+Cinematography

I don't care which program you used but Dave have you ever done compositing without using a computer? Yeah we all know you've read about it, but have you ever done any? If not what qualifies you as an expert? Anybody can read a magazine. It's interesting that you use examples done on a computer as evidence that something similar could have been done in the early 60s. Even if it’s true that compositing software put optical printing houses out of business, that is at best irrelevant. Couldn’t it just be possible that what’s possible with a computer today wasn’t possible back in ’63? Your images look OK in low resolution in the book can high resolution copies withstand examination after being transferred to movie film? Obviously those images you made don't prove a thing. The fact that special effects and optical printing and compositing were all available back in 1963 or earlier are not in dispute. What is in dispute is: - Could the types of alterations your clique alleged were made possible? Dr. Costella perhaps the only high school teacher with a PhD in science wrote "When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn’t just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! 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." Tell me Dave what movies was anything like that done in? Don't tell us about Mary Poppins unless can you tell us what scenes had anything like that. C'mon Dave dig through those magazines and tell us in which movies were peoples limbs cut off and made to move around like marionettes. - If such alterations were made could they have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable? Zavada didn't think so and according to Gary Mack and Pat Speer, Oliver Stone and another movie director didn't think so either! - Was it possible to do such compositing with small 8mm film? Zavada doubts this too. - Was it possible to have made the alterations before some frames appeared in Life? When exactly were the original and altered films switched? Was this before or after Zapruder made copies? Before or after he gave the copies and original to Life and the Secret Service? The contributors to TGZFH believe the frames that appeared in Life show signs of alteration and that more extensive alteration might have been done later so there would have been two switches actually several because there were various copies at that point. - How could the conspirators have been sure no one made copies with out them knowing it? If an 'unaltered' copied or less altered copy showed up it would have blown their conspiracy. 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? From what I've read that's what happen with the Muchmore film. - Is there any reason to doubt Zavada's conclusion that the Z-film is a camera original and could not have been doctored? 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. Dave try replying to all my points for once instead of cherry picking one or two?

That your crew would attempt to discredit the Zavada Report doesn't surprise me it contradicts the premise of your book. Zavada is one of the world's leading experts on the technical aspects of movie film esp. 8mm and 16mm and esp. of Kodakcrome II which he invented. As far as I know neither Lifton nor any of you have anywhere near the expertise of Zavada so his opinion is suspect. Zavada's highly technical study showed that the copy of the original Z-film now in the in the National Achieves had to be a camera original based on such aspects as grain structure and contrast range and that it had to have been developed at the Dallas plant (and IIRC is time stamped at the time the Z-film was developed).Lifton shows his ignorance by stating that the altered film might have been processed at "Hawkeye works" . Zavada wrote, "I know of no Kodachrome processing available at Hawkeye (an equipment division)." Actually the excerpt and link I provided were not from Zavada's original and extensive report but rather from his response to Lifton's "rebuttal" of his report, so I guess YOU are behind the curve Dave!! Anthony Marsh didn't write Zavada's report so if he or his father is or were "Intelligence operatives" is irrelevant. He did however write the sprocket hole study cited by Frank and his father's former employment with intelligence services (even if true) is still irrelevant. The I link I provided might not work I think this is because of the "parsing" by the Ed. Forum's server http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf If the link indeed does work try cutting and pasting this but remove the extra 'h'. (hhttp://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf ) Zavada's bio can be found at http://www.jfk-info.com/zbio.pdf His complete report is here http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm Two questions still remain unanswered: When exactly did the "conspirators" have time to make their forgery and switch it for the original? What exactly are Healy's qualifications as an expert of film compositing? He has refused to post any examples of work he has done and the composite he made for TGZFH to prove that such alteration was possible back in 1963 was done on a computer using Adobe AfterEffects!!!!

Are you serious? Care to elaborate on this theory? Was JFK part of the 'Secret Government"? It that a code word for the ZOG?

Roland or Rollie Zavada spent many years working for Kodak as a product engineer,and film chemist, he was infact the scientist who innvented the Kodakcrome II film that Zapruder used to film the Kennnedy assassination. Below is an excert from his 6 page report concluding that the Zapruder film could not have been a forgery. Healy who apperently only knows how to do compositing on a computer will undoubtably claim Zavada doesn't know what he is talking about.

"the leading technical expert on the film " Well we can't fault him for false modesty! I always wonder about people so eager to "blow their own horn" get educated regarding the subject matter, think for yourself for a change - give it a shot, who knows what you'll show us Dave - You reply to my post does not make sense, but that is what I'm used to that from you by now. My point obviously was that Costella has a rather inflated ego. How does my questioning him calling himself the leading technical expert on the film display ignorance or a lack or original thinking on my part? I imagine that Fetzer wrote that line but Costella posted it. I doubt anybody outside your little circle would agree that Costella is the 'top dog' regarding the z-film. Why don't you try and repomd to James Gordon's points. You've had plenty of time and being able to depend on "the leading technical expert on the film " for help it should be easy.

Come on, guys, this place is beginning to look like Conspiracies R Us. The CIA condoning central American operatives in the drug trade is not the same as the CIA orchestratiing the drug trade and specifically targeting the black population. I suppose the current Meth epidemic devastating White Trash America is the CIA's attempt to balance the scales? IIRC according to San Jose Mercury News articles the CIA allowed El Salvadorians to run the crack trade to raise money for the Contras rather than as an intentional trageting of the black commuity. If true that wouldn't be that much less evil though. I can't remember the details but the paper later retracted the story but the author stook by it. Does anybody out there remember any more details or have links to the articles? I remember them being rather convinving at the time and as you all know I'm rather skeptical when it comes to CTs.

Dave you seem intent on proving my point that rather than answer my questions you invent smoke screens and resort to insults. So I'm a douche-bag and douche-bags bring the bet outt'a you? Your best isn't very good! Just tell exactly when the initial alterations were made. Your co-author says they were made that night and that altered frames appeared in that weekend's edition of Life. So when were the alterations made? According to the Lancer site http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html 1) Zapruder went to his office after the assassination 2) He was met there by reporters and Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels. 3) Zapruder, Sorrels and some the reporters went by DPD squad car to Kodak According to Martin Schackleford http://www.jfk-info.com/mshack1.htm "Zapruder remained with the film at all times, even in the darkroom... After processing, the Zapruder film was viewed at twice normal speed, with a special inspection projector that could project it without it having to be split, to check for flaws; about 14 employees were present... Zapruder asked if they could make copies. Kodak called Jamieson Lab, but Jamieson said they had no duplicating film perforated for 8mm. Kodak gave Zapruder three rolls of duplcating film. Zapruder took them and the original film (as unsplit 16mm film) to Jamieson. Less than an hour later, he was back at Kodak, where the original film and the copies were split and mounted on reels." Going back to Lancer " With Zapruder at the projector, the film is viewed by Richard Stolley, LIFE's Los Angeles Bureau Chief, the only reporter among a small group of Secret Service agents in a small room of Jennifer Juniors, early in the morning. Zapruder ran the film again and again as newsmen from AP and UPI and other magazines showed up. When the lights were turned on, Zapruder looked ill. Stolley convinces Zapruder to talk with him first. (Richard Stolley, 1973) The original film was sent to LIFE's Chicago plant, the copy to LIFE's New York offices. A dupe of the original was made in Chicago and also sent to New York. Word spread in Dallas that LIFE had bought only the print rights. (Trask)" Sorrels picked up two copies for the Secret Service on the 22 or the morning of the 23. So tell me Dave when were these alterations made? At Kodak? At Jamieson? Or did someone sneak into Zapruder’s house at night, find the original and copies, make the alterations that night and put them back in place without anybody noticing in time for the "early morning showing"? Or were they made at Life? This would be complicated because Life had 2 copies in 2 different cities, they would have no way of knowing if someone at Life would make copies before the switches were made. My correspondence with Gary Mack isn't magical, he is a member of this forum, all I had to do was click on his name when he was browsing the forum. - You have yet to establish that YOU do. Lamson asked you back in April for examples of your work and you refused, I've asked you a few times and you continue to refuse. It's time for you to "Put up or shut up" post some examples of your work or stop claiming to be an authority on the subject. I know you've worked with video and film for decades and that you can cite all sorts of books but I have yet to see any of your compositing work. - Craig (Lamson) on the other hand did provide a link to compositing work he has done. -According to Mack, Oliver Stone and his people said such alteration were impossible, Pat's movie director friend said the same thing. Do you know more than them? - Perhaps you missed the part where I said I read the Hoax site, I've also done a lot of 'googling' regarding your claims. - I'm still Brazil, Dave (Do you have memory problems?) your book is most certainly not available in any library near me. - I’m not asking you technical questions, I’m asking you a timing question. - If you explain when the alteration could have been made and show compositing work you've done that is remotely similar to what you said was done to the z-film, I'll pick up a copy next time I'm in the States - I don't have read books on: Holocaust denial, "intelligent design" and perpetual motion devices to know they're bunk either. So Dave, Jack, Fetzer etc. etc. if you have a good answer to the question of when these initial alterations were made, now’s the time to give it. Bull xxxxting, insults and smoke screens won’t cut it – try giving a straight answer for a change.

I always thought of Kennedy as a spoiler in '80. It seemed to be about his ego and maybe feeling he had to live up to some legacy more than anything else. Let's not forget that although Carter lost biggest the Electoral College landslide since IIRC Madison back in 1808, the popular vote was fairly close and Kennedy contributed to that loss.

Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? I apologize for misspelling David Healy's name; it wasn't deliberate. To do so on purpose would be rude. T.C. Sorta like when he intentionally misspelled your first name?

So the best you can come up with is that I made a spelling error in my post?

Good! I think I'm too old for the classroom now...I look forward to getting involved with the discussion -- more hearing and reading than talking. Writing The Berlin Conspiracy, while a work of fiction, made me realize just how much there is to learn -- and how much is missing -- from the assassinatin record. I can think of many questions I'd like to ask, but i will have to take my time and look around, find my way into the discussions. I lok forwrd to it. Understood...Do you get testy when its suggested that the film has been aletered, or that it has not been altered? While I've read a great many books on the assassination, I am aware of how much knowledge I'm missing. I never heard it suggested that the film had been altered. What's the story? Welcome to the forum Tom! To answer your question above Dave believes the Z-film was altered and can get testy when people question his conclusions. To find what the story is check out this thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3711 and this one http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=2356&st=0 the second one has a link to a site that outlines the beliefs of the "alterationist". How much do you know about film composting? One of the key questions is, did the technology and know how to alter the film the way Healy and his collegues believe was done exist back then? Len PS - It was very perceptive of you to grock that when Dave said that thing get testy that he iwas talking about himself.

Can't say that I do, while fairly knowledgeable about still photography I don't know much about filmmaking. How exactly is this question relevant? Or are you just being a smart-ass? [...] okay listen up DUDE, it's clear you haven't a clue about the Zapruder film, muchless read HOAX: double 8mm was the film in Abraham Zapruder camera Nov 22nd 1963, unsplit it remains in its 16mm form after processing, in 8mm form after it's been processed indicates it's been split. Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me! They say that patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels that of course depends on the scoundrel. Mr. Healy's last resort is the cheap insult. He didn't have a good reply to my last post so he calls me a douche-bag. Much as it's tempting to respond in kind, I won't lower myself to his level. Healy proves his exceptional intelligence by concluding something is 'clear' (that I know little about the Z-film) that I have admitted from the beginning! I haven't read Hoax but I did read the website. If he can explain convincingly why not knowing the difference between 'split' and 'unsplit' 8mm film disqualifies me from questioning whether the Z-fiim is authentic, I will bow out of this thread, but since it seems it's just a smokescreen on his part I doubt this will be my last post here. No, I don't know much about filmmaking or composting. But that doesn't stop me from spotting contradictions in the story. I pointed out some of these contradictions, unable to come up with a good reply he insults me. So Dave went on about how the "forgers" had weeks to fake the Z-film apparently unaware that his co-authors claimed that it was faked the night of the assassination and that faked frames were published in Life a few days later. Since he doesn't have a good reply he insults me and hopes no one will notice. I doubt it worked, I think he has vastly underestimated the intelligence of members of this forum. Dave says his last reply is the best he can do and that he is pround of being a "smart-ass" Unfortunately for him he fails to realize that being smart and being smart-ass are not the same. Dave, all the questions in my last post still stand you can insult me all you want and bring up irrelevant technical points but you won't con anyone. I'd say nice try but that would be a lie it was a pretty poor one. So, your buddy believes that the Z-film was altered that night, so you really have only two options 1) say he was wrong 0r 2) tell us how they could have done it so quickly. We're still waiting for you to tell us about your experience doing composite work like you allege was done to the Z-film and even post some frames as evidence, have you ever done anything like that? Your continued refusal to answer that makes me think not and that your really aren't qualified as an expert on the subject. Go ahead if you can prove wrong, but citing a book or magazine won't suffice. I still want to hear about a movie made at the time with effects like believe appear in the altered film. Mary Poppins won't cut it, what you guys say was done to the Z-film goes way beyond any thing in that movie. I noticed your response to Tim C. was to be snide with him too. When you don't know how to answer a critic you stick out your tounge. So he misspelled your last name big deal. Are you immune to making little mistakes in YOUR posts? Obviously not Dude that's a grade school English error, that should have been "If you're not aware …" or better yet "If you don't know the relevance of that..." Do I make mistakes in my posts? I sure I do too, we're all human after all. Do I know who he is (was?)? I assume you mean the FBI photo analyst. What, did he tell you the Z-film was faked? Since Healy insinuated I was working with Gary Mack I decided to e-mail him. Below is an excerpt from his reply: I debunked most of those claims years ago, but it's like questioning someone's religion. I knew Jane Rusconi, Oliver Stone'sresearch coordinator on the JFK film. Stone was asked about alteration of the Z film on January 15, 1992 in the Q&A after his speech. He shrugged it off saying he'd have to check into it. He did, by asking Rusconi what the question was really all about. When she told him of the allegedcontroversy, he just laughed and thought it ridiculous. Jane told me about it a few days later. Aside from all the other obvious problems, none of the alterationists Has gone to the special effects people and asked for their opinion. Stone had many of the best working for him (they put the Hertz sign on top of the TSBD digitally and people still think it was real!) and any of them would have spotted the tell-tale signs of compositing.

Can't say that I do, while fairly knowledgeable about still photography I don't know much about filmmaking. How exactly is this question relevant? Or are you just being a smart-ass? 2 - 3 weeks that's way too long, you guts claim it was altered that evening and that doctored frames appeared in Life a few days later. "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. 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." http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html As for the that evening part see below Gary who? Mack? Don't know the guy. He's just a name to me. Although you like to insinuate otherwise I'm not 'in cahoots' with Tink or anybody else. I imagine you'll tell me that no one has, is that good enough? Now you tell me when the location of the original and copies was unknown long enough that evening and weekend for the alleged alterations to have been made that evening or weekend. Dude you need new material, that 'drones on', 'droned on' thing has long gone stale! [...] Ah, who is YOU guys? And who said the film was edited that evening? I need a cite for that, you do know what is, don't you? "Who is...?" or "who are...?"? "You guys" ARE obviously the contributors to TGZFH "Film experts believe that a real film of the assassination was quickly altered on the evening of the assassination, using machines that could create Hollywood-style special effects (like Mary Poppins, created in 1964)." http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ ROTFLMHO! - I think Costella wrote that it's from one of his pages on Fetzer's site! LOL

"the leading technical expert on the film " Well we can't fault him for false modesty! I always wonder about people so eager to "blow their own horn"

"...people poised?" What the hell are you talking about? Dave - Poised is of course the past tense of poise. Webster's has 3 defenitions for poise (as a transitive verb) # 3 is: "3 : to put into readiness " so Tim was using the word correctly and in a logical way. He was asking if the conspirators had people standing by ready "to grab and alter any movie film of the assassination?" What would they have done if someone developed a film that they didn't know about? Just one such film would have ruined their plan and made a conspiracy even more obvious. Since you guys argue that the film was altered before the stills were published in Life a couple of days after the assassination they would have had very little time to make all the alterations claimed in TGZFH. When exactly was the forgery made? 1) During the time when the original was being 'developed'? 2) When the dupes were being made? 3) Between the time Zapruder gave the original to the people from Life and when it was published? No, No scratch that you guys claim the whole thing was done that evening!!! So they must of had people poised! But wait you also argue that some people saw the "unaltered" Z-film that evening. Ok so what time did Zapruder drop off the film and when did he get it back? How many hours did that leave them? But wait you also say they had years to make the forgery! I'm confused, so did they make a "quicky" and then make a more extensive forgery? Please clear this up!

You're right Tim, treason wouldn't be the applicable charge but of course a private citizen intentionally scuttling peace negotiations between the US and a country with which it is war is a crime. Also Kissenger passing information about peace negotiations to the Nixon camp (when he was "advising" the Johnson administration) must also have been illegal. If this had come out earlier would you have supported bringing crimminal charges against Nixon and Kissenger? If not, explain. Also I'm still waiting for you to reply to the thread about Bush's lies about what he saw on 9-11. (Note that at first I defended Bush but was one over by the evidence) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=5209&st=0

I agree, to me it sems more incumbant on the "alerationists" they are the ones making contraversial claims that have little support even with in the JFK Assassination comunity. Also they are the ones with an economic interest in finding such expert backing for their claims, I'm sure it would increase book sales, wouldn't it have made sense for them or the publisher to pay for such a study if the results were likely to be favorable? Such experts don't come cheap, what's the incentive for Josiah Thompson or other "non-alterationists" to spend their own money on such an expert?

Jack people normally ask questions when they don't know the answer!! I'll try to find the movies you mentioned down here and watch them with my kids this weekend. The question is not whether special effects existed back then or even earlier but 1) whether the alterations of the type you and the other contributors to the GZFH allege were made to the Z-film were possible and 2) if such alterations could have been done so seamlessly that even today the aren't readily apparent. I guess if I'm ignorant about film history Pat's friend Mark Sobel, who has directed dozens of movies, is too because he also doesn't believe such alteration was possible at the time Yes but does he have experience with composite filmmaking? His experience with video of course would NOT be applicable. Also has he ever produced composites as undetectable as the Z-film. If he posted a few frames the question would be settled. Jack you still haven’t answered my questions on the 9-11 and John-John threads, I guess you’re still too busy!!!! http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=48224 see posts 32 – 41 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=42347

Tim, Do you care to share with us anything that he told you? It seems clear after being confirmed by several sources that "Tricky Dick" intenionally scuttled peace negotiations between the US and the Vietnamese during the election and that Kissinger who was "advising" the Democrats passed priveledged information to the Nixon camp. Did they commit treason? BTW - The Palace File only has 1 review on Amazon. Tim and Pat, do either of you want to help rectify that: